Observational constraints suggest a smaller effective radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud interactions

Abstract. The effective radiative forcing due to aerosol–cloud interactions (ERFaci) is difficult to quantify, leading to large uncertainties in model projections of historical forcing and climate sensitivity. In this study, satellite observations and reanalysis data are used to examine the low-level cloud radiative responses to aerosols. While some studies assume that the activation rate of cloud droplet number concentration (Nd) in response to variations in sulfate mass concentration (SO42-) has a one-to-one relationship, we find this assumption to be incorrect. Our analysis estimates a global mean activation rate of 0.35 ± 0.17 (90 % confidence) and demonstrates that explicitly accounting for the activation rate is crucial for accurate ERFaci estimation. This is corroborated through a “perfect-model” cross-validation using state-of-the-art climate models. Our results suggest a smaller and less uncertain value of the global ERFaci (−0.32 ± 0.21 W m−2 for SO42-, 90 % confidence) than recent climate assessments (e.g., −0.93 ± 0.7 W m−2, 90 % confidence), indicating that ERFaci may be less impactful than previously thought. Our results are also consistent with observationally constrained estimates of total cloud feedback and recent estimates that models with weaker ERFaci better match the observed hemispheric warming asymmetry over the historical period.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Atmospheric chemistry and physics
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7299-2025
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.42

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Observational constraints suggest a smaller effective radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud interactions

Tristan L’Ecuyer, Ryan J. Kramer, Brian J. Soden, Chanyoung Park et al.
4 citations
Atmospheric chemistry and physics
Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
4.42
article

Observational constraints suggest a smaller effective radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud interactions

Tristan L’Ecuyer, Ryan J. Kramer, Brian J. Soden, Chanyoung Park, Haozhe He
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract. The effective radiative forcing due to aerosol–cloud interactions (ERFaci) is difficult to quantify, leading to large uncertainties in model projections of historical forcing and climate sensitivity. In this study, satellite observations and reanalysis data are used to examine the low-level cloud radiative responses to aerosols. While some studies assume that the activation rate of cloud droplet number concentration (Nd) in response to variations in sulfate mass concentration (SO42-) has a one-to-one relationship, we find this assumption to be incorrect. Our analysis estimates a global mean activation rate of 0.35 ± 0.17 (90 % confidence) and demonstrates that explicitly accounting for the activation rate is crucial for accurate ERFaci estimation. This is corroborated through a “perfect-model” cross-validation using state-of-the-art climate models. Our results suggest a smaller and less uncertain value of the global ERFaci (−0.32 ± 0.21 W m−2 for SO42-, 90 % confidence) than recent climate assessments (e.g., −0.93 ± 0.7 W m−2, 90 % confidence), indicating that ERFaci may be less impactful than previously thought. Our results are also consistent with observationally constrained estimates of total cloud feedback and recent estimates that models with weaker ERFaci better match the observed hemispheric warming asymmetry over the historical period.

Atmospheric chemistry and physicsVol. 25(13)
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US), University of Miami (US), NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (US), Princeton University (US)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
4.42
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.