Which of satellite- or model-based estimates is closer to reality for aerosol indirect forcing?

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 108, Issue 46, 2011, Pages

  Quaas, Johannes ^a   Boucher, Olivier ^b   Bellouin, Nicolas ^c   Kinne, Stefan ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG   (Germany)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c MET OFFICE   (United Kingdom)

^d MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR METEOROLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AEROSOL; CLIMATE; CLOUD; INDUSTRY; LETTER; METEOROLOGY; OPTICAL DEPTH; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

AEROSOLS; CLIMATE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; SPACECRAFT;

EID: 81755187056     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1114634108     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Penner JE, Xu L, Wang M (2011) Satellite methods underestimate indirect climate forcing by aerosols. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:13404-13408.
2. Quaas J, Boucher O, Bellouin N, Kinne S (2008) Satellite-based estimate of the direct and indirect aerosol climate forcing. J Geophys Res, 113(D05204):10.1029/2007JD008962.
3. Lohmann U, Lesins G (2002) Stronger constraints on the anthropogenic indirect aerosol effect. Science 298:1012-1015. (Pubitemid 35247305)
4. Quaas J, Boucher O, Lohmann U (2006) Constraining the total aerosol indirect effect in the LMDZ and ECHAM4 GCMs using MODIS satellite data. Atmos Chem Phys 6:947-955.
5. Andreae MO (2009) Correlation between cloud condensation nuclei concentration and aerosol optical thickness in remote and polluted regions. Atmos Chem Phys 9:543-556.