| Literature DB >> 30034046 |
X Ma1, H Jia1, F Yu2, J Quaas3.
Abstract
The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) C6 L3 and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) ERA-Interim reanalysis data from 2003 to 2016 are employed to study aerosol-cloud correlations over three industrial regions and their adjacent oceans, as well as explore the impact of meteorological conditions on the correlations. The analysis focusing on liquid and single-layer clouds indicates an opposite aerosol-cloud correlation between land and ocean; namely, cloud effective radius is positively correlated with aerosol index over industrial regions (positive slopes), but negatively correlated over their adjacent oceans (negative slopes), for a quasi-constant liquid water path. The positive slopes are relatively large under low lower-tropospheric stability (LTS; weakly stable condition), but much weaker or even become negative under high LTS (stable conditions) and high liquid water path. The occurrence frequency of cloud top height (CTH) and LTS suggests that positive correlations are more likely corresponding to relatively high CTH and low LTS, while negative to low CTH and high LTS.Entities:
Keywords: ERA‐Interim reanalysis; MODIS; aerosol index; aerosol‐cloud correlation; cloud effective radius; lower‐tropospheric stability
Year: 2018 PMID: 30034046 PMCID: PMC6049888 DOI: 10.1029/2018GL077562
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geophys Res Lett ISSN: 0094-8276 Impact factor: 4.720
Figure 1The computed slopes of CER versus AI on log‐log scale, in which both CER and AI are stratified according to LWP.
The statistics in Figure 1
| LWP (g m−2) Region | 20–60 | 60–100 | 100–140 | 140–180 | 180–220 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.32 | ○ | 0.33 | ○ | 0.56 | ○ | 0.43 | ○ | 0.62 | ○ | |
| EUO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.01 | × | 0.55 | ○ | 0.58 | ○ | 0.49 | ○ | 0.75 | ○ | |
| WEO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.16 | × | 0.76 | ○ | 0.89 | ○ | 0.89 | ○ | 0.90 | ○ | |
| EC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.74 | ○ | 0.62 | ○ | 0.41 | ○ | 0.33 | ○ | 0.41 | × | |
| EU |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.91 | ○ | 0.90 | ○ | 0.90 | ○ | 0.40 | ○ | 0.12 | × | |
| WE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.85 | ○ | 0.83 | ○ | 0.54 | ○ | 0.04 | × | 0.13 | × | |
Note. The coefficients of determination (R 2) is listed, and the cases at a statistically significant level (according to a Student's t test, α = 0.05) are represented in circles, otherwise in crosses.
Figure 2(top row) Cloud fraction (CF) and (bottom row) liquid water path (LWP) as a function of cloud top pressure (CTP) over the three regions. Cloud properties are grouped into five classes according to AI.
Figure 3(a) The computed slopes of CER versus AI on log‐log scale at (left) low, (middle) medium, and (right) high LTS conditions, where all data are stratified by LWP. The white box represents NA; (b) CTP varies with CF and LWP under low, medium, and high LTS conditions.
Figure 4The occurrence frequency of cloud top height (CTH) and lower troposphere stability (LTS) over the study regions in summer and winter.