2021
DOI: 10.1029/2020jd033589
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of Thermodynamic State Changes on Surface Cloud Radiative Forcing in the Arctic: A Comparison of Two Approaches Using Data From AFLUX and SHEBA

Abstract: The cloud radiative forcing (CRF) quantifies the warming or cooling effects of clouds. To derive the CRF, reference values of net (downward minus upward) irradiances in cloud‐free conditions are required. There are two groups of techniques to estimate these reference values; one is based on radiative transfer modeling, and a second group uses measurements in cloud‐free situations. To compare both approaches, we first look at a case study from the airborne measurements of radiative and turbulent FLUXes of energ… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The ACLOUD campaign and the Airborne measurements of radiative and turbulent FLUXes of energy and momentum in the Arctic boundary layer (AFLUX) campaign are both parts of Arctic Amplification: Climate Relevant Atmospheric and Surface Processes and Feedback Mechanisms (AC)3, which aims to observe clouds, aerosol particles, and some surface properties with two aircrafts, Polar 5 and Polar 6 in ACLOUD [22], and one aircraft, Polar5 in AFLUX [23]. The ACLOUD campaign was conducted from 23 May to 26 June 2017, which was exactly in the melting season.…”
Section: Aircraft Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ACLOUD campaign and the Airborne measurements of radiative and turbulent FLUXes of energy and momentum in the Arctic boundary layer (AFLUX) campaign are both parts of Arctic Amplification: Climate Relevant Atmospheric and Surface Processes and Feedback Mechanisms (AC)3, which aims to observe clouds, aerosol particles, and some surface properties with two aircrafts, Polar 5 and Polar 6 in ACLOUD [22], and one aircraft, Polar5 in AFLUX [23]. The ACLOUD campaign was conducted from 23 May to 26 June 2017, which was exactly in the melting season.…”
Section: Aircraft Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, data obtained during low-level flight sections are analyzed, either below clouds or in cloud-free conditions. During AFLUX, low-level data spanning 6 h (corresponding to a horizontal distance of 1400 km) were gathered at an altitude below 100 m (average 73 m) (Stapf et al, 2021b). During ACLOUD, 16 h of measurements at an altitude of less than 250 m (average 80 m), covering a total distance of 3700 km, was collected (Stapf et al, 2019).…”
Section: Measurements and Radiative Transfer Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The comparison of the different CRE results is further hampered by the inconsistent consideration of the cloud impact on the thermodynamic profiles and on the surface albedo (Stapf et al, 2021a(Stapf et al, , 2020. Some studies applied the radiative-transfer approach, where the cloud-free state is simulated by only removing the cloud, neglecting adjustments of the thermodynamic profiles and the surface albedo between cloudy and cloud-free conditions (e. g., Intrieri et al, 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resulting differences between the two approaches can be significant. Stapf et al (2021a) demonstrated that, due to the decreased surface temperature, the TIR CRE obtained during SHEBA would be up to 25 W m −2 lower in autumn if the measurement-based approach was used. In summer, no significant differences were found.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%