<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-15-2185-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>Real-case simulations of aerosol–cloud interactions <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>in ship tracks over the Bay of Biscay</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Ship track simulations over the Bay of Biscay}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{A.~Possner et~al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Possner</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>
          <email>anna.possner@env.ethz.ch</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6996-8624</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Zubler</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Lohmann</surname><given-names>U.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8885-3785</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Schär</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss, Zurich, Switzerland</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">A. Possner (anna.possner@env.ethz.ch)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>February</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>15</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>2185</fpage><lpage>2201</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>18</day><month>September</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>24</day><month>October</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day><month>January</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>31</day><month>January</month><year>2015</year></date>
           
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015.html">This article is available from https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Ship tracks provide an ideal test bed for studying aerosol–cloud
interactions (ACIs) and for evaluating their representation in model
parameterisations. Regional modelling can be of particular use for
this task, as this approach provides sufficient resolution to resolve
the structure of the produced track including their meteorological
environment whilst relying on the same formulations of
parameterisations as many general circulation models.  In this work we
simulate a particular case of ship tracks embedded in an optically
thin stratus cloud sheet which was observed by a polar orbiting
satellite at 12:00 UTC on 26 January 2003 around the Bay of
Biscay.</p>
    <p>The simulations, which include moving ship emissions, show that the
model is indeed able to capture the structure of the track at a
horizontal grid spacing of 2 km and to qualitatively capture the
observed cloud response in all simulations performed. At least a
doubling of the cloud optical thickness was simulated in all
simulations together with an increase in cloud droplet number
concentration by about 40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and decrease in effective
radius by about 5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Furthermore, the ship emissions lead to an
increase in liquid water path in at least 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the track
regions.</p>
    <p>We are confident in the model's ability to capture key processes of
ship track formation. However, it was found that realistic ship
emissions lead to unrealistic aerosol perturbations near the source
regions within the simulated tracks due to grid-scale dilution and
homogeneity.</p>
    <p>Combining the regional-modelling approach with comprehensive field
studies could likely improve our understanding of the sensitivities
and biases in ACI parameterisations, and could therefore help to
constrain global ACI estimates, which strongly rely on these
parameterisations.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Since their discovery in satellite imagery, ship tracks have been
viewed as convincing evidence of aerosol–cloud interactions (ACIs)
occurring in shallow, marine planetary boundary layers (PBLs). Their
exclusive existence within a narrow range of environmental conditions
despite vast global emissions of ship exhaust has inspired a wide
field of experimental and modelling research on the influence of
aerosol perturbations on cloud microphysics and the marine PBL
state. Since marine shallow clouds are particularly effective in
modulating the radiative budget as well as the hydrological
cycle <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="paren.1"/>, the role of anthropogenic emissions for
these clouds is of particular interest not only for process
understanding, but also for climate impacts.</p>
      <p>In particular it has been shown in both satellite
observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8 bib1.bibx7 bib1.bibx17" id="paren.2"/> and modelling
studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx22 bib1.bibx4" id="paren.3"/> that changes in the background
aerosol and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations not only affect the
cloud albedo by producing more numerous and smaller cloud droplets (Twomey
effect, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx57" id="year.4"/>), but may also induce transitions between cloud
regimes, which fundamentally change the boundary layer state.</p>
      <p>While CCN injections were found to induce transitions from open- to
closed-cell stratocumulus by suppressing drizzle
formation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63 bib1.bibx17" id="paren.5"/>, the converse was simulated in the case
of aerosol depletion by precipitation. The scarcity of CCN induced the
collapse of the boundary layer and a break-up of the stratocumulus
cloud deck into an open cell structure with scattered, drizzling
shallow cumuli <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx66 bib1.bibx4" id="paren.6"/>.</p>
      <p>Despite significant impacts of ship tracks on the regional and local
scale, their radiative forcing on the global scale was found to be
insignificant due to their rare
occurrence <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50 bib1.bibx40 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.7"/>. Assessing the
global effects of ACIs due to ship emissions in general and their
relevance to climate has been challenging in both satellite
observations and global models. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="text.8"/> found no
statistically significant impacts on large-scale cloud fields by
shipping emissions using satellite observations. However, due to the
large natural variability within the cloud systems which might mask
potentially relevant ACIs, satellite observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="paren.9"/>
could not exclude their existence either.</p>
      <p>Global general circulation model (GCM) simulations yield globally
averaged ACIs due to ship emissions between <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Wm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx47 bib1.bibx41 bib1.bibx39" id="paren.10"/>. Given
the maximum simulated cooling effect, ACI induced by shipping
emissions could significantly contribute to the current best estimate
of globally averaged ACI
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Wm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="altparen.11"/>). However, ACI are
represented in GCMs by parameterisations, which are highly
uncertain. Combined with the limited ability of GCMs to simulate
mesoscale circulations and low clouds in general <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.12"/>, these
estimates can be given with limited confidence only.</p>
      <p>In order to gain a more detailed understanding of the parameterised
cumulative response of dynamical and microphysical processes to
aerosol perturbations by ship emissions, we consider the regional
modelling approach. While both boundary layer and microphysical
processes are represented by similar parameterisations in regional
models as in GCMs, one should be able to capture the structure of a
ship track at kilometre-scale resolution. Therefore, this approach
allows for a direct comparison of the simulated ACI to observations
and can hence aid significantly to constrain the realism of the
parameterised response.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
True-colour MODIS satellite image (wavelength bands 670, 565 and 479 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) on
26 January 2003 at 12:00 UTC of the Bay of Biscay. Note the numerous ship tracks in
the northwest of the image and the pre-frontal band of convection stretching across the Bay.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=284.527559pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f01.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p>In this study we use the regional COSMO model to simulate the most
prominent case of ship tracks observed over Europe by the MODIS
satellite on 26 January 2003. At 12:00 UTC, the polar-orbiting
satellite passed over this region and captured ship tracks embedded
within optically thin stratus (optical thickness <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) west
of the Bay of Biscay (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). From the satellite image
one can deduce further information on the background conditions of the
boundary layer.</p>
      <p>Based on the structures of open cells underneath the optically thin
cloud layer visible in the MODIS image, one can infer the cloud to be
drizzling. To the east of the ship track region, a closed
stratocumulus deck without any ship track signal was observed. This is
consistent with our current understanding of the susceptibility of
different cloud systems to aerosol
perturbations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="paren.13"/>. While drizzling boundary layers of
little cloud water have previously been identified as susceptible to
aerosol perturbations, optically thick non-precipitating stratocumulus
sheets are known to buffer the response to the aerosol perturbation
(e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10 bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx7 bib1.bibx9" id="altparen.14"/>).</p>
      <p>Furthermore the presence of the optically thin stratus suggests the
boundary layer to be weakly mixed in this region as the cloud top
radiative cooling is small. This is supported by soundings at the
French coast at Brest, which display a collapsed boundary layer
structure with a strong inversion of 12 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at 500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> on
27 January 2003 at 00:00 UTC <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.15"/>. The collapse of the
marine boundary layer with a remnant stratified thin cloud layer has
been found to coincide with aerosol deprived clean background
conditions due to precipitation scavenging of CCN where cloud droplet
numbers can be as low as
1–10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx66 bib1.bibx4" id="paren.16"/>.</p>
      <p>In these simulations the response of the aerosol and cloud bulk
microphysics parameterisations to the ship emissions are quantified
and discussed in the context of the MODIS observation and other ship
track measurements from the literature. Additionally, parameterised
boundary layer processes, such as PBL tracer transport, are discussed
as well as the impact of the ship exhaust on the PBL structure.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Model description</title>
      <p>The simulations were carried out with the COSMO model, developed and
maintained by the COSMO consortium. The COSMO model (version 4.14) is
a state-of-the-art, non-hydrostatic model used at 2 km horizontal
resolution with a time step of 20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. A vertical resolution of at most
(resp. at least) 150 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the PBL was used. The fully compressible
flow equations are solved using a third-order Runge–Kutta discretisation
in time <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64 bib1.bibx15" id="paren.17"/>. Vertical advection is computed
using an implicit second-order centred scheme and horizontal advection is
solved using a fifth-order upstream discretisation. Tracers, such as the
hydrometeors and aerosol species, are advected horizontally using a
second-order Bott scheme <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.18"/>. The turbulent fluxes are
represented using a 1-D turbulent diffusion
scheme  with a prognostic description for the
turbulent kinetic energy. The minimum threshold for the eddy
diffusivity intrinsic to the turbulence parameterisation is set to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>0.01</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.19"/>. Shallow convection is
described using the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx56" id="text.20"/> mass flux scheme without
precipitation production with an entrainment rate of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The radiative transfer is based on a
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-two-stream approach <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="paren.21"/> using a relative
humidity criterion for subgrid-scale cloud cover.</p>
      <p>In previous work the model was extended with a two-moment bulk cloud
microphysics scheme <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="paren.22"/> and the M7 aerosol microphysics
scheme <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60 bib1.bibx67" id="paren.23"/>. The aerosol microphysics scheme
describes the evolution of black carbon (BC), organic carbon (OC),
sulfate (SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), sea salt and dust. These species are binned into four internally mixed
soluble and three insoluble modes determined by fixed size ranges
(nucleation, Aitken, accumulation and coarse). The processes relevant
to this study captured by the model include condensation of sulfuric
acid vapour, hydration, coagulation, sedimentation as well as dry and
wet deposition of aerosol particles. The soluble aerosol particles are
activated according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="text.24"/>. All soluble aerosol particles
in the accumulation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>50</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)
and coarse (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) mode, as well as Aitken mode
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn>50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) aerosol particles larger
than 35 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> radius are considered as activated. Although there
exist more physical activation parameterisations
(e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1 bib1.bibx36" id="altparen.25"/>), using this simpler form of
activation is still in good agreement with observations, which found
the CCN concentration to scale linearly with the soluble accumulation
mode number concentration (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx65" id="altparen.26"/> and references
therein). The number of newly activated cloud droplets is then further
restricted by the available moisture content and the updraft
velocity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.27"/>.</p>
      <p>The cloud microphysical processes for cloud droplets and rain
described by the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.28"/> parameterisation contain the
growth by condensation, self-collection of cloud droplets and rain
drops, autoconversion, accretion, droplet breakup, sedimentation of
rain and evaporation (saturation adjustment is applied). The
grid-scale cloud optical properties are parameterised as a function of
wavelength using the effective droplet radius <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.29"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Numerical experiments</title>
      <p>The dynamical settings and nesting approach used in these simulations
are based on the setup of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="normal.30"/>. We use a one-way nesting
approach, where the 2 km simulation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is
nested in a 12 km simulation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) run over a
larger domain stretching from the northeast Atlantic to the eastern
borders of Switzerland and Germany (see Fig. 1
of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="altparen.31"/>). The initial and lateral boundary conditions
for the dynamical fields are provided by the ECMWF Interim
Reanalysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58 bib1.bibx12" id="paren.32"/>. For the aerosol tracers, the
climatological means for January (1999–2009) obtained in ECHAM-HAM
simulations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.33"/> are prescribed as initial and lateral
boundary conditions. The global simulations were performed with a two-moment bulk scheme
for aerosol <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="paren.34"/> and cloud <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.35"/> microphysics with prescribed aerosol and precursor emissions from the Japanese
National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49 bib1.bibx55 bib1.bibx38" id="altparen.36"/>).</p>
      <p>In the present simulations, anthropogenic aerosol emissions, excluding ship
emissions, are given by the AeroCom data set <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.37"/>. Natural
emissions such as dimethylsulfide (DMS) emissions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.38"/> and
sea salt <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="paren.39"/> emissions are computed interactively.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <title>Shipping emissions</title>
      <p>By combustion of low-quality fuel ships emit gases such as SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>,
NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (PM)
such as SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, OC, BC and ash into the atmosphere.</p>
      <p>However, of the gaseous emissions only SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is considered in this
study, which focuses solely on aerosol–cloud interactions (ACI) of
ship emissions. Although emitted hydrocarbons, as well as CO, lead to
significant increases of greenhouse gas concentrations (CH<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
respectively), their contribution to aerosol mass and
number concentrations is small <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.40"/>. As the secondary
aerosol formation of nitrates in sulfur-rich emissions is also very
small <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61 bib1.bibx33" id="paren.41"/>, NO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions were not
prescribed. Furthermore, ash emissions are also not included as ash
particles are too small in number due to their large size (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="altparen.42"/>) to contribute significantly to the CCN concentration and were not measured in the
two field campaigns <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19 bib1.bibx25" id="paren.43"/> used for the emission specification of this study.</p>
      <p>The emission fluxes used in this study are based on measurements of
cargo ship emissions obtained in the Monterey Area Ship Track campaign
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.44"/>. Cargo ships, such as tankers, bulk carriers,
container and passenger ships larger than   100 gross tons, contribute
to 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the global fleet and are the major source of
global shipping emissions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.45"/>.  The PM emission fluxes for BC,
OC and SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are based on the mean PM particle number emission flux
of five different cargo vessel measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.46"/>. The mean
total particle number flux (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mn>15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was
chosen, as individual emission measurements themselves varied by more
than a factor of 2 between the individual vessels. The PM mass flux
was estimated using the total particle number flux and estimates of
emission size and density. For each of the five considered ships, the
median emission radius was provided by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.47"/>. The averaged
median radius (0.04 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was used as the emission size
estimate for all particles. Together with the density estimate, which was taken as the
mean density across all involved constituents
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the PM mass flux was approximated as
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>20.84</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In a final step the emission fluxes for OC
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>9.59</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), BC (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>3.13</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>8.13</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were determined using the mass fractions
of ship emissions measured by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="text.48"/>. The SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission
flux (144 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was inferred from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.49"/> by
averaging the five vessel measurements.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><caption><p>Specifications of the two size distributions used for ship emission
fluxes obtained from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.50"/>. The ship emissions are treated as
lognormal size distributions and are partitioned into the soluble Aitken
(AIT) and accumulation (ACC) modes based on the mass percentage at the mean
radius <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col3">Fresh </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col6">Aged </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">AIT</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">ACC</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">AIT</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">ACC</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">¯</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.015</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.029</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.16</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">% [mass]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">100</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">96</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>In the present simulations, the PM and SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission mass
fluxes were emitted in one level
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>160</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> above the surface (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="altparen.51"/>) with
a log-normal size distribution (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>1.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and two different size
specifications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47 bib1.bibx30" id="paren.52"/> shown in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>. Both
size distributions, <italic>fresh</italic> and <italic>aged</italic>, are inferred
from measurements and attempt to include coagulation effects of the
aerosol as time progresses. They differ in the partitioning
of the emission fluxes between the Aitken and the accumulation size modes. Whereas the size distribution of the fresh
emissions is representative for emissions at the ship's exhaust where
all aerosol particles are emitted into the Aitken mode, the aged size
distribution represents older emissions where coagulation processes
occurred and the aerosol particles are split into the Aitken (96 %) and
accumulation (4 %) modes.</p>
      <p>We prescribe three ships starting at 03:00 UTC on
26 January 2003 at the same longitude at the edge of the Bay of
Biscay, arbitrarily separated in their initial position in the
latitude by 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (between the northernmost and middle ship)
and 80 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (between middle and southernmost ship). All ships
move southwest at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn>230</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> pointing north) at
5, 10, or
20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For numerical stability the ship exhaust is not
emitted into a single grid box, but distributed horizontally into four
adjacent grid boxes (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>), based on the ship's exact
location, scaled by the distance-weighted mean.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>2 km simulation domain of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>1160</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn>800</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
showing three prescribed ship routes oriented from northeast to southwest. A
schematic of the distribution of the ship emissions along the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid is given inside the black box. The emissions are
distributed at a 3 min (1.5 min) interval within four adjacent grid boxes along the
ship's route for ships moving at 5 or 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ms</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ms</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The red
box displays the ship track domain used in
Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>–<xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>. (Note that the ship plume
locations shown in these figures are determined by the relative motion
between the ships and the horizontal wind.)</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f02.pdf"/>

          </fig>

      <p>Whilst all boundary fields are updated at an hourly rate, the ship
emission fields are updated every 3 minutes. For each 3-minute
interval the ship emissions are accumulated within the four adjacent
grid points around the instantaneous ship position.</p>
      <p>The performed simulations, summarised in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>, include a
control run (<italic>clean</italic>) where the contribution of shipping
emissions is zero and a simulation where the ship emissions are
specified as described above (<italic>ship</italic>). As discussed in detail
in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS1"/>, the emission flux by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.53"/>
generated smaller aerosol perturbations near the emission source in
the <italic>ship</italic> simulation than the measurements of aerosol number
concentration obtained in the same study. We therefore perform
experiments with scaled emission mass fluxes by a factor 10
(<italic>ship10</italic>). A scaling of similar order of magnitude has been
applied in a previous study performed at considerably higher
resolution, where the aerosol perturbation generated by emissions
from <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.54"/> were found to be insufficient to create a
significant cloud response <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx62" id="paren.55"/>.</p>
      <p>The necessity for such a scaling may be due to the dilution of a point source emission onto the grid scale,
which may lead to a biased representation of the subsequent microphysical processing
of the plume. However, it may also be needed due to possible measurement biases, which are
particularly likely to occur near the emission source, as the aerosol concentrations vary
rapidly with the plume's cross-sectional radius  in this part of the plume.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><caption><p>Summary of ship emission specifications as prescribed in the
simulations. Prescribed SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and PM mass fluxes based on the
literature <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.56"/> are given together with prescribed size
distributions and ship's speed (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ship</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> flux</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">PM flux</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Size</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ship</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">[<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">[<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">distribution</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">[<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>clean</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">–</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>ship</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">20.84</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">fresh</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>ship10</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">208.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">fresh</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>ship10A</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">208.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">aged</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>ship10_V5</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">208.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">fresh</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><italic>ship10_V20</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">144</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">208.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">fresh</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">20</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>In addition, the sensitivity towards the emission particle size is investigated in
<italic>ship10A</italic>, where the aged emission size distribution is
prescribed. Furthermore, simulations with varied ship speeds are performed in order to
understand the balance of the macrophysical constraints
(e.g. cloud cover and moisture availability) and the microphysical
feedbacks involved in determining the extent of the ship tracks. Whereas the ships
move at 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in most simulations, the ships' speed was
set to 5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in <italic>ship10_V5</italic> and
20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in <italic>ship10_V20</italic>. In doing so, one can
assess the influence of the ship's speed on the track structure.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Classification of ship plume</title>
      <p>In order to quantify the changes in microphysical entities, a
distinction between plume and non-plume grid points has to be made in
the post-processing. As the only perturbation in total aerosol number
concentration <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is caused by ship emissions, we defined a relative
threshold concentration of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at each grid point to determine the
plume points. Only points where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>simulation</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mtext>clean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are considered part of the ship exhaust
plume. This threshold provides the required balance of being small
enough to include a maximum number of plume points and being large
enough to separate the core track structures from surrounding
increases of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to aerosol being mixed away from the track
region.</p>
      <p>Another sampling was performed to determine not only the plume points,
but the subset of plume points where a significant cloud response was
detected. Here, the additional criterion in terms of cloud droplet
number concentration <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mtext>simulation</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mtext>clean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was applied.</p>
      <p>The ability to distinguish plume from non-plume points and ship track
from non-ship-track points of these criteria is shown in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS4"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Evaluation of cloud optical thickness</title>
      <p>A simple metric to compare simulated cloud optical thickness to the
MODIS observation was designed, as the COSP
simulator <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.57"/>, including grid-scale and subgrid-scale
cloud water contributions, is not yet available within COSMO.</p>
      <p>Cloud optical thickness <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> within COSMO is diagnosed for each of
the eight spectral intervals (three shortwave and five longwave) in the
radiation scheme. For warm-phase clouds <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is given as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mtext>0</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>TOA</mml:mtext></mml:munderover><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mtext>tot</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>clc</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>tot</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ξ</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes the extinction coefficient
of each spectral band <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mtext>tot</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the
total (grid-scale and subgrid-scale) liquid water content at each
grid point at coordinates <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (longitude), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (latitude) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
(level), and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>clc</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>tot</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the cloud cover fraction
(predominantly 0 or 1 in these simulations).</p>
      <p>As MODIS cloud optical thickness during day-time and over the ocean is
predominantly defined by radiances measured within the
visible <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23 bib1.bibx44" id="paren.58"/>, the contribution of the visible
channel in COSMO (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>0.25</mml:mn><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.7</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to the total
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was isolated and used for the MODIS comparison.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p>Before a detailed assessment of the ship exhaust effects on the
stratocumulus deck is given in the following sections, the background
state is described. The mesoscale circulations and the macrophysical
state on 26 January are predominantly driven by an extensive high-pressure system with an underlying subsidence rate of about
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at night and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
during daytime at a height of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>1.5</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Temperature gradients
of up to 4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> per 100 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are simulated within the
inversion in the ship track domain (domain shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>). An inversion of this magnitude was only obtained
after a significant reduction of the prescribed minimum threshold for
the eddy diffusivity of heat and moisture from the operational value
of 1.0 to
0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.59"/>. A detailed evaluation
using coastal soundings of PBL profiles of horizontal wind, potential
temperature <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and relative humidity and their impact on cloud
cover is presented in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="text.60"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
Mean aerosol size distributions of internally mixed aerosol for <bold>(a)</bold>
<italic>clean</italic>, <bold>(b)</bold> <italic>ship</italic>, <bold>(c)</bold> <italic>ship10</italic> and
<bold>(d)</bold> <italic>ship10A</italic> are shown at 06:00 and 12:00 UTC. At
06:00 UTC size distributions were averaged bin-wise near the emission source
and at 12:00 UTC at a distance of 216 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (see text for details). Red
line marks the activation size threshold. In panels <bold>(b–d)</bold>: grey
shaded region spans between the 10th and 90th percentiles at 06:00 UTC;
field study measurements are represented by coloured markers and include five
size distribution measurements (different shades of blue) obtained by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.61"/> of vessels and one measurement (orange) obtained by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="text.62"/>; box plot representations of the total aerosol
perturbation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at 06:00 UTC near the emission source
with respect to the background (obtained from <italic>clean</italic>) are shown in
addition (note their different scale).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f03.pdf"/>

      </fig>

      <p>The horizontal large-scale advection of the air masses is dominated by
northwesterly flow, pushing air masses from the ship track region
towards the continent. During the simulated period a pre-frontal band
of organised convection (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>) propagates through the
domain from the northwest to the east and passes through the ship
track domain between 07:00 and 12:00 UTC.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Impacts on aerosol microphysics</title>
      <p>The simulated background of this case study is very clean due to the
presence of unpolluted marine air into the ship track domain and the
removal of aerosol by precipitation. Aerosol concentrations as low as
285 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and CCN concentrations of 10–20 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are simulated.</p>
      <p>The background aerosol particles are a composite of sea salt emitted
within the region and sulfate particles within the Aitken mode, which
are transported into the domain from the lateral boundaries. The
sulfate particles formed in the mid-troposphere and were mixed
downward in the driving GCM simulations. Although the aerosol and CCN
concentrations are low, they are not unrealistic for this
region <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.63"/> or for stratocumulus in
general <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx65" id="paren.64"/> and are consistent with the MODIS observation
of optically thin stratus.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p>
Schematic of selection method for plume points considered for averaged size
distributions shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>. Exemplary tracks are shown for
06:00 and 12:00 UTC within the same map. The plume points are sampled at
each level within a 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> radius (red half circle) at the latitude
(red line) defined by the ship's position at 06:00 UTC. Therefore the plume
points contain freshly emitted aerosol particles at 06:00 UTC and
atmospherically aged aerosol particles at 12:00 UTC.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f04.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The impact of the ship exhaust in all simulations, containing either a
varied emission mass flux (<italic>ship10</italic>) or emission size (<italic>ship10A</italic>), on the aerosol size
distribution is illustrated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>. This figure shows
the averaged aerosol size distributions determined over a plume volume
close to the source at 06:00 UTC and at a distance at 12:00 UTC. The
selection method of the included plume grid points of each track is
illustrated in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. At each of these points the size
distribution is determined and then bin-wise averaged over all
selected plume points. As in situ size distribution measurements shown
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> are obtained within a 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> radius of
the ship's position, plume points within the same radius of each ship
are selected at 06:00 UTC. Furthermore, to ensure a comparison of the
same volume of air between different simulations, the plume points
considered for this analysis were determined in <italic>ship10</italic> and
used in all other simulations. In order to visualise size distribution
changes along the plume due to dilution and microphysical processing,
the distributions were determined again at 12:00 UTC over plume
points selected from a volume of air centred at the same latitude as
06:00 UTC (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>) which now contains atmospherically
aged aerosol particles. To highlight the variability between
individual plume points, the span between the 10th and
90th percentiles (P10 and P90 respectively) is shown in
addition to the averaged distribution in grey at 06:00 UTC.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
<bold>(a–b)</bold> Mixed aerosol number concentration [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] averaged
at each level over the ship track domain at a 15 min interval for
<bold>(a)</bold> <italic>clean</italic> and <bold>(b)</bold> <italic>ship10</italic>. The mean cloud
base height is shown in white. <bold>(c)</bold> Potential temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)
profiles at 03:00, 06:00 and 09:00 UTC at the ship track domain centre
point.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
Columns  1 and 2  show grid-scale cloud droplet number burden [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>]
and columns 3 and 4  cloud optical thickness, including grid-scale and subgrid-scale
contributions, at 09:00 and 12:00 UTC respectively. Rows <bold>(a–f)</bold>
show the following simulation results: <bold>(a)</bold> <italic>clean</italic>,
<bold>(b)</bold> <italic>ship</italic>, <bold>(c)</bold> <italic>ship10</italic>, <bold>(d)</bold>
<italic>ship10A</italic>, <bold>(e)</bold> <italic>ship10_V5</italic> and <bold>(f)</bold>
<italic>ship10_V20</italic>. Grey shaded areas in columns  1 and 2  denote regions of
missing grid-scale clouds.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f06.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In general a good agreement of the peak width is found between all
simulations and observations obtained by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.65"/>
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> blue markers) and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="text.66"/>
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> orange markers), while peak amplitudes are
underestimated with respect to the observations in <italic>ship</italic> and
<italic>ship10A</italic>. Observed peak concentrations in aerosol number per
size bin, which vary between 5000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
100 000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  (i.e. over two orders of
magnitude), are only captured by the <italic>ship10</italic> simulation.</p>
      <p>However, it has to be considered that the observations shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> were obtained within different marine boundary
layers of varying background aerosol concentrations, ship emissions
(in terms of mass flux and size) and PBL state, and were obtained for
considerably smaller samples of air (compared to a 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by
2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> by 100 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> volume) at different plume ages. As all
of these factors influence the plume evolution, complete conformity
between the simulated plumes of this case study and the observations
is not to be expected. However, a qualitative comparison in terms of
order of magnitude can still be made and provides valuable insights.</p>
      <p>In addition to size distribution measurements, observations of the
total perturbation in aerosol number concentration are also
considered. The simulated perturbations in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b–d) are compared to
measurements obtained by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.67"/> (Fig. 1 of their paper) for
a bulk carrier running on marine fuel oil (Star Livorno), which was
one of the five ships considered for the ship exhaust estimate of this
study. The observations of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range between
3000 and 30 000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, only
7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the measurements were smaller than
5000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while over 50 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were obtained at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>20 000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Therefore, peak
concentrations of at least 20 000 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the vicinity
of the ship can be inferred.</p>
      <p>In the simulations <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was determined at each
point by taking the difference between any simulation containing ship
exhaust and <italic>clean</italic> over plume points within a 10 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> radius
from the source at 06:00 UTC. A comparison between the simulated
range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the observations shows that
almost 75 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the simulated perturbations are below the
observed range. This indicates that the aerosol perturbation due to
the literature-scale emission flux might be insufficient to generate
comparable peak concentrations within the plume. On the other hand,
the simulated range of perturbations as compared to the observations
agrees well up to the 75th percentile (P75) with the
observations of <italic>ship10</italic>. However, this agreement is obtained
at the expense of a considerable overestimation of the peak
perturbations in this simulation.</p>
      <p>In addition to differences in peak amplitude, a shift of the aerosol
peak towards smaller radii is detectable between the <italic>ship</italic> and
<italic>ship10</italic> simulations and observations. The difference in peak
radius is strongly tied to the emission size of the ship
exhaust. Whilst an emission size of 0.015 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was specified
for fresh plumes (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>), ship exhaust radii of at least
0.03 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were measured by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.68"/>. While this
discrepancy in emission radius was noted, the results of this study
were not found to be affected.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
<bold>(a–b)</bold> Distributions across PBL grid points for either plume points
of significant cloud response or environmental background conditions are
shown for <bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
12:00 UTC for all simulations containing ship emissions. The box edges
denote the 25th and 75th percentiles, and the whiskers display the 5th
and 95th percentiles. The plume regions were diagnosed within <italic>ship10</italic>,
<italic>ship10_V5</italic> (for <italic>ship10_V5</italic> only) and
<italic>ship10_V20</italic> (for <italic>ship10_V20</italic> only). The range of
observations is denoted in black. Panel <bold>(c)</bold> displays the top of the
atmosphere (TOA) shortwave (SW) cloud radiative effect (CRE) averaged over
the entire ship track region for all simulations (clean is shown in light
blue).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The aerosol size distribution in <italic>ship10A</italic> displays a distinct
double-peak structure due to the bimodal emission size distribution
applied (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>). While all observations shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> display a single peak, measurements of
double-peak structures have been obtained in test bed
studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.69"/>. In terms of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
smaller peak perturbations are simulated in <italic>ship10A</italic> than
observed, as the aged emission size distribution was developed to
represent older plume segments, which consequentially are more
diluted.</p>
      <p>As time evolves and the growing plumes are increasingly diluted, the
in-plume size distributions are increasingly influenced by clean
air. Indeed the size distribution peak is found to shift towards the
<italic>clean</italic> aerosol peak position in all simulations
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b–d) by 12:00 UTC. In addition the formation of
a secondary peak can be observed for <italic>ship</italic>, which is not
simulated to the same extent in <italic>ship10</italic>. This is caused by the
increase of background aerosol concentrations within this size range
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a) and their increased impact in <italic>ship</italic> as
compared to <italic>ship10</italic>.</p>
      <p>In terms of microphysical processing, the most relevant processes
include the condensation of sulfate and water vapour onto mixed
aerosol particles. The presence of the ship pollutants leads to a
suppression of sulfate nucleation due to the abundance of
condensation nuclei within the plumes. In combination with efficient
scavenging by in-plume aerosol particles, the nucleation mode aerosol
concentrations are reduced.</p>
      <p>Finally the number of activated particles was found to be strongly tied to
the prescribed emission flux and to a lesser extent to emission size. As can
be seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, particle concentrations larger than
35 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are similar between <italic>ship10</italic> and <italic>ship10A</italic>, which
are five times as high as the activated aerosol concentrations in
<italic>ship</italic>. However, the percentage of activated particles lies between 3
and 6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in most of the plume areas, which agrees well with plume
measurements obtained at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>0.2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> supersaturation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.70"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Vertical aerosol transport</title>
      <p>After emission at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>160</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the ship plume aerosols
are subject to turbulent and convective boundary layer
transport. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> provides an insight into the vertical
distribution of mixed aerosols in <italic>clean</italic> and
<italic>ship10</italic>. Under clean conditions, the background aerosols
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>a) are not homogeneously distributed in the mean
boundary layer profile. Instead, the aerosol concentration is found to
increase from at least 300 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> near the surface to
500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> near the PBL top in stratified layers. The PBL
top, as defined by the inversion, and boundary layer stability, can be
inferred from Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>c, which displays the potential
temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) profile at the centre point of the ship track
domain at 03:00, 06:00 and 09:00 UTC. Throughout the first
9 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of simulation, the PBL remains slightly stable in this
region, which allows for persistent vertical gradients in the mixed
aerosol concentrations. Higher concentrations of mixed aerosol
particles up to 600 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are reached due to the increased
concentration of Aitken mode sulfate above the inversion.</p>
      <p>For the formation of ship tracks, the timescale of the ship plume reaching
cloud base is of particular interest. The mean cloud base height within the
ship track domain between 00:00 and 09:00 UTC was determined at
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>360</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, as shown by the white line in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>a and b.
Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>b shows the evolution of the mixed aerosol concentration
including ship exhaust averaged every 15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at each level. As time
progresses, the total number concentration increases within the PBL, due to
cumulative emissions within this region. From the clearly distinguishable
emission height at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>160</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the aerosol are mixed both downwards
towards the surface and upwards towards the PBL top, as expected within a
turbulent boundary layer (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="altparen.71"/>). At cloud base the
mixed aerosol number concentration is first raised from the background
concentration of 350 to 420 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> 15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
after emission begin at 03:00 UTC. This timescale is consistent with the
timescale estimate obtained for the turbulent mixing of a passive tracer
assuming a gradient approach, i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the passive tracer concentration, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the
turbulent vertical velocity and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  is the eddy diffusivity of
the tracer. Taking <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the eddy diffusivity
for heat, one can estimate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as 12.3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> based
on the mean <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> profile for the ship track domain (not shown).
Neglecting variations of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with height, the overturning time
scale within a slab of the atmosphere of extent <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be
approximated as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>turb</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Therefore taking <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the difference in height
between the cloud base and emission height, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>turb</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
approximated as 54 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which agrees well with the timescale
obtained from the mean profiles shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>b.</p>
      <p>In addition to turbulent transport, a fraction of the ship emissions
are transported by convective fluxes into the cloud layer, just below the
inversion base. At the level between 500 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and inversion base
height, the mixed aerosol concentrations are raised by
10–15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> already 30 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> after emission
onset. However, turbulent mixing is the predominant form of vertical
PBL transport at this time.</p>
      <p>Finally, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>b clearly highlights the confinement of the
ship plume to the boundary layer due to the strong inversion. The
mixed aerosol concentrations above the PBL remain unaffected by the
ship emissions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Microphysical and radiative effects</title>
      <p>The simulated cloud microphysical response to the plumes of increased
aerosol concentration was found to be in agreement with findings of
previous studies. Within plume regions, the increased number of
activated aerosol led to an increase in cloud droplet number
concentration and a decrease in effective radius. As a result, the
cloud optical thickness increased. The strength of the response is
sensitive to the plume's age and intensity (in terms of aerosol number
concentration) as well as the environmental conditions, as discussed
in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS4"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
Vertical cross-sections (location shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> row
<bold>c</bold>) for <bold>(a)</bold> the total aerosol number concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>], <bold>(b)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
[<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>], <bold>(c)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> [K] and <bold>(d)</bold> the liquid cloud
water content <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [g <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>]. Each contour in
<bold>(a)</bold> indicates a doubling of the concentration starting at
250 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In <bold>(b)</bold> the contour levels are: 2, 5, 10,
50, … every 50 …, 350 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> contours
are given at an interval of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>1.4</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the
contour spacing is 0.02 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Grey shading in <bold>(a, c)</bold>
indicates plume points and in <bold>(b, d)</bold> plume points where a
significant cloud response was simulated as defined in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS3"/>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> displays the cloud droplet number burden
summed over the PBL (columns 1 and 2) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (columns 3 and 4) at
09:00 and 12:00 UTC. For this purpose, the inversion top, which lies at around 800 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>,
was diagnosed for each column based on the temperature gradient <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.72"/>.
Although all simulations display an increase in
the cloud droplet burden along the tracks, its extent varies
significantly among the different simulations. At 09:00 UTC, the
cloud droplet burden is increased up to
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>120</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within the plume regions in all
simulations apart from <italic>ship</italic>, where maximum burdens of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>15</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are simulated. Considering the
significantly smaller number of activated aerosol within the plume in
<italic>ship</italic> (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b), this is to be expected. After
an additional 3 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of simulation, the tracks have grown in
size, but similar values of cloud droplet burden are reached at
12:00 UTC.</p>
      <p>In <italic>ship10_V20</italic> however, a significant decrease in the cloud
droplet burden was simulated down to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn>20</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn>10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
until 12:00 UTC. Whilst the ship tracks shown in rows 1–5
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> form <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the source, or
even just <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in <italic>ship10_V5</italic>, the emission
sources are already separated by 313 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> from the track
sections displayed within the ship track domain in row 6 at 12:00 UTC,
and are therefore significantly more diluted.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
Liquid water path [kg <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>] is shown in the ship track domain for
two simulations (row <bold>a</bold>: <italic>clean</italic>, row <bold>b</bold>:
<italic>ship10</italic>) at 09:00, 12:00 and 15:00 UTC. AT 12:00 UTC the LWP histogram for the
contour spacing is shown for <italic>clean</italic> and <italic>ship10</italic> in addition for the displayed domain.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Additionally, little difference in cloud droplet burden is found
between plumes where a fresh (<italic>ship10</italic>) or an aged
(<italic>ship10A</italic>) size distribution was assumed at the point of
emission. In accordance, marginal differences in cloud droplet number
concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were simulated, as shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>. Although P75 is slightly higher in <italic>ship10</italic>,
the median of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lies at 32 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in both
simulations. This is consistent with the equivalent increase of
aerosol number concentration within the size range of activation in
these simulations. This result is contradictory to global studies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47 bib1.bibx41" id="paren.73"/>,
where a high sensitivity of the aerosol–cloud interactions to the aging of the
prescribed emissions was found. The cause for these different sensitivities remains
to be addressed. It could be due to different treatments of the cloud or aerosol
microphysics within the different models, or it may be attributable to the different
microphysical aging of the plume allowed by the higher resolution.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Percentage of ship plume points of significant cloud response determined
as in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>, where at least a 50 % liquid water path (LWP) increase was detected.
Given a 50 % LWP increase in at least 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of all plume points, the percentage of
plume perturbed grid points which additionally displayed a cloud base lowering was computed
and is shown in <bold>(b)</bold>. A cloud base lowering is diagnosed for any change greater than
0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Note that a cloud base lifting was not detected at any point.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Comparing the simulated changes in effective radius <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>b) as well as <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to in situ and surface
remote sensing observations of ship tracks one finds, in general, a
good agreement of the simulated and observed cloud response. The
observed increase in cloud droplet number concentration ranges between
40 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.74"/> and 800 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.75"/>, though most observed cloud
droplet number concentrations lie within a narrower range of
40 to
200 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14 bib1.bibx19 bib1.bibx21 bib1.bibx13" id="paren.76"/>.</p>
      <p>Similarly the in situ observations of cloud effective radii measured
in ship tracks ranged between 6 and 15 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This
is almost identical to the range spanned by P25 and P75 in all
simulations. Although these values were obtained for a range of
environmental conditions which are not necessarily similar to the
environmental conditions of this case study, these measurements
provide a basis to demonstrate the realism of our simulated cloud
response.</p>
      <p>In line with the increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the decrease of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>), <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increases within the plume
regions. In the <italic>ship10, ship10A</italic> and <italic>ship10_V5</italic> simulations the
response in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> varies between 6 to 10 at the track edges and 12 to
24 within the track centres. Within the <italic>ship</italic> simulation the
response in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is considerably weaker, following the considerably
smaller perturbations to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, at
both 09:00 and 12:00 UTC. An increase in optical thickness of 8 to 10
was simulated within the considerably smaller plume areas. A slightly
stronger response was simulated at 12:00 UTC in <italic>ship10_V20</italic>,
where the increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges between 8 to 14 within the plume
regions.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p>
Comparison of cloud optical thickness observed by MODIS to simulated cloud optical thickness
including grid-scale and subgrid-scale contributions for <bold>(a)</bold> <italic>clean</italic>,
<bold>(b)</bold> <italic>ship10</italic> at 12:00 UTC.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/2185/2015/acp-15-2185-2015-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Due to the significant increase of cloud optical thickness within the
ship track regions, the top of the atmosphere (TOA) shortwave (SW)
cloud radiative effect (CRE), defined as the difference between
all-sky outgoing SW and clear-sky outgoing SW radiation at TOA, was
changed. Averaged over the entire ship track domain, the TOA SW CRE
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>c) increased in magnitude by 19 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in <italic>ship10, ship10A</italic> and <italic>ship10_V5</italic>. The stronger cooling of the clouds at the TOA is
solely due to changes within the ship tracks themselves, which
cover at most 6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the domain area, while the background
TOA SW CRE variations were no larger than 5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Wm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) at any given time.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Interplay between micro- and macrophysics</title>
      <p>In confined regions of the simulated ship tracks, the changes in microphysical
properties were found to produce localised changes of macrophysical
entities, such as cloud extent and in-cloud liquid water content
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. As is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>, regions of
increased <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the ship exhaust aerosol were
found to coincide with regions of increased <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
localised increase of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is caused by the suppression of
rain formation, since the influx of activated aerosol led to a
significant decrease of cloud droplet size. Within the ship track
domain, the stratocumulus deck is lightly precipitating with almost
all precipitation evaporating before reaching the surface, thereby
moistening the subcloud layer. Starting at 04:00 UTC, the rain
water content within the ship track is reduced. At 09:00 UTC,
the mean rain water content in <italic>ship10</italic> within the ship track is reduced
in the mean by 45 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and by 38 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at 12:00 UTC.</p>
      <p>The resulting increase of liquid water path LWP is not only seen for
the particular cross-section shown, but in several confined regions of
the ship tracks (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>). The background LWP ranges between
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>0.08</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and is found
to remain constant throughout the day. Within the <italic>ship10</italic>
simulation, the LWP is increased to 0.12 or
even <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mn>0.16</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in ship track regions (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>),
which corresponds to almost a doubling of the LWP as compared to the background.</p>
      <p>Changes in cloud liquid water content and cloud depth due to increased
aerosol concentrations have been shown to affect cloud life
time <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="paren.77"/>. Whether the cloud life time is increased or
decreased depends fundamentally on the effect of drizzle suppression
on the entrainment rate and the humidity in the free
troposphere <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.78"/>. In general, precipitation acts to
stabilise the boundary layer. In the case of a collapsed boundary layer
such as the one analysed in this study, where cloud droplet number concentrations and
accumulation size aerosol concentrations are extremely low,
entrainment rates are believed to be small due to the weak radiative
cloud top cooling generated by the optically thin clouds. Therefore,
decreases in precipitation combined with a re-establishment of CCN
have been shown to increase entrainment and lead to a re-growth of the
previously collapsed boundary layer. However, entrainment rate
parameterisations in most global and regional climate models are
inadequate to capture such effects. During this case study we are not
able to study possible effects of the ship exhaust on the PBL top as
this process was found to occur on a typical timescale of the order of days
(e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="altparen.79"/>). Due to advection of the air masses into
regions of changed environmental conditions the impact of the ship
exhaust on the stratiform cloud deck could only be studied for about
12 h.</p>
      <p>Nonetheless, increases of liquid water content within these regions
were found to affect the simulated cloud depth, by lowering the cloud
base. This is shown explicitly in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>d, where the cloud
base is lowered significantly within the track regions. The occurrence
of an increase in LWP with a combined decrease in cloud base height
over the simulated period within the ship track domain is summarised
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>. As can be seen in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>a,
a 50 % LWP increase is simulated in at least 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
ship track regions in all simulations but
<italic>ship</italic>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>b displays the simultaneous
occurrence of cloud base lowering, given a 50 % LWP increase. Between
09:00 and 15:00 UTC 50 to 80 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of regions with
increased LWP display an additional lowering of the cloud base, while a
cloud base lifting was not simulated.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Overview of changes in microphysical (cloud droplet and activated
aerosol number burdens), radiative (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and macrophysical entities (LWP, total water path (TWP)
and rain water path (RWP)) averaged over the following and regions and simulations: the enhanced
(50 % increase) LWP region in <italic>ship10</italic>, the track regions in <italic>ship10</italic> and <italic>clean</italic>, and the background region for <italic>clean</italic>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="center"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="center"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Entity</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Enhanced LWP <italic>ship10</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Track <italic>ship10</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Track <italic>clean</italic></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Background <italic>clean</italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud droplet</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number burden [cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">12622</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8677</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1644</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1434</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Activated aerosol</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number burden [cm<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">90194</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">87448</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">28808</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">26493</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.34</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LWP [kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.067</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.055</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.038</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.033</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RWP [kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.007</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.01</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.017</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.016</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">TWP [kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>]</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>This phenomenon has previously been observed using balloon soundings
during the Monterey Area Ship Track campaign (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="altparen.80"/>)
campaign by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="normal.81"/>, where similar environmental conditions
were encountered. A lowering of the cloud base by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn>50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
was measured. Based on their data alone, no clear explanation for this
phenomenon could be found. However, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="normal.82"/> hypothesised that
the cloud base lowering was related to dynamical effects, such as
adiabatic cooling in convective plumes originating from the
ship. Microphysical effects related to increases in drizzle, on the
other hand were perceived as unlikely. Our simulations suggest the
cloud base lowering to be a consequence of drizzle suppression and the
resulting localised increase of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within the PBL. As is shown in
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T3"/>, the elevated increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (45 % above ship track mean)
in regions where a cloud base lowering is detected induces a larger decrease in the rain
water content (30 % below ship track mean) and hence a particularly pronounced LWP (22 %
above ship track mean) and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> increase (24 % above ship track mean). As can be seen in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>, the cloud base is situated
within the slightly stable PBL. Whilst the PBL stability and vertical mixing coefficients
(not shown) are not affected by the emissions, the larger
gradient in cloud water content itself, leads to an increased cloud water mixing below
cloud base. There the cloud water evaporates, leading to a moistening of the subcloud
layer. If a sufficient amount of cloud water is mixed downward, such that saturation is
reached, the vertical cloud extent is increased. Additional cloud water condensation due to
increased radiative cooling in the cloud layer within the enhanced LWP region was not simulated.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <title>Evaluation against observations</title>
      <p>The simulated cloud optical thickness, diagnosed in the visible
spectrum, is compared to the MODIS observation for <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> obtained at
12:00 UTC on 26 January 2003. Within the observation shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>, three characteristic features can be
determined. Firstly, considerably higher values of optical thickness (with
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn>20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are detected over land than over the ocean. Secondly, a
pre-frontal band structure passing through the domain, which stretches across
the Bay of Biscay from 4<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, 47<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N to 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W,
44<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N at 12:00 UTC, is characterised by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values of similar
magnitude. Finally, a region of ship tracks embedded within an optically thin
stratified cloud layer (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) located to the west of the pre-frontal band
of convection was observed.</p>
      <p>The optical thickness is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/> for two
simulations (<italic>clean</italic> and <italic>ship10</italic>) in comparison to the
MODIS observation. Only one of the simulations including ship
emissions is shown here, as the two features outside the small ship
track region are identical (qualitatively) in all simulations. The
cloud response within the ship tracks for all other simulations is
shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> for the ship track domain.</p>
      <p>The cloud optical thickness over land as well as within the convective
band is strongly underestimated in all simulations. Causes for this
low bias in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be manifold and can not be disentangled with
confidence based on this observation alone. It might be caused by an
underestimation in pollution, or vertical velocity in the simulations,
which would lead to a low bias in either activated cloud droplet
number concentration, cloud water or both. Although the issue has to
be acknowledged, it is outside the scope of this work.</p>
      <p>We now focus our analysis on the region west of the convective cloud band.
The observed background optical thickness in this region ranges from less
than 2 up to a value of 4, which represents an optically very thin cloud
sheet. The range of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> simulated within the background cloud compares
well to observations. However, significantly more small-scale structures with
higher values of optical thickness (3–4 instead of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) occur within
the simulations than the observations. These structures are due to subgrid-scale cloud water produced by the shallow convection scheme. Therefore, with
respect to the mean state, a slightly optically thicker background cloud
sheet is simulated than observed.</p>
      <p>The perturbation in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> along the observed ship tracks varies
between 5–10 in one group of tracks and 10–24 in more pronounced
ship tracks. Although the simulated and observed ship tracks cannot
be compared one-to-one since the prescribed ship routes vary in space
from the observations, a comparison in terms of the perturbation in
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as well as the track structure can be made.</p>
      <p>The simulated cloud response in terms of optical thickness in all
simulations containing ship emissions agrees well with
observations. As was done for the observed ship tracks, the simulated
cloud response along the ship tracks can be grouped into the same two
classes. While simulations with a smaller prescribed ship emission
flux (<italic>ship</italic>), or older ship tracks (<italic>ship10_V20</italic>) lead
to a smaller perturbation in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e. 5–10), the remaining
simulations produced ship tracks with a larger cloud response where
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges between 10 and 24 as in the observations.</p>
      <p>Furthermore, the simulations and the observations are nearly identical
in terms of horizontal track extent and length. The only exception
might be <italic>ship</italic>, as the ship track segments where the aerosol
perturbation is sufficient to create a detectable increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
with respect to the background  seem to be underestimated in length
compared to the observations.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>In this study a new approach to study aerosol–cloud interactions and
macroscopic feedbacks in ship tracks has been used. For a particular
case study ship tracks were simulated in a real-case setup with the
regional non-hydrostatic COSMO model for 26 January 2003 and evaluated
against MODIS cloud optical thickness obtained at 12:00 UTC.</p>
      <p>Numerous ship tracks were observed in this region, covered by a
drizzling, optically thin cloud sheet (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) under very clean
conditions with very few accumulation mode background aerosol. Such a
regime had previously been identified as susceptible to aerosol
perturbations, allowing the formation of ship tracks within the cloud
sheet.</p>
      <p>These simulations have shown that a regional model is able to capture key
aspects of ship track formation and to simulate a realistic cloud response.
After reaching cloud base (which was found to take roughly 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>), the
aerosol coated by sulfate begin to interact with the
cloud. Evaluation against observations showed the cloud microphysical
response to be comparable to observations in terms of changes in cloud
droplet number (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn>150</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
effective radius (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Furthermore, all
simulations with ship exhaust displayed at least a doubling of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> with respect to
the background. The comparison of the simulations against
MODIS showed the simulated cloud-radiative response to be realistic.</p>
      <p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The resulting cloud radiative effect is largely determined by the
change in CCN due to the ship emissions. The CCN concentration in turn
is intrinsically linked to the aerosol perturbation within the soluble
Aitken and accumulation modes. These simulations showed the aerosol
size distribution perturbation to be very sensitive to the emission
flux and size. A scaling of the emission mass flux by a factor of 10 had
to be applied to reproduce observed aerosol size distributions near
the source, which defines the size distribution within the entire
exhaust plume and hence the potential CCN perturbation by ship
emissions. While some uncertainty remains with the observations, the dilution of
literature ship emissions onto the grid
scale, which provides a grid-scale mean perturbation to the system,
may lead to a significant underestimation of their potential
effects. However, the performed scaling of the emission fluxes leads to
a considerable overestimation of peak concentrations in
<italic>ship10</italic>. In this manner the simulations highlight the
issues tied to analysing effects of a rapidly microphysically
processed point-source aerosol emission with parameterisations based
on grid-scale mean fields operating at discretised time steps. In order to determine
the magnitude and sensitivity of the emission dilution effect, simulations for a
range of computational resolutions, including LES resolution, would be highly desirable.</p>
      <p>Although global studies are based on fundamentally different ship
emission inventories than those used in this study, they are still
restricted to area-weighted emission fluxes over grid box sizes of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="script">O</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn>100</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Furthermore, given atmospheric residence times of
SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, BC and OC of several days to a week, biases in the predicted
aerosol number perturbation due to ship emissions could introduce
significant uncertainties in radiative forcing estimates. Indeed it
has been shown in global simulations, based on the same aerosol
microphysical parameterisation, that a tenfold upscaling of the
emission inventories did induce significant changes in microphysical
and macrophysical quantities surpassing the background
noise <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="paren.83"/>.</p>
      <p>Besides the microphysical and radiative response, changes in cloud
structure and liquid water content were simulated. The liquid water
content was found to have increased by 50 % in at least 25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
of the ship tracks, which coincided with a cloud base lowering in over
70 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at the early onset of ship track formation. By vertical
mixing of cloud water within the boundary layer and evaporation below
cloud base the condensation level was lowered in the simulations.</p>
      <p>On the whole, these simulations give confidence in the realism of a
multitude of simulated processes occurring predominantly on the
parameterised scale. To further constrain parameterisations which are
widely used in regional and global models using this kind of approach,
a more comprehensive data set would be required. In order to attribute
biases to particular parameterisations (turbulence, cloud and aerosol
microphysics, radiation, shallow convection, etc.) simultaneous
observations of the boundary layer and turbulent structure, ship
emission, background aerosol concentrations and composition as well as
cloud property measurements in and around the ship track would be
needed, most of which were obtained during the Monterey Area
Ship-Track campaign (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="altparen.84"/>).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We wish to thank the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) for
providing Cray XC30 platforms for the simulations of this
study. Furthermore, we thank the COSMO consortium for code access, the
German weather service (DWD) and MeteoSwiss for code maintenance and
setup, as well as C2SM for source code support. In particular we would
like to thank  Dani Lüthi for his help on data handling and
technical support.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: J. Quaas<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?></p></ack><?xmltex \hack{\vspace*{-6mm}}?><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Abdul-Razzak and Ghan(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation 2.
Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Ackerman et al.(1993)Ackerman, Toon, and Hobbs</label><mixed-citation>
Ackerman, A. S., Toon, O. B., and Hobbs, P. V.: Dissipation of marine
stratiform clouds and collapse of the marine boundary layer due to the
depletion of cloud condensation nuclei by clouds, Science, 262, 226–229,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Albrecht(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, cloud microphysics, and fractional cloudiness,
Science, 245, 1227–1230, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Berner et al.(2013)Berner, Bretherton, Wood, and Muhlbauer</label><mixed-citation>Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., and Muhlbauer, A.: Marine boundary layer cloud
regimes and POC formation in a CRM coupled to a bulk aerosol scheme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12549–12572, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12549-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-12549-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Bodas-Salcedo et al.(2011)Bodas-Salcedo, Webb, Bony, Chepfer,
Dufresne, Klein, Zhang, Marchand, Haynes, Pincus, and John</label><mixed-citation>
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J.-L., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y.,
Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.:
COSP: A satellite simulation software for model assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Bott(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Bott, A.: A positive definite advection scheme obtained by nonlinear
renormalization of the advective fluxes, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1006–1015,
1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Chen et al.(2012)Chen, Christensen, Xue, Sorooshian, Stephens, and co authors</label><mixed-citation>Chen, Y.-C., Christensen, M. W., Xue, L., Sorooshian, A., Stephens, G. L.,
Rasmussen, R. M., and Seinfeld, J. H.: Occurrence of lower cloud albedo in
ship tracks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 8223–8235,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-8223-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-8223-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Christensen and Stephens(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Christensen, M. and Stephens, G.: Microphysical and macrophysical responses
of marine stratocumulus polluted by underlying ships: 2. Impacts of haze on
precipitating clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D11203,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014638" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD014638</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Christensen and Stephens(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Christensen, M. and Stephens, G.: Microphysical and macrophysical responses
of marine stratocumulus polluted by underlying ships: evidence of cloud
deepening, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D03201, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017125" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD017125</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Coakley et al.(1987)Coakley, Bernstein, and Durkee</label><mixed-citation>
Coakley, J. A., Bernstein, R. L., and Durkee, P. A.: Effect of ship track
effluents on cloud reflectivity, Science, 237, 1020–1022, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Corbett(2003)</label><mixed-citation>Corbett, J. J.: Updated emissions from ocean shipping, J. Geophys. Res., 108,
4650, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003751" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD003751</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>Dee et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., et al.: The ERA-Interim
reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system,
Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Durkee et al.(2000)Durkee, Noone, and Bluth</label><mixed-citation>
Durkee, P. A., Noone, K. J., and Bluth, R. T.: The Monterey Area Ship Track
Experiment, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2523–2541, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Ferek et al.(1998)Ferek, Hegg, and Hobbs</label><mixed-citation>Ferek, R. F., Hegg, D. A., and Hobbs, P. V.: Measurements of ship-induced
tracks in clouds off the Washington coast, J. Geophys. Res., 103,
23199–23206, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/98JD02121" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD02121</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Foerstner and Doms(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Foerstner, J. and Doms, G.: Runge–Kutta Time Integration and High-Order
Spatial Discretization of Advection – A New Dynamical Core for the LMK,
COSMO, COSMO Newsletter, No. 4, 168–176, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Folini and Wild(2011)</label><mixed-citation>Folini, D. and Wild, M.: Aerosol emissions and dimming/brightening in Europe:
sensitivity studies with ECHAM5-HAM, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D21104,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016227" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016227</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Goren and Rosenfeld(2012)</label><mixed-citation>Goren, T. and Rosenfeld, D.: Satellite observations of ship emissions induced
transitions from broken to closed cell marine stratocumulus over large areas,
J. Geophys. Res., 117, D17206, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017981" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD017981</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Guelle et al.(2001)Guelle, Schulz, Balkanski, and
Dentener</label><mixed-citation>Guelle, W., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., and Dentener, F.: Influence of source
formulation on modeling the atmospheric global distribution of sea salt
aerosol, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 27509–27524, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900249" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001JD900249</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Hobbs et al.(2000)Hobbs, Garrett, Ferek, Strader, Hegg, Frick,
Hoppel, Gasparovic, Russel, Johnson, O'Dowd, Durkee, Nielsen, and
Innis</label><mixed-citation>
Hobbs, P. V., Garrett, T. J., Ferek, R. J., Strader, S. R., Hegg, D. A., Frick, G. M., Hoppel, W. A., Gasparovic, R. F., Russel, L. M., Johnson, D. W.,
O'Dowd, C., Durkee, P. A., Nielsen, K. E., and Innis, G.: Emissions from
ships with respect to their effects on clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 57,
2570–2590, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Hu and Stamnes(1993)</label><mixed-citation>
Hu, Y. X. and Stamnes, K.: An accurate parameterization of the radiative
properties of water clouds suitable for use in climate models, J. Climate, 6,
728–742, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Hudson et al.(2000)Hudson, Garrett, Hobbs, and Strader</label><mixed-citation>
Hudson, J., Garrett, T. J., Hobbs, P. V., and Strader, S. R.: Cloud
condensation nuclei and ship tracks, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2696–2706, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Kazil et al.(2011)Kazil, Wang, Feingold, Clarke, Snider, and Bandy</label><mixed-citation>Kazil, J., Wang, H., Feingold, G., Clarke, A. D., Snider, J. R., and
Bandy, A. R.: Modeling chemical and aerosol processes in the transition from
closed to open cells during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7491–7514,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7491-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7491-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>King et al.(1998)King, Tsay, Platnick, Wang, and Liou</label><mixed-citation>
King, M. D., Tsay, S.-C., Platnick, S. E., Wang, M., and Liou, K.-N.: Cloud
Retrieval Algorithms for MODIS: Optical Thickness, Effective Particle Radius
and Thermodynamic Phase, NASA, No. ATBD-MOD-05, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Kinne et al.(2006)Kinne, Schulz, Textor, Guibert, Balkanski, Bauer, Berntsen, Berglen,
Boucher, Chin, Collins, Dentener, Diehl, Easter, Feichter, Fillmore, Ghan, Ginoux, Gong, Grini,
Hendricks, Herzog, Horowitz, Isaksen, Iversen, Kirkevåg, Kloster, Koch, Kristjansson, Krol,
Lauer, Lamarque, Lesins, Liu, Lohmann, Montanaro, Myhre, Penner, Pitari, Reddy, Seland, Stier,
Takemura, and Tie</label><mixed-citation>Kinne, S., Schulz, M., Textor, C., Guibert, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E.,
Berntsen, T., Berglen, T. F., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Collins, W.,
Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S.,
Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Herzog, M., Horowitz, L.,
Isaksen, I., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Kloster, S., Koch, D.,
Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Lesins, G.,
Liu, X., Lohmann, U., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G.,
Reddy, S., Seland, O., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: An AeroCom
initial assessment – optical properties in aerosol component modules of
global models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1815–1834,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Lack et al.(2009)Lack, Corbett, Onasch, Lerner, Massoli, Quinn,
Bates, Covert, Coffman, Sierau, Herndon, Allan, Baynard, Lovejoy,
Ravishankara, and Williams</label><mixed-citation>Lack, D. A., Corbett, J. J., Onasch, T., Lerner, B., Massoli, P., Quinn, P. K.,
Bates, T. S., Covert, D. S., Coffman, D., Sierau, B., Herndon, S., Allan, J.,
Baynard, T., Lovejoy, E., Ravishankara, A. R., and Williams, E.: Particulate
emissions from commercial shipping: chemical, physical and optical
properties, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D00F04, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011300" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011300</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Lauer et al.(2007)Lauer, Eyring, Hendricks, Jöckel, and Lohmann</label><mixed-citation>Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Jöckel, P., and Lohmann, U.: Global
model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on aerosols, clouds, and
the radiation budget, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5061–5079,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Lin and Leaitch(1997)</label><mixed-citation>
Lin, H. and Leaitch, W. R.: Development of an in-cloud aerosol activation
parameterization for climate modeling, in: Proc. WMO Workshop on Measurements
of Cloud Properties for Forecasts of Weather and Climate, edited by:
Baumgardner, D., and Raga, G., Mexico City, Mexico, 23–27 June 1997,
328–335, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Lohmann(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, U.: Possible aerosol effects on ice clouds via contact nucleation, J.
Atmos. Sci., 59, 647–656, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Lohmann et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>Lohmann U. and Stier P. and Hoose C. and Ferrachat S. and Kloster S. and Roeckner E., and
Zhang J.: Cloud microphysics and aerosol indirect effects in the global climate model ECHAM5-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 3425–3446, 2007, <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><ext-link xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/3425/2007/">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/3425/2007/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Lund et al.(2012)Lund, Eyring, Fuglestvedt, Hendricks, Lauer, Lee,
and Righi</label><mixed-citation>Lund, M. T., Eyring, V., Fuglestvedt, J., Hendricks, J., Lauer, A., Lee, D.,
and Righi, M.: Global-mean temperature change from shipping toward 2050:
improved representation of the indirect aerosol effect in simple climate
models, Environ. Sci. Technol., 46, 8868–8877, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301166e" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es301166e</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>McComiskey et al.(2009)McComiskey, Feingold, Frisch, Turner, Miller,
Chiu, Min, and Ogren</label><mixed-citation>McComiskey, A., Feingold, G., Frisch, A. S., Turner, D. D., Miller, M. A.,
Chiu, J. C., Min, Q., and Ogren, J. A.: An assessment of aerosol-cloud
interactions in marine stratus clouds based on surface remote sensing, J.
Geophys. Res., 114, D09203, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011006</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Moldanová et al.(2009)Moldanová, Fridell, Popovicheva,
Demirdjian, Tishkova, Faccinetto, and Focsa</label><mixed-citation>
Moldanová, J., Fridell, E., Popovicheva, O., Demirdjian, B., Tishkova, V.,
Faccinetto, A., and Focsa, C.: Characterisation of particulate matter and
gaseous emissions from a large ship diesel engine, Atmos. Environ., 43, 2632–2641,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Murphy et al.(2009)Murphy, Agrawal, Sorooshian, Padró, Gates,
Hersey, Welch, Jung, Miller, D. R. Cocker III, Jonsson, Flagan, and
Seinfeld</label><mixed-citation>Murphy, S. M., Agrawal, H., Sorooshian, A., Padró, L. T., Gates, H.,
Hersey, S., Welch, W. A., Jung, H., Miller, J. W., D. R. Cocker III, A. N.,
Jonsson, H. H., Flagan, R. C., and Seinfeld, J.: Comprehensive simultaneous
shipboard and airborne characterization of exhaust from a modern container
ship at sea, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 4626–4640 <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es802413j" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es802413j</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Myhre et al.(2013)Myhre, Shindell, Bréon, Collins, Fuglestvedt, and
co authors</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., et al.: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Nam et al.(2012)Nam, Bony, Dufresne, and Chepfer</label><mixed-citation>Nam, C., Bony, S., Dufresne, J.-L., and Chepfer, H.: The “too few, too
bright” tropical low-cloud problem in CMIP5 models, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
39, L21801, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053421" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL053421</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Nenes and Seinfeld(2003)</label><mixed-citation>Nenes, A. and Seinfeld, J. H.: Parameterization of cloud droplet formation in
global climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4415,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002911" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002911</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Noone et al.(2000)Noone, Johnson, Taylor, Ferek, Garret, Hobbs,
Durkee, Nielson, Platnick, King, Öström, O'Dowd, Smith, Russel, Flagan,
Seinfeld, DeBock, van Grieken, Hudson, Brooks, Gasparovic, and
Pockalny</label><mixed-citation>
Noone, K. J., Johnson, D. W., Taylor, J. P., Ferek, R. J., Garret, T., Hobbs, P. V.,
Durkee, P. A., Nielson, K., Platnick, S., King, M. D., Öström, E.,
O'Dowd, C. D., Smith, M. H., Russel, L. M., Flagan, R. C., Seinfeld, J. H.,
DeBock, L., van Grieken, R., Hudson, J. G., Brooks, I. M., Gasparovic, R. F., and
Pockalny, R. A.: A case study of ship track formation in a
polluted boundary layer, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2748–2764, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Nozawa et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>Nozawa T. and Nagashima T. and Ogura T. and Yokohata T. and Okada N. and Shiogama M.: Climate
Change Simulations With a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere GCM Called the Model for Interdisciplinary
Research on Climate: MIROC, CGER's Supercomputer Monogr. Rep. Ser., Vol. 12, 79 pp., Natl. Inst. for Environ. Stud., Tsukuba, Jpn., available at:
<uri>//www.cger.nies.go.jp/publications/report/i073/I073.pdf</uri>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Partanen et al.(2013)Partanen, Laakso, Schmidt, Kokkola, Kuokkanen, and co authors</label><mixed-citation>Partanen, A. I., Laakso, A., Schmidt, A., Kokkola, H., Kuokkanen, T., Pietikäinen, J.-P.,
Kerminen, V.-M., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Laakso, L., and Korhonen, H.: Climate and air quality
trade-offs in altering ship fuel sulfur content, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12059–12071, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Peters et al.(2011)Peters, Quaas, and Graßl</label><mixed-citation>Peters, K., Quaas, J., and Graßl, H.: A search for large-scale effects of
ship emissions on clouds and radiation in satellite data, J. Geophys. Res.,
116, D24205, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016531" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016531</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Peters et al.(2012)Peters, Stier, Quaas, and Graßl</label><mixed-citation>Peters, K., Stier, P., Quaas, J., and Graßl, H.: Aerosol indirect effects from shipping
emissions: sensitivity studies with the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
12, 5985–6007, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5985-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-5985-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Peters et al.(2014)Peters, Quaas, Stier, and Graßl</label><mixed-citation>Peters, K., Quaas, J., Stier, P., and Graßl, H.: Processes limiting the
ermergence of detectable aerosol indirect effects on tropical warm clouds in
global aerosol-climate model and satellite data, Tellus B, 66, 24054,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v66.24054" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3402/tellusb.v66.24054</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Petzold et al.(2008)Petzold, Hasselbach, Lauer, Baumann, Franke, Gurk, Schlager, and
Weingartner</label><mixed-citation>Petzold, A., Hasselbach, J., Lauer, P., Baumann, R., Franke, K., Gurk, C., Schlager, H., and
Weingartner, E.: Experimental studies on particle emissions from cruising ship, their
characteristic properties, transformation and atmospheric lifetime in the marine boundary
layer, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 2387–2403, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-2387-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-2387-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Platnick et al.(2003)Platnick, King, Ackermann, Menzel, Baum, Riedi,
and Frey</label><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., King, M. D., Ackermann, S. A., Menzel, W. P., Baum, B. A.,
Riedi, J. C., and Frey, R. A.: The MODIS cloud products: algorithms and
examples from Terra, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 41, 459–473,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2002.808301" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2002.808301</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Porch et al.(1999)Porch, Borys, Durkee, Gasparovic, Hooper, Hindman,
and Nielsen</label><mixed-citation>
Porch, W., Borys, R., Durkee, P., Gasparovic, R., Hooper, W., Hindman, E.,
and Nielsen, K.: Observations of ship tracks from ship-based platforms, J.
Appl. Meteorol., 38, 69–81, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Possner et al.(2014)Possner, Zubler, Fuhrer, Lohmann, and
Schär</label><mixed-citation>
Possner, A., Zubler, E., Fuhrer, O., Lohmann, O., and Schär, C.: A case study
in modeling low-lying inversions and stratocumulus cloud cover in the Bay of
Biscay, Weather Forecast., 29, 289–304, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Righi et al.(2011)Righi, Klinger, Eyring, Hendricks, Lauer, and
Petzold</label><mixed-citation>
Righi, M., Klinger, C., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Lauer, A., and Petzold, A.:
Climate impact of biofuels in shipping: global model studies of the aerosol
indirect effect, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 3519–3525, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Ritter and Geleyn(1992)</label><mixed-citation>
Ritter, B. and Geleyn, J. F.: A comprehensive radiation scheme for numerical
weather prediction models with potential applications in climate simulations,
Mon. Weather Rev., 120, 303–325, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Roeckner et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Roeckner E. and Stier P. and Feichter J. and Kloster S. and Esch M. and Fischer-Bruns I.:
Impact of carbonaceous aerosol emissions on regional climate change, 27, 553–571, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Schreier et al.(2007)Schreier, Mannstein, Eyring, and
Bovensmann</label><mixed-citation>Schreier, M., Mannstein, H., Eyring, V., and Bovensmann, H.: Global ship track
distribution and radiative forcing from 1 year of AATSR data, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L17814, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030664" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL030664</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Seifert and Beheng(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A. and Beheng, K. D.: A two-moment cloud microphysics parameterization for
mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 92, 45–66, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Stevens and Feingold(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B. and Feingold, G.: Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and
precipitation in a buffered system, Nature, 461, 607–613, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><label>Stevens et al.(1998)Stevens, Cotton, Feingold, and
Moeng</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B., Cotton, W. R., Feingold, G., and Moeng, C. H.: Large-eddy
simulations of strongly precipitating, shallow, stratocumulus-topped boundary
layers, J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 3616–3638, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Stier et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>Stier, P. and Feichter, J. and Kinne S. and Kloster S. and Vignati E. and Wilson J. and
Ganzeveld L. and Tegen L. and Tegen I. and Werner M. and Balkanski Y. and Schulz M. and Boucher O.
and Minikin A. and Petzold A.: The aerosol climate model ECHAM5-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1125–1156, 2005, <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><ext-link xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/1125/2005/">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/5/1125/2005/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Stier et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>Stier P. and Feichter J. and Roeckner E. and Kloster S. and Esch M.: The evolution of
the global aerosol system in a transient climate simulation from 1860 to 2100, Atmos.
Chem. Phys., 6, 3059–3076, 2006, <?xmltex \hack{\\}?><ext-link xlink:href="https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/3059/2006/">https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/3059/2006/</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><label>Tiedtke(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Tiedtke, M.: A comprehensive mass flux scheme for cumulus parameterization in
large-scale models, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 117, 1779–1800, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Twomey(1974)</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: Pollution and planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 25, 2435–2442,
1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><label>Uppala et al.(2005)Uppala, Kallberg, and Simmons</label><mixed-citation>
Uppala, S. M., Kallberg, P. W., and Simmons, A. J.: The ERA-40 re-analysis,
Q. J. Roy Meteor. Soc., 131, 2961–3012, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Verzijlbergh et al.(2009)Verzijlbergh, Jonker, Heus, and Vilà-Guerau de Arellano</label><mixed-citation>Verzijlbergh, R. A., Jonker, H. J. J., Heus, T., and Vilà-Guerau de Arellano, J.:
Turbulent dispersion in cloud-topped boundary layers, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 1289–1302, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-1289-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-9-1289-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><label>Vignati et al.(2004)Vignati, Wilson, and Stier</label><mixed-citation>Vignati, E., Wilson, J., and Stier, P.: M7: An efficient size-resolved
aerosol microphysics module for large-scale aerosol transport models, J.
Geophys. Res., 109, D22202, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004485" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JD004485</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><label>Vutukuru and Dabdub(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Vutukuru, S. and Dabdub, D.: Modeling the effects of ship emissions on coastal
air quality: a case study of southern California, Atmos. Environ., 42,
3751–3764, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx62"><label>Wang and Feingold(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H. and Feingold, G.: Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle
in marine stratocumulus. Part II: Microphysics and dynamcis of the boundary
region between open and closed cells, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 3257–3275, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx63"><label>Wang et al.(2011)Wang, Rasch, and Feingold</label><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Rasch, P. J., and Feingold, G.: Manipulating marine stratocumulus
cloud amount and albedo: a process-modelling study of
aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in response to injection of cloud
condensation nuclei, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4237–4249,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4237-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4237-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx64"><label>Wicker and Skamarock(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Wicker, L. J. and Skamarock, W. C.: Time-splitting methods for elastic models
using forward time schemes, Mon. Weather Rev., 130, 2088–2097, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx65"><label>Wood(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R.: Review: stratocumulus clouds, Mon. Weather Rev., 140, 2373–2423, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx66"><label>Wood et al.(2011)Wood, Bretherton, Leon, Clarke, Zuidema, Allen, and Coe</label><mixed-citation>Wood, R., Bretherton, C. S., Leon, D., Clarke, A. D., Zuidema, P., Allen, G.,
and Coe, H.: An aircraft case study of the spatial transition from closed to
open mesoscale cellular convection over the Southeast Pacific, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 11, 2341–2370, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2341-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-2341-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx67"><label>Zubler et al.(2011)Zubler, Folini, Lohmann, Lüthi, Mühlbauer,
Pousse-Nottelmann, Schär, and Wild</label><mixed-citation>Zubler, E., Folini, D., Lohmann, U., Lüthi, D., Mühlbauer, A.,
Pousse-Nottelmann, S., Schär, C., and Wild, M.: Implementation and
evaluation of aerosol and cloud microphysics in a regional climate model, J.
Geophys. Res., 116, D02211, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JD014572" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD014572</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
