English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

International audienceIn their contribution to PNAS, Penner et al. (1) used a climate model to estimate the radiative forcing by the aerosol first indirect effect (cloud albedo effect) in two different ways: first, by deriving a statistical relationship between the logarithm of cloud droplet number concentration, ln Nc, and the logarithm of aerosol optical depth, ln AOD (or the logarithm of the aerosol index, ln AI) for present-day and preindustrial aerosol fields, a method that was applied earlier to satellite data (2), and, second, by computing the radiative flux perturbation between two simulations with and without anthropogenic aerosol sources. They find a radiative forcing that is a factor of 3 lower in the former approach than in the latter [as Penner et al. ] correctly noted, only their “inline” results are useful for the comparison]. This study is a very interesting contribution, but we believe it deserves several clarification

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