<?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" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <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 Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-18-1065-2018</article-id><title-group><article-title>Impact of aerosols on ice crystal size</article-title><alt-title>Impact of aerosols on ice crystal size</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Impact of aerosols on ice crystal size}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{B.~Zhao et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>Bin</given-names></name>
          <email>zhaob1206@ucla.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8438-9188</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Liou</surname><given-names>Kuo-Nan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gu</surname><given-names>Yu</given-names></name>
          <email>gu@atmos.ucla.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3412-0794</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Jiang</surname><given-names>Jonathan H.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5929-8951</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Qinbin</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Fu</surname><given-names>Rong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>Lei</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Xiaohong</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Shi</surname><given-names>Xiangjun</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7973-2658</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Su</surname><given-names>Hui</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>He</surname><given-names>Cenlin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7367-2815</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering and Department of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Jet propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Bin Zhao (zhaob1206@ucla.edu) and Yu Gu (gu@atmos.ucla.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>26</day><month>January</month><year>2018</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>18</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>1065</fpage><lpage>1078</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>13</day><month>June</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>26</day><month>July</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>8</day><month>November</month><year>2017</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>11</day><month>December</month><year>2017</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        
        
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract>
    <p id="d1e187">The interactions between aerosols and ice clouds represent one of the largest
uncertainties in global radiative forcing from pre-industrial time to the
present. In particular, the impact of aerosols on ice crystal effective
radius (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is a key parameter determining ice clouds'
net radiative effect, is highly uncertain due to limited and conflicting
observational evidence. Here we investigate the effects of aerosols on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under different meteorological conditions using 9-year
satellite observations. We find that the responses of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
aerosol loadings are modulated by water vapor amount in conjunction with
several other meteorological parameters. While there is a significant
negative correlation between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and aerosol loading in moist
conditions, consistent with the “Twomey effect” for liquid clouds, a strong
positive correlation between the two occurs in dry conditions. Simulations
based on a cloud parcel model suggest that water vapor modulates the relative
importance of different ice nucleation modes, leading to the opposite aerosol
impacts between moist and dry conditions. When ice clouds are decomposed into
those generated from deep convection and formed in situ, the water vapor
modulation remains in effect for both ice cloud types, although the
sensitivities of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosols differ noticeably between them
due to distinct formation mechanisms. The water vapor modulation can largely
explain the difference in the responses of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosol
loadings in various seasons. A proper representation of the water vapor
modulation is essential for an accurate estimate of aerosol–cloud radiative
forcing produced by ice clouds.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e266">Aerosols are known to interact with clouds and hence affect
Earth's radiative balance, which represents the largest uncertainty in global
radiative forcing from pre-industrial time to the present (IPCC, 2013). The
interactions between aerosols and liquid as well as mixed-phase clouds have
been extensively studied (Rosenfeld et al., 2014; Seinfeld et al., 2016; Zhao
et al., 2017b); however, much less attention has been paid to ice clouds,
among which cirrus clouds are globally distributed and present at all
latitudes and seasons with a global cloud cover of about 30 % (Wylie et
al., 1994, 2005). Ice clouds, formed with various types of aerosols serving
as ice nucleating particles (INPs) (Murray et al., 2012; Hoose and
Möhler, 2012), act as a major modulator of global radiation budget and
hence climatic parameters (e.g., temperature and precipitation) by reflecting
solar radiation back to space (solar albedo effect, cooling) and by absorbing
and re-emitting long-wave terrestrial radiation (greenhouse effect, warming);
the balance between the two is dependent on ice cloud properties,
particularly ice crystal size (Liou, 2005; Waliser et al., 2009; Fu and Liou,
1993). Limited estimates (IPCC, 2013; Liu et al., 2009; Fan et al., 2016)
have shown that the global aerosol–cloud radiative forcing produced by ice
clouds can be very significant but highly uncertain, ranging from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.67 to
0.70 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" 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>. For reference purposes, the best estimate of global
aerosol–cloud radiative forcing produced by all cloud types is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.45 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" 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> (90 % confidence interval [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.2, 0 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" 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>])
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Fig. TS.6
in IPCC, 2013).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1066?><p id="d1e327"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The substantial uncertainty in aerosol–ice cloud radiative forcing arises
largely from a poor understanding of the aerosol effects on ice cloud
properties, in particular ice crystal effective radius (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), a
key parameter determining ice clouds' net radiative effect (Fu and Liou,
1993). Very limited observational studies (Jiang et al., 2008, 2011; Su et
al., 2011; Chylek et al., 2006; Massie et al., 2007) have investigated the
response of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosol loadings. Most of them (Jiang et
al., 2008, 2011; Su et al., 2011) found that polluted clouds involved smaller
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than clean clouds, in agreement with the classical “Twomey
effect” for liquid clouds (Twomey, 1977), which states that more aerosols
can result in more and smaller cloud droplets and hence larger cloud albedo.
In contrast, a couple of studies over the Indian Ocean (Chylek et al., 2006;
Massie et al., 2007) reported that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is roughly unchanged
(Massie et al., 2007) or larger (Chylek et al., 2006) during more polluted
episodes. It has been shown that increased aerosols (and thus INPs) lead to
enhanced heterogeneous nucleation, which is associated with larger and fewer
ice crystals as compared to the homogeneous nucleation counterpart (DeMott et
al., 2010; Chylek et al., 2006). However, the reasons for disagreement among
various studies and the controlling factors for different aerosol indirect
effects are yet to be explored; therefore, the sign and magnitude of the
overall aerosol effects remain in question.</p>
      <p id="d1e375">With the objective to resolve the substantial uncertainty, we systematically
investigate the effects of aerosols on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of two types of ice
clouds under different meteorological conditions using 9-year continuous
satellite observations from 2007 to 2015. The study region is East Asia and
its surrounding areas (15–55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 70–135<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E; Fig. S1 in
the Supplement), where aerosol loadings can range from small to extremely
large values in different locations and time periods and aerosol types are
varied (Wang et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2017a).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Data and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Sources of observational data</title>
      <p id="d1e418">We obtain collocated aerosol/cloud measurements primarily from MODIS
(Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) on board the Aqua satellite
and CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite
Observations), as summarized in Table S1 in the Supplement.</p>
      <p id="d1e421">We acquire aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrievals at 550 nm from the level 2
MODIS aerosol product (MYD04, Collection 6) at a resolution of
10 km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 km. The accuracy of AOD (denoted by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) retrievals
has been estimated to be about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) over land and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) over ocean (Levy et al., 2010; Remer et al., 2005).
Similarly, we obtain cloud effective radius (equivalent to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
the case of ice phase) and cloud phase determined by the “cloud optical
property” algorithm from the level 2 MODIS cloud product (MYD06,
Collection 6) at a 1 km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 km resolution (Platnick et al., 2015).
The MYD06 product provides an estimate of the uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
for each pixel, which takes into account a variety of error sources including
(1) instrument calibration, (2) atmospheric corrections, (3) surface spectral
reflectance, and (4) forward radiative transfer model, e.g., the size
distribution assumption (Platnick et al., 2015). The pixel-level
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainties for the samples used in this study are
6.41 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.97 % (standard deviation). In the subsequent analysis
(Sect. 3.1–3.3) we use mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within certain AOD bins, and the
uncertainties are smaller than those for individual pixels. Also, we focus on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes in response to aerosol loading instead of absolute
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values. For these reasons, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainty
ranges are much smaller than the magnitude of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends depicted
in this study (see Figs. 1 and 3). We note that the current uncertainty
evaluation has not considered the assumptions of ice crystal habit (shape),
which will be discussed in Sect. 3.4. Stein et al. (2011) compared the MODIS
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data with the “DARDAR” retrieval product (Delanoe and
Hogan, 2008, 2010) based on CloudSat and CALIPSO measurements. The default
DARDAR retrievals of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are mostly larger than MODIS's values,
which is partly attributable to different assumptions of ice crystal habit in
these two products. When the DARDAR retrievals are adjusted to mimic the
MODIS assumption of ice crystal habit, the joint distribution of individual
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> retrievals has its peak close to the ratio of 1 between the
two products, indicating a much better agreement (Stein et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, the overall shape of the distributions indicates that the MODIS
retrievals mostly lie between 10 and 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the DARDAR
retrievals, corrected for the crystal habit assumption, mostly lie between 10
and 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Hong and Liu (2015) reveal that the large
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values in DARDAR retrievals are predominantly associated with
large cloud optical thickness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3.0, particularly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20). In this
study, however, we focus on ice-only clouds (mostly cirrus clouds), which
typically have an optical thickness less than 5.0 (see Fig. 2). For this
reason, the agreement in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between MODIS and DARDAR could be
better for the type of cloud used in our analysis.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e677">Influence of aerosols on ice crystal effective radius
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of ice clouds modulated by meteorological conditions.
<bold>(a–c)</bold> Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with AOD for different ranges of
<bold>(a)</bold> RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(b)</bold> CAPE, and
<bold>(c)</bold> U200. <bold>(d–f)</bold> Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
<bold>(d)</bold> RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(e)</bold> CAPE, and
<bold>(f)</bold> U200 for different ranges of AOD. <bold>(g–i)</bold> The same as
<bold>(a–c)</bold> but for the profiles with dust aerosols only. The
meteorological parameters and AOD are divided into three and two ranges containing
similar numbers of data points, respectively; the curves for the medium
meteorological range are not shown. The error bars denote the standard errors
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of the bin average, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard
deviation and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the sample number. The influences of other
meteorological parameters are shown in Fig. S2. The total number of samples
used in this figure is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.68</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1065/2018/acp-18-1065-2018-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e831">Accumulative probability distribution of the properties of two
ice cloud types: <bold>(a)</bold> cloud thickness, <bold>(b)</bold> cloud optical
thickness, and <bold>(c)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1065/2018/acp-18-1065-2018-f02.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e860">The CALIPSO satellite flies behind Aqua by about 75 s and carries CALIOP
(Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization), a dual-wavelength
near-nadir polarization lidar (Winker et al., 2007). CALIOP has the
capability to determine the global vertical distribution of aerosols and
clouds. In this study, we make use of the CALIPSO level 2 merged aerosol and
cloud layer product (05kmMLay, version 4.10) with an along-track resolution
of 5 km and a high vertical resolution of 30–60 m below 20.2 km. The
variables we employ for the investigation include aerosol/cloud layer
numbers, layer base temperature, layer top/base height, layer aerosol/cloud
optical depth, feature classification flags (containing the flags of “cloud
type” and “aerosol type”), and two quality control (QC) flags, named the
cloud aerosol<?pagebreak page1067?> discrimination (CAD) score and extinction QC (Atmospheric
Science Data Center, 2012).</p>
      <p id="d1e863">To examine the impact of meteorological conditions on
aerosol–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> relations, we also obtain vertically resolved
pressure, relative humidity (RH), and temperature from<?pagebreak page1068?> the CALIPSO aerosol
profile product (05kmAPro, version 4.10) and middle cloud layer temperature
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mid</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from the CALIPSO 05kmMLay product (version 4.10). The
other meteorological parameters (see Table S1) are collected from the NCEP's
Final Analysis reanalysis data (ds083.2), which are produced at a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution every 6 h. Since Aqua and CALIPSO
satellites overpass the study areas between 05:00 and 08:00 UTC, the ds083.2
datasets at 06:00 UTC are utilized.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Processing of observational data</title>
      <p id="d1e914">In the analysis, we identify a CALIPSO profile layer at 5 km resolution as
ice cloud when its cloud type is cirrus or its layer base temperature
is colder than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. Previous studies (Mace et al., 2001, 2006;
Kramer et al., 2016) have distinguished two major types of ice clouds
characterized by distinct formation mechanisms: ice clouds generated from
deep convection (convection-generated ice clouds) and those generated in situ
due to updraft caused by frontal systems, gravity waves, or orographic waves
(in situ ice clouds). Considering that the impact of aerosols could differ
according to formation processes, we separate these two ice cloud types using
CALIPSO data and a similar approach to that developed by Riihimaki and
McFarlane (2010). First, we group ice cloud profiles at 5 km resolution into
objects using the criteria that neighboring ice cloud profiles must
vertically overlap (the base of the higher cloud layer is lower than the top
of the lower cloud layer) and be separated by no more than one profile
horizontally (i.e., distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 km). Only single-layer ice cloud
objects with valid quality assurance (QA) flags (20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CAD score <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100, Extinction
QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are accepted in this study. We subsequently classify ice cloud
objects into three types, i.e., convection-generated, in situ, and other ice
clouds, according to their connection to other clouds. The criteria to
determine whether two clouds are connected are consistent with those used to
group ice cloud objects; i.e., the neighboring profiles must vertically
overlap and be horizontally separated by no more than 5 km.
Convection-generated ice clouds consist of ice cloud objects that are
connected to larger clouds that include deep convective cloud profiles (i.e.,
the cloud type flag is deep convection). An ice cloud object is
classified as in situ if at least 95 % of a cloud consists of a single
ice cloud object which is at least 25 km (i.e., five profiles) in the
horizontal direction, and none of the remaining profiles are of the deep convection
type. The remaining ice cloud objects are categorized as the “other” type.
We should be cautious that the convection-generated and in situ ice clouds
may not be perfectly separated using the approach described above. For
example, the in situ ice clouds identified here could include
convectively detrained objects, which are no longer connected with their parent
deep convection, and convectively detrained objects whose parent deep
convective clouds do not overlap with CALIPSO's track. The
convection-generated ice clouds may also be contaminated by some in situ
formed ice cloud objects that happen to be spatially connected to deep
convection. However, the classification scheme appears to be reasonable, as
indicated by the distinct properties of the two ice cloud types shown in
Sect. 3.2.</p>
      <p id="d1e969">We then match collocated MODIS/Aqua and CALIPSO observations by averaging
retrieved AOD and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from MODIS level 2 products (MYD04 and
MYD06) within 30 and 5 km radii of each 5 km ice cloud profile from
CALIPSO, respectively. The averaging is done to achieve near-simultaneous
aerosol and cloud measurements since AOD observations from MODIS are missing
under cloudy conditions. As AOD variation has a large spatial length scale of
40–400 km (Anderson et al., 2003), it is averaged within a larger radius
than that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to increase the number of data points with
valid AOD observations. The average <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated based on
the pixels with cloud phase of ice and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainty
smaller than 100 %. Apart from the column AOD, we also need to obtain AOD
of the aerosol layers mixed with ice cloud layers as in situ ice clouds are
primarily affected by aerosols at the ice cloud height. For this purpose, we
use the CALIPSO 05kmMLay product to select the aerosol layers which have
valid QA flags (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> CAD score <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>20, Extinction QC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Huang et al., 2013) and are vertically less than 0.25 km away from the
ice cloud layer following Costantino and Breon (2010). The AOD of these
aerosol layers are averaged within a 30 km radius of ice cloud profiles. The
meteorological parameters from the NCEP datasets (ds083.2) are matched to the
CALIPSO resolution by determining which NCEP grid contains a certain
CALIPSO 5 km profile. Finally, we eliminate profiles with column AOD
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5 to reduce the potential effect of cloud contamination (Wang et
al., 2015).</p>
      <p id="d1e1066">Convection-generated ice clouds are generated by convective updraft
originating from the lower troposphere and are therefore affected by aerosols at
various altitudes, whereas in situ ice clouds are primarily dependent on
aerosols near the cloud height. For this reason, we use column AOD and layer
AOD mixed with ice clouds as proxies for aerosols interacting with
convection-generated and in situ ice clouds, respectively. We also
investigate the overall effect of aerosols on all types of ice clouds. In
this case, column AOD is used as a proxy for aerosol loading affecting ice
clouds following a number of previous studies (Jiang et al., 2011; Massie et
al., 2007; Ou et al., 2009). The rationale is that the MODIS-detected AOD
generally shows a close correlation to the MLS (Microwave Limb
Sounder)-observed CO concentration in ice clouds (Jiang et al., 2008, 2009),
which in turn correlates well with the aerosol loading mixed with clouds in
accordance with both aircraft measurements and atmospheric modeling (Jiang et
al., 2009; Li et al., 2005; Clarke and Kapustin, 2010). After the preceding
screening, about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.73</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.68</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
profiles are used to analyze the relationships between column/layer AOD and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of convection-generated, in situ, and all types of ice
clouds. The<?pagebreak page1069?> available profiles for in situ ice clouds are fewer in number because
aerosols mixed with ice clouds are often optically thin or masked by clouds
and hence may not be fully detected by CALIPSO.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>Cloud parcel model simulation</title>
      <p id="d1e1131">To support the key findings (i.e., the water vapor modulation of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relations) from satellite observations and elucidate
the underlying physical mechanisms, we perform model simulations using a
cloud parcel model, which was originally developed by Shi and Liu (2016) and
updated in this study to incorporate immersion nucleation. The model mimics
formation and evolution of in situ ice clouds in an adiabatically rising air
parcel. The model's governing equations that describe the evolution of
temperature, pressure, and mass mixing ratio, number concentration, and size
of ice crystals can be found in Pruppacher and Klett (1997). The main
microphysical processes considered include homogeneous nucleation and two
modes of heterogeneous nucleation (deposition and immersion nucleation),
depositional growth, sublimation, and sedimentation. The rate of homogeneous
nucleation of supercooled sulfate droplets is calculated based on the water
activity of sulfate solution (Shi and Liu, 2016). The dry sulfate aerosol is
assumed to follow a log-normal size distribution with a geometric mean radius
of 0.02 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The deposition nucleation on externally mixed dust
(deposition INP) and immersion nucleation of coated dust (immersion INP) are
parameterized following the work of Kuebbeler et al. (2014); the critical ice
supersaturation ratios are 10 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K) or 20 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">220</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K)
for the former and 30 % for the latter. Anthropogenic INPs are not
included in the cloud parcel model following recent studies (Shi and Liu,
2016; Kuebbeler et al., 2014). This is because (1) ice nucleation experiments
for black carbon show contradicting results (Hoose and Möhler, 2012), and
(2) ice nucleation parameterizations for anthropogenic aerosol constituents
other than black carbon have not been adequately developed under ice cloud
conditions due to limited experimental data. Also, we find that the
relationships between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and loadings of dust aerosols are
similar to those between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and loadings of all aerosols
(Sect. 3.1). As such, we argue that the general pattern of simulation results
would remain unchanged if more INPs were incorporated. The accommodation
coefficient of water vapor deposition on ice crystals is assumed to be 0.1
(Shi and Liu, 2016). The sedimentation velocity of ice crystals is
parameterized following Ikawa and Saito (1991). The model neglects some ice
microphysical processes such as aggregational growth of ice crystals.
Although aggregational growth can affect the concentration and size of ice
crystals, its effects should be relatively small in terms of the response of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosol loading since this process is not strongly
dependent on aerosols.</p>
      <p id="d1e1213">We conduct two groups of numerical experiments with different available water
amount for ice formation, denoted by initial water vapor mass mixing ratios
(pv). Each group is comprised of 100 sub-groups with initial sulfate number
concentrations increasing linearly from 5 to 500 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
concentration ratios of externally mixed dust (deposition INP), coated dust
(immersion INP), and sulfate (not INP) are prescribed values of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all experiments since INPs represent only 1
in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of ambient particles (Fan et al., 2016). In each
sub-group, we conduct 100 1 h experiments driven by different vertical
velocity spectra following the approach described by Shi and Liu (2016). The
vertical air motions at a 10 s resolution were retrieved from Millimeter Wave
Cloud Radar (MMCR) observations at a site located in the Southern Great
Plains (SGP; 36.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 97.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) for a 6 h period (Shi and
Liu, 2016). For each of the 100 experiments, we randomly sample a 1 h time
windows from the 6 h vertical velocity retrievals, subtract the arithmetical
mean, and adjust the standard deviation to 0.25 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. A constant
large-scale updraft velocity of 0.02 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is subsequently added
to the sampled vertical velocity spectra to drive the parcel model. The initial
pressure and temperature for all experiments are set at 250 hPa and 220 K,
respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e1316">The model assumes that the air parcel has no mass or energy exchange with the
environment except for sedimentation of ice crystals, which is not realistic.
For example, the outburst of homogeneous nucleation in an air parcel can
quickly exhaust supersaturation and take water vapor from surrounding
parcels. To conceptually mimic this process, we have divided the 100
experiments within a sub-group into 10 combinations, each consisting of 10
experiments. It is assumed that the air parcels in the same combination can
exchange water vapor and reach equilibrium. Consequently, the occurrence of
homogeneous nucleation in one parcel will suppress the homogeneous nucleation
in the connected parcels due to the depletion of water vapor.</p>
      <p id="d1e1319">The ice crystal number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at
the end of the experiments are used to construct the aerosol–cloud
relationships. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given aerosol number concentration
(i.e., a sub-group of experiments) is calculated using an arithmetical mean
of the 100 experiments, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated from mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean ice volume: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mean volume/mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Relationships between $R_{\mathrm{ei}}$ and aerosols modulated by
meteorology}?><title>Relationships between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and aerosols modulated by
meteorology</title>
      <p id="d1e1450">In this section we discuss the impact of aerosols on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with
both ice cloud types lumped together, based on satellite data (Fig. 1). The
aerosol effects on individual ice cloud types will be discussed in the next
section. The dashed line in Fig. 1a shows the overall changes in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with AOD. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> generally increases with increasing
AOD for a moderate AOD range (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5), and it decreases slightly for higher AOD.
This<?pagebreak page1070?> relationship is attributable to complex interactions between
meteorological conditions and microphysical processes, which will be detailed
below.</p>
      <p id="d1e1493">Having shown overall response of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to AOD, we investigate
whether the responses are similar under different meteorological conditions.
We plot the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relationships separately for different
ranges of meteorological parameters, as shown in Figs. 1a–c and S2. Included
in the analysis are most meteorological parameters that can potentially
affect ice cloud formation and evolution, including the relative humidity
averaged between 100 and 440 hPa (RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), convective
available potential energy (CAPE) which is an indicator of convective
strength, middle cloud layer temperature (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mid</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), wind speed and
direction at ice cloud height and at surface, vertical velocity below and at
ice cloud height, and vertical wind shear. For some meteorological
parameters, e.g., vertical wind shear and vertical velocity at 300/500 hPa,
the curve shapes are similar for different meteorological ranges. However,
for RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CAPE, and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> component of wind speed at
200 hPa (U200), the curve shapes vary significantly according to different
ranges (Fig. 1a–c). As illustrated by RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CAPE,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases significantly with increasing AOD for high
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 65 %) or CAPE (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 J kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
following the rule of the Twomey effect. In contrast, for low
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 45 %) or CAPE (0 J kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>),
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> generally increases sharply with AOD; an exception is that at
a large AOD range (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5), a further increase in AOD could decrease
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> slightly. To the best of our knowledge, the strong dependency
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relationships on meteorological conditions for ice
clouds has been demonstrated for the first time.</p>
      <p id="d1e1720">These correlations, however, may not be necessarily attributed to aerosols.
It is theoretically possible that certain meteorological parameters lead to
simultaneous changes in both AOD and ice cloud properties and produce a
correlation between these two parameters. To rule out this possibility, we
examine the responses of AOD to the above-mentioned meteorological parameters
(Fig. S3) and find that AOD does not serve as proxy for them since it varies
by less than 0.2 in response to variation in any meteorological parameter.
Furthermore, we bin observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> according to
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CAPE, and U200, for different ranges of AOD
(Fig. 1d–f). Using RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as an example, a larger AOD
corresponds to smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> within the larger RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
range, whereas an increase in AOD enlarges <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> within the smaller RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
range. Similar results are found for CAPE and U200 (Fig. 1d–f),
demonstrating the role of aerosols in altering <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under the same
meteorological conditions. Moreover, the cloud contamination in AOD retrieval
(Kaufman et al., 2005) or aerosol contamination in cloud retrieval (Brennan
et al., 2005) is not likely to lead to observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD
correlations because the retrieval biases cannot explain the opposite
correlations under different meteorological conditions. Therefore, we
conclude that both the positive and negative correlations between AOD and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are primarily attributed to the aerosol effect. This
causality is also supported by numerical simulations using a cloud parcel
model to be described in Sect. 3.4. Furthermore, we find that the three
meteorological parameters which pose the strongest impact on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relationships (RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CAPE, and
U200) are closely correlated with each other, with correlation coefficients
between each two exceeding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value less than 0.01 (Table S2).
In fact, all these three parameters are closely related to the amount of
water vapor available for ice cloud formation. It is obvious that
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is an indicator of water vapor amount. CAPE
represents convective strength and hence water vapor lifted to ice cloud
heights; U200 is the zonal wind at 200 hPa as opposed to the meridional
wind, and denotes the origin of air mass such as moist Pacific Ocean
(negative U200, easterly wind) or dry inland continent (positive U200,
westerly wind). Therefore, water vapor amount is likely a key factor which
modulates the observed impact of aerosols on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1964">The proposed mechanism for the water vapor modulation is that a different water
vapor amount substantially alters the relative significance of different ice
nucleation modes, thereby resulting in different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD
relationships. Specifically, ice crystals form via two primary pathways:
homogeneous nucleation of liquid cloud droplets (or supercooled solution
particles) below about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and heterogeneous nucleation
triggered by INPs (IPCC, 2013; DeMott et al., 2010). INPs possess surface
properties favorable to lowering the ice supersaturation ratio required for
freezing (IPCC, 2013; DeMott et al., 2010); therefore, the onset of
heterogeneous nucleation is generally easier and earlier in rising air
parcels. Under moist conditions (high RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, high
CAPE, or negative U200), an air parcel could experience a longer time duration for
supersaturation development, increasing the odds of exceeding the
supersaturation threshold for homogeneous ice nucleation. Therefore,
homogeneous nucleation dominates in this case, and more aerosols could give
rise to more numerous and smaller ice crystals, which is in connection with
the Twomey effect for liquid clouds. Under dry conditions, however, the
earlier onset of heterogeneous nucleation can strongly compete with and
possibly prevent homogeneous nucleation involving more abundant liquid
droplets or solution particles (IPCC, 2013; DeMott et al., 2010). Therefore,
more aerosols (and hence more INPs) are expected to lead to a higher fraction
of ice crystals produced by heterogeneous nucleation comprising of fewer and
larger ice crystals. This is known as the “negative Twomey effect” as first
described by Kärcher and Lohmann (2003). At a very large AOD range
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5), heterogeneous nucleation dominates, and a further increase in
aerosols would decrease <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to the formation of more smaller
ice crystals. These proposed mechanisms will be supported and elaborated on
using model simulations in Sect. 3.4.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2033">Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of convection-generated and in situ ice
clouds with aerosols. <bold>(a–c)</bold> Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
convection-generated ice clouds with AOD for different ranges of
<bold>(a)</bold> RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(b)</bold> CAPE, and
<bold>(c)</bold> U200. <bold>(d–f)</bold> Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of in situ ice
clouds with layer AOD for different ranges of
<bold>(d)</bold> RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(e)</bold> CAPE, and
<bold>(f)</bold> U200. <bold>(g–i)</bold> The same as <bold>(d–f)</bold> but for the
profiles with dust aerosols only. The meteorological parameters are divided
into three ranges containing similar numbers of data points, and the curves for
the medium range are not shown. Note that we use column AOD and layer AOD
mixed with ice clouds as proxies for aerosols interacting with
convection-generated and in situ ice clouds, respectively. The definition of
error bars is the same as in Fig. 1. The total numbers of samples used for
convection-generated and in situ ice clouds are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.73</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1065/2018/acp-18-1065-2018-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1071?><p id="d1e2171">Here an inherent assumption is that INP concentration is roughly proportional
to, or at least positively correlated with AOD. Considering that INPs only
account for a small fraction of ambient aerosols, we may not take this
assumption for granted. Here we plot the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relations using
only the cases in which the aerosol type (a flag contained in the feature
classification flags of CALIPSO) is dust (Fig. 1g–i), and find that the
water modulation effect is very similar to the preceding results (i.e.,
Fig. 1a–c). In addition to column AOD, we also find similar dependences of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on layer AOD (mixed with in situ ice clouds) for all aerosols
and for dust only (see Fig. 3d–i). Since specific components of dust
aerosols have been known as effective INPs (Murray et al., 2012; Hoose and
Möhler, 2012), the similar <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relations of dust and of
all aerosols support the proposed mechanisms for water vapor
modulation to some extent.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{$R_{\mathrm{ei}}$--aerosol relationships for two types of ice clouds}?><title><inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relationships for two types of ice clouds</title>
      <p id="d1e2224">Considering that distinct formation mechanisms of convection-generated and
in situ ice clouds may lead to different aerosol effects, we distinguish
these two ice cloud types based on their connection to deep convection
(Sect. 2.2). In the study region, the convection-generated, in situ, and
other ice clouds account for 44.9, 52.4, and 2.7 % of all ice cloud
profiles, respectively. Figure 2 illustrates the accumulative probability
distribution of cloud thickness, cloud optical thickness (COT), and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the two ice cloud types. The cloud thickness and COT of
convection-generated ice clouds are remarkably larger than those of in situ
ice clouds because more water is transported to the upper troposphere in the
formation process of the former type, consistent with numerous aircraft
measurement results (e.g.,<?pagebreak page1072?> Kramer et al., 2016; Luebke et al., 2016;
Muhlbauer et al., 2014). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of convection-generated ice
clouds is slightly larger than that of in situ ice clouds, which has also
been reported in a number of aircraft campaigns (Luebke et al., 2016; Kramer
et al., 2016). The larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in convection-generated ice clouds
is attributed to larger water amount and the fact that they are produced by
convection emerging from lower altitude. Below the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C
isotherm, ice crystals stem only from heterogeneous nucleation, which tends
to produce larger ice crystals compared to the homogeneous nucleation
counterpart (Luebke et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e2276">Figure 3 shows the impact of aerosols on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under different
meteorological conditions for convection-generated and in situ ice clouds,
respectively. As described in Sect. 2.2, we use column AOD and layer AOD
mixed with ice clouds as proxies of aerosols interacting with
convection-generated and in situ ice clouds, respectively. The most
impressive feature from these figures is that the meteorology modulation
remains in effect for either of the two ice cloud types, such that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> generally decreases with AOD under high
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/high CAPE/negative U200 conditions, whereas the
reverse is true under low RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/low CAPE/positive U200
conditions. Similar to Sect. 3.1, we also demonstrate that the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relationships are primarily attributed to the
aerosol effect by illustrating the role of aerosols in altering <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
under the nearly constant meteorological conditions (Fig. S4). For example, a
larger AOD is associated with a smaller <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> within the larger RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
range, while an increase in AOD leads to a larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> within the smaller RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
range. These results illustrate that the meteorology modulation of aerosol
effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is valid regardless of ice cloud formation
mechanisms.</p>
      <p id="d1e2460">A closer look at Fig. 3 shows that noted differences exist between the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relationships for the two ice cloud types. For
convection-generated ice clouds, a weak negative correlation (but that is still
statistically significant at the 0.01 level) between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and AOD
is found under moist conditions, while a strong positive correlation is found
under dry conditions. Note that at a large AOD range (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5) under dry
conditions, a further increase in AOD could slightly reduce <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
because of the Twomey effect when heterogeneous nucleation prevails. For
in situ ice clouds, however, weaker positive and stronger negative
correlations are shown under dry and moist conditions, respectively. As a
result, overall <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> slightly increases with aerosol loading for
convection-generated ice clouds, but it slightly decreases for in situ clouds.</p>
      <p id="d1e2514">These differences are again linked to the distinct formation mechanisms of
the two ice cloud types. As the formation mechanism of convection-generated
ice clouds is quite complex, we first briefly review major pathways of ice
crystal formation in convection-generated clouds. On the one hand, ice crystals
are produced by heterogeneous freezing of liquid droplets at temperatures
larger than about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C or possibly by homogeneous freezing of
liquid droplets at about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C (Kramer et al., 2016). The ice
crystals are then lifted to the temperature range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and
are considered to be ice clouds (Kramer et al., 2016). On the other hand, an
additional freezing of solution particles (in contrast to liquid droplets in
the former case) may occur in the presence of “preexisting ice” if the
updraft is sufficiently strong. The freezing mechanism is likely homogeneous
nucleation since INPs have already been consumed (Kramer et al., 2016). Such
additional freezing events do not occur easily and hence make less
important contributions to ice crystal budget (Luebke et al., 2016) since
the preexisting ice suppresses supersaturation and prevents the threshold
for homogeneous nucleation from being reached (Shi et al., 2015). In this study,
“homogeneous nucleation” refers to the freezing of liquid droplets near the
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C isotherm as well as the freezing of solution particles
below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The former could be important for ice formation
because any liquid droplets would be homogeneously nucleated when they are
lifted to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C isotherm. Evidence for homogeneous droplet
freezing has been frequently observed in deep convective clouds and
convection-generated cirrus clouds (Twohy and Poellot, 2005; Heymsfield et
al., 2005; Rosenfeld and Woodley, 2000; Choi et al., 2010). In particular,
liquid droplets are frequently observed to supercool to temperatures
approaching <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and even below, and at slightly colder
temperature only ice is found, which serves as strong evidence for
homogeneous droplet freezing (Rosenfeld and Woodley, 2000; Choi et
al., 2010). Even if the occurrence frequency of homogeneous droplet freezing
is low, its contribution to ice number concentration and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may
still be substantial in view of the fact that numerous ice crystals can be
produced in a single homogeneous nucleation event.</p>
      <p id="d1e2650">Obviously, convection-generated ice clouds are influenced by aerosols at
various heights, which presumably contain many more INPs than the thin upper
tropospheric aerosol layers in the case of in situ ice clouds. In addition,
the heterogeneously formed ice crystals in convective clouds are able to grow
before being lifted to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C isotherm where homogeneous
nucleation bursts, giving rise to a larger difference between the ice crystal
sizes produced by heterogeneous and homogeneous nucleation as compared to
in situ ice clouds. For these reasons, under dry conditions, the increase in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with aerosol loading, which is due to the transition from
homogeneous-dominated to heterogeneous-dominated regimes, would be much more
pronounced for convection-generated ice clouds.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e2682">Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with AOD and the probability distribution
of selected meteorological parameters as a function of season.
<bold>(a–c)</bold> Changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with AOD as a function of season
for <bold>(a)</bold> all ice clouds, <bold>(b)</bold> convection-generated ice
clouds, and <bold>(c)</bold> in situ ice clouds. <bold>(d–f)</bold> The probability
distribution of <bold>(d)</bold> RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(e)</bold> CAPE,
and <bold>(f)</bold> U200 as a function of season. Definitions of season are as
follows: Winter – December, January, and February; Spring – March, April,
and May; Summer – June, July, and August; Fall – September, October, and
November. The definition of error bars is the same as in Fig. 1. The total
numbers of samples used are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.68</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(a, d–f)</bold>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.73</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(b)</bold>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<bold>(c)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1065/2018/acp-18-1065-2018-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2810">In moist conditions, homogeneous nucleation could dominate for both ice cloud
types as described in Sect. 3.1, but the mass fraction of homogeneously
formed ice crystals is smaller for convection-generated ice clouds than that
for in situ ice clouds, leading to a weaker decline in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
aerosols. Alternatively, for convection-generated ice clouds, ice
multiplication, a microphysical process in which collision between ice
particles and large supercooled droplets rapidly<?pagebreak page1073?> produces many secondary ice
particles in strong updrafts (Lawson et al., 2015; Koenig, 1965, 1963), could
also play a remarkable role in ice formation. Its role could be important
only under moist conditions where cloud droplets may grow to large sizes
required for ice multiplication (Lawson et al., 2015; Koenig, 1965, 1963).
The onset of ice multiplication may suppress or even prevent homogeneous
nucleation from occurring. In the situation dominated by ice multiplication, the
relatively flat response of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to AOD in the case of
convection-generated ice clouds can also be explained since ice
multiplication is supposed to be stronger at lower AODs, which favors the
formation of large cloud droplets. Whether the ice formation under moist
conditions is dominated by homogeneous nucleation or ice multiplication is
clearly dependent on environmental conditions such as updraft velocity, water
vapor, cloud height and thickness, etc.; this is a subject requiring further research.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Seasonal variations in $R_{\mathrm{ei}}$--aerosol relationships}?><title>Seasonal variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relationships</title>
      <p id="d1e2853">Furthermore, we find that the meteorological modulation can largely explain
differences in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relationships as a function of season.
Figure 4a shows that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relationships are dramatically
different associated with season, such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases
significantly with increasing AOD in summer (June, July, and August), while
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases rapidly in winter (December, January, and
February). Figure 4d–f illustrate the probability distribution functions
(PDFs) of RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CAPE, and U200 in different seasons
(the area under any PDF equals 1.0). The overlapping area of PDFs in summer
and winter represents the degree of difference in meteorological conditions
between these two seasons. We find that meteorological conditions are
significantly distinct in summer and winter in terms of
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, CAPE, and U200, as indicated by relatively
small overlapping areas (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6) for these three parameters. The
RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and CAPE tend to be higher, and U200 tends to be
more negative in summer. Moreover, the shapes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD curves
in summer and winter highly resemble those under
high-RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/high-CAPE/negative-U200 and
low-RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>/low-CAPE/positive-U200 conditions,
respectively (see Fig. 1a–c), which demonstrates that the discrepancy in
meteorological conditions between winter and summer can, to a large extent,
explain the distinct <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–AOD relationships in these two seasons.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p id="d1e3018">Simulated changes in <bold>(a)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<bold>(b)</bold> ice crystal number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">i</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the
fraction of ice crystal number produced by heterogeneous nucleation (het.) as
a function of the total aerosol number concentration. Simulations are
conducted for two initial water vapor mass mixing ratios (pv), an indicator
of available water amount for ice formation. The ratios of externally mixed
dust (deposition INP), coated dust (immersion INP), and sulfate (not INP) are
prescribed values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in all experiments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/18/1065/2018/acp-18-1065-2018-f05.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3078">With regard to different ice cloud types, the percentages of ice cloud
profiles that are the convection-generated type are 38.2, 48.1, 51.4, and
39.1 % in winter, spring, summer, and fall, respectively. The
corresponding percentages for in situ ice clouds are 57.0, 49.6, 47.0, and
58.2 %, respectively. Figure 4b and c show that, for both ice cloud
types, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol curves in summer and winter are largely
similar to those under moist and dry conditions (Fig. 3), indicating that the
seasonal variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relations for both ice cloud
types are largely attributable to the meteorology<?pagebreak page1074?> modulation. For
convection-generated ice clouds, in winter, spring and fall, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
generally increases when AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5, characteristic of homogeneous
nucleation being overtaken by heterogeneous nucleation, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
decreases slightly when AOD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 in accordance with heterogeneous
nucleation and increasing INP concentrations. In summer, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
shows a weak decreasing trend with AOD, which could be explained by the
domination of homogeneous nucleation or ice multiplication as described in
Sect. 3.2. For in situ ice clouds, a sharp decline in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
AOD is observed in summer, attributed to the Twomey effect when
homogeneous nucleation prevails. The trends in other seasons are rather weak
(although an increase is noticed in winter at low layer AOD). A probable
reason is that each season consists of varying meteorological conditions
(Fig. 4d–f). As shown in Fig. 3d–f, the decreasing trends in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under moist conditions are strong, while the increasing
trends under dry conditions are relatively weak. Even if the occurrence
frequency of dry conditions is large in a season, say winter, the integration
of all meteorological conditions may still yield a relatively flat
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relationship. Another possible reason is that the
correlation of INP concentration and layer AOD could be weak in some physical
conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Modeling support for the water vapor modulation</title>
      <p id="d1e3190">We have shown that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relationships are modulated
by meteorological conditions, particularly water vapor amount. To support the
observed relationships and our proposed physical mechanisms, we perform model
simulations as described in Sect. 2.3 and summarize the results in Fig. 5.</p>
      <p id="d1e3204">Figure 5a reveals that the simulated patterns of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol
relationships under different water vapor amounts agree fairly well with the
corresponding observed patterns (Fig. 1a–c). Specifically, with an adequate
water vapor supply (pv <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 103 ppm), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases
significantly with aerosol concentrations (Twomey effect). Under dry
conditions (pv <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 78 ppm), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases noticeably with
small to moderate aerosol concentrations (negative Twomey effect) and
decreases slightly with further aerosol increase. A deeper analysis of the
simulation results supports our proposed mechanism (Sect. 3.1) that the
competition between different ice nucleation modes is the key to explain the
water vapor modulation. With an adequate water vapor supply
(pv <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 103 ppm), the onset of deposition and immersion nucleation
consumes only a small fraction of water vapor due to the small INP
population. Considerable supersaturation remains. After further updraft
movement, homogeneous nucleation is triggered and occurs spontaneously over a
higher and narrow ice supersaturation range (140–160 %). Therefore,
homogeneous nucleation acts as the dominant ice formation pathway, as
indicated by the very small number fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %) of
heterogeneously formed ice crystals, shown in Fig.  5b. In this case, more
aerosols are associated with the formation of more numerous and smaller ice
crystals, consistent with the simulation results of Liu and Penner (2005).
With an inadequate water vapor supply (pv <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 78 ppm), Fig. 5b reveals
that the number fraction of heterogeneously formed ice crystals increases
dramatically from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 % to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 95 % when aerosol number
concentrations increase from 5 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 300 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (the INP number
concentrations increase proportionally). Obviously, the occurrence of
heterogeneous nucleation could consume a considerable fraction of water vapor
such that the remaining supersaturation is quite low and would require
extremely strong updraft to uphold the homogeneous nucleation threshold. When
aerosol loading increases, homogeneous nucleation is gradually suppressed and
reduced to a minimum. Since the outburst of homogeneous nucleation generally
produces more ice crystals at a smaller size compared with the heterogeneous
counterpart, an increasing fraction of heterogeneous nucleation would result
in fewer ice crystals with a larger average size (negative Twomey effect).
At larger aerosol loading (300–500 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), a further aerosol increase
slightly reduces <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in accordance with heterogeneous nucleation
and the Twomey effect (all INPs are consumed in this aerosol
concentration range).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1075?><p id="d1e3333">The current cloud parcel model simulates the environmental conditions and
physical processes for in situ ice clouds. For convection-generated ice
clouds, the competition between homogeneous and heterogeneous nucleation may
explain the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–aerosol relations, especially under dry
conditions; however, the formation of this ice cloud type involves additional
complex physical processes. As described in Sect. 3.2, ice multiplication,
together with heterogeneous nucleation, may play an important role and
dominate the ice formation in moist conditions. Furthermore, ice crystals in
convection-generated ice clouds are formed primarily by the freezing of liquid
droplets rather than nucleation on solution particles. The simulation of the
aerosol impact on convection-generated ice clouds calls for more
sophisticated models and future investigations.</p>
      <p id="d1e3347">As a simplified model, the simulation results of the cloud parcel model may
not be quantitatively compared with the observational data. In satellite data
analysis, we used column/layer AOD and RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (or CAPE,
U200) as proxies for aerosol loading related to ice clouds and overall
available water amount in the upper atmosphere, respectively. However, the
cloud parcel model only tracks the aerosol number concentration and water
vapor within a single air parcel. It is clear that a direct and quantitative
comparison between satellite observations and model results requires
the development of a 3-D atmospheric model and analysis, a difficult task for further
investigation in the future. Although the indices are not exactly the same,
we submit that the simulated dependency of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on aerosols could
be used to qualitatively interpret the observed relationships because the
indices used in satellite analysis (AOD and RH<inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">440</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">hPa</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
parcel model (aerosol number concentration and water vapor mixing ratio) are
closely correlated with each other and the meteorological parameters
and aerosol concentration ranges used in the simulations are representative
of typical in situ ice clouds.</p>
      <p id="d1e3396">Finally, a factor that could potentially induce changes in
satellite-retrieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> but has not been considered is the habit
of ice crystals. Based on previous studies (Bailey and Hallett, 2009; Lawson
et al., 2006; Lynch et al., 2002), the habit of ice crystals is dependent on
a number of factors, among which the most important one is temperature,
followed by ice supersaturation ratio. In this study we focus on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes with aerosol loading, for which temperature does not
appear to have a noticeable effect. For supersaturation ratio, the formation of
ice crystals under moist conditions is dominated by homogeneous nucleation;
therefore, the ice supersaturation ratio surrounding ice crystals is usually
very low and the ice habit is not likely to change significantly with aerosol
loading. Under drier conditions, however, heterogeneous nucleation gradually
takes over homogeneous nucleation with aerosol loading increase.
Subsequently, the supersaturation ratio surrounding ice crystals would become
higher, possibly leading to changes in ice crystal habit. Considering that a
single habit (i.e., aggregated column) is assumed in the Collection 6 MODIS
retrieval algorithm (Platnick et al., 2015), ice habit changes could possibly
induce changes in the satellite-retrieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, this
retrieval bias should not change our major conclusion about the aerosol
impact on ice crystal size, which has been supported by the cloud parcel
modeling used in this study. The quantitative assessment of the impact of ice
crystal habit on satellite retrievals of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a very
complicated and difficult task that merits further study.</p><?xmltex \hack{\vspace{-4mm}}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions and implications</title>
      <p id="d1e3452">In this study, we investigate the
effects of aerosols on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under different meteorological
conditions using 9-year satellite observations. We find that the responses of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosol loadings are modulated by water vapor amount in
conjunction with several other meteorological parameters, and the responses vary from a
significant negative correlation (Twomey effect) to a strong positive
correlation (negative Twomey effect). Simulations using a cloud parcel
model indicate that the water vapor modulation works primarily by altering
the relative importance of different ice nucleation modes. The water vapor
modulation holds true for both convection-generated and in situ ice clouds,
though the sensitivities of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosols differ noticeably
between these two ice cloud types due to distinct formation mechanisms. The
water vapor modulation can largely explain the different responses of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to aerosol loadings in various seasons.</p>
      <p id="d1e3499"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a key parameter determining the relative significance of
the solar albedo (cooling) effect and the infrared greenhouse (warming)
effect of ice clouds; the variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could change the sign
of ice clouds' net radiative effect (Fu and Liou, 1993). Aerosols have strong
and intricate effects on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through their indirect effect. We
provide the first and direct evidence that the competition between the Twomey
effect and negative Twomey effect is controlled by certain meteorological
parameters, primarily water vapor amount. Consequently, the first aerosol
indirect forcing, defined as the radiative forcing due to aerosol-induced
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ei</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under a constant ice water content (IPCC, 2013;
Penner et al., 2011), would change from positive to negative between high and
low RH ranges, implying that the water vapor modulation could play an
important role in determining the sign, magnitude, and probably seasonal and
regional variations of aerosol–ice cloud radiative forcings. An adequate and
accurate representation of this modulation in climate models will undoubtedly
induce changes in the magnitude and sign of the current estimate of
aerosol–ice cloud radiative forcing. Finally, although this study focuses on
East Asia, we anticipate that the present findings might be generalized to
other regions as well in view of the fact that the aerosol loadings in East
Asia usually span a larger range than other regions due to substantial
emissions (Zhao et al., 2017a; Wang et al., 2014) and that the aerosol
effects on ice cloud properties are particularly pronounced at low and
moderate aerosol loadings (Figs. 1, 3, 4).</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability">

      <p id="d1e3549">The data that are needed to evaluate the results and
conclusions are provided in the main text and in the Supplement.
Additional related data will be available upon request.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3552">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1065-2018-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1065-2018-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="competinginterests">

      <p id="d1e3561">The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3567">Research work contained in this paper has been supported by NSF grants AGS
1660587 and 1701526, and NASA ROSES ACMAP, CCST, and TASNPP grants. Xiaohong
Liu's work is supported by the Climate Model Development and Validation
Activity funded by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in the
US Department of Energy Office of Science. We also acknowledge the support of
the Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering at the
University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, under contract with
NASA.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: Qiang Fu  <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Anderson, T. L., Charlson, R. J., Winker, D. M., Ogren, J. A., and Holmen,
K.: Mesoscale variations of tropospheric aerosols, J. Atmos. Sci., 60,
119–136,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0119:Mvota&gt;2.0.Co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0119:Mvota&gt;2.0.Co;2</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Atmospheric Science Data Center: CALIPSO Quality Statements Lidar Level 2
Cloud and Aerosol Layer Products Version Releases: 3.01, 3.02, available at:
<uri>https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/calipso/Quality_Summaries/CALIOP_L2LayerProducts_3.01.html</uri>
(last access: 1 October 2016), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bailey, M. P. and Hallett, J.: A Comprehensive Habit Diagram for Atmospheric
Ice Crystals: Confirmation from the Laboratory, AIRS II, and Other Field
Studies, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 2888–2899, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jas2883.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009jas2883.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Brennan, J. I., Kaufman, Y. J., Koren, I., and Li, R. R.: Aerosol-cloud
interaction-misclassification of MODIS clouds in heavy aerosol, IEEE
T. Geosci. Remote, 43, 911–915, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/Tgrs.2005.844662" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/Tgrs.2005.844662</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Choi, Y. S., Lindzen, R. S., Ho, C. H., and Kim, J.: Space observations of
cold-cloud phase change, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 11211–11216,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006241107" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1006241107</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Chylek, P., Dubey, M. K., Lohmann, U., Ramanathan, V., Kaufman, Y. J.,
Lesins, G., Hudson, J., Altmann, G., and Olsen, S.: Aerosol indirect effect
over the Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06806,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl025397" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005gl025397</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Clarke, A. and Kapustin, V.: Hemispheric aerosol vertical profiles:
Anthropogenic impacts on optical depth and cloud nuclei, Science, 329,
1488–1492, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188838" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1188838</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Costantino, L. and Breon, F. M.: Analysis of aerosol-cloud interaction from
multi-sensor satellite observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L11801,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL041828</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Delanoe, J. and Hogan, R. J.: A variational scheme for retrieving ice cloud
properties from combined radar, lidar, and infrared radiometer, J. Geophys.
Res., 113, D07204, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009000" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009000</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Delanoe, J. and Hogan, R. J.: Combined CloudSat-CALIPSO-MODIS retrievals of
the properties of ice clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00H29,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012346" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD012346</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>DeMott, P. J., Prenni, A. J., Liu, X., Kreidenweis, S. M., Petters, M. D.,
Twohy, C. H., Richardson, M. S., Eidhammer, T., and Rogers, D. C.: Predicting
global atmospheric ice nuclei distributions and their impacts on climate,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 11217–11222, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910818107" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0910818107</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Fan, J. W., Wang, Y., Rosenfeld, D., and Liu, X. H.: Review of Aerosol–Cloud
Interactions: Mechanisms, Significance, and Challenges, J. Atmos. Sci., 73,
4221–4252, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Fu, Q. and Liou, K. N.: Parameterization of the Radiative Properties of
Cirrus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 50, 2008–2025,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050&lt;2008:Potrpo&gt;2.0.Co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050&lt;2008:Potrpo&gt;2.0.Co;2</ext-link>,
1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Heymsfield, A. J., Miloshevich, L. M., Schmitt, C., Bansemer, A., Twohy, C.,
Poellot, M. R., Fridlind, A., and Gerber, H.: Homogeneous ice nucleation in
subtropical and tropical convection and its influence on cirrus anvil
microphysics, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 41–64, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-3360.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jas-3360.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Hong, Y. L. and Liu, G. S.: The Characteristics of Ice Cloud Properties
Derived from CloudSat and CALIPSO Measurements, J. Climate, 28, 3880–3901,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00666.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli-d-14-00666.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Hoose, C. and Möhler, O.: Heterogeneous ice nucleation on atmospheric
aerosols: a review of results from laboratory experiments, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 9817–9854, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9817-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-9817-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Huang, L., Jiang, J. H., Tackett, J. L., Su, H., and Fu, R.: Seasonal and
diurnal variations of aerosol extinction profile and type distribution from
CALIPSO 5-year observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 4572–4596,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50407" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50407</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Ikawa, M. and Saito, K.: Description of a Non-hydrostatic Model Developed at
the Forecast Research Department of the MRI, Meteorological Research
Institute, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, available at:
<uri>http://www.mri-jma.go.jp/Publish/Technical/DATA/VOL_28/28_en.html</uri> (last
access: 30 June 2017), 1991.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K.,
Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and
Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 1535 pp., 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Schoeberl, M. R., Massie, S. T., Colarco, P., Platnick,
S., and Livesey, N. J.: Clean and polluted clouds: Relationships among
pollution, ice clouds, and precipitation in South America, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 35, L14804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gl034631" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008gl034631</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1077?><ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Massie, S. T., Colarco, P. R., Schoeberl, M. R., and
Platnick, S.: Aerosol–CO relationship and aerosol effect on ice cloud
particle size: Analyses from Aura Microwave Limb Sounder and Aqua Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer observations, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
D20207, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd012421" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009jd012421</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Zhai, C., Massie, S. T., Schoeberl, M. R., Colarco, P.
R., Platnick, S., Gu, Y., and Liou, K.-N.: Influence of convection and
aerosol pollution on ice cloud particle effective radius, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
11, 457–463, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-457-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-457-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Kärcher, B. and Lohmann, U.: A parameterization of cirrus cloud
formation: Heterogeneous freezing, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4402,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003220" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002jd003220</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Kaufman, Y. J., Koren, I., Remer, L. A., Rosenfeld, D., and Rudich, Y.: The
effect of smoke, dust, and pollution aerosol on shallow cloud development
over the Atlantic Ocean, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 11207–11212,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505191102" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.0505191102</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Koenig, L. R.: The glaciating behavior of small cumulonimbus clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci., 20, 29–47,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020&lt;0029:tgbosc&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020&lt;0029:tgbosc&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>,
1963.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Koenig, L. R.: Drop freezing through drop breakup, J. Atmos. Sci., 22,
448–451,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1965)022&lt;0448:dftdb&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1965)022&lt;0448:dftdb&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>,
1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Krämer, M., Rolf, C., Luebke, A., Afchine, A., Spelten, N., Costa, A.,
Meyer, J., Zöger, M., Smith, J., Herman, R. L., Buchholz, B., Ebert, V.,
Baumgardner, D., Borrmann, S., Klingebiel, M., and Avallone, L.: A
microphysics guide to cirrus clouds – Part 1: Cirrus types, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 16, 3463–3483, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3463-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-3463-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Kuebbeler, M., Lohmann, U., Hendricks, J., and Kärcher, B.: Dust ice
nuclei effects on cirrus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 3027–3046,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3027-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-3027-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Lawson, R. P., Baker, B., Pilson, B., and Mo, Q. X.: In situ observations of
the microphysical properties of wave, cirrus, and anvil clouds. Part II:
Cirrus clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 63, 3186–3203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jas3803.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jas3803.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Lawson, R. P., Woods, S., and Morrison, H.: The Microphysics of Ice and
Precipitation Development in Tropical Cumulus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 72,
2429–2445, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-d-14-0274.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jas-d-14-0274.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Mattoo, S., Ichoku, C., Kahn, R.,
and Eck, T. F.: Global evaluation of the Collection 5 MODIS dark-target
aerosol products over land, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10399–10420,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Li, Q. B., Jiang, J. H., Wu, D. L., Read, W. G., Livesey, N. J., Waters, J.
W., Zhang, Y. S., Wang, B., Filipiak, M. J., Davis, C. P., Turquety, S., Wu,
S. L., Park, R. J., Yantosca, R. M., and Jacob, D. J.: Convective outflow of
South Asian pollution: A global CTM simulation compared with EOS MLS
observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14826, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl022762" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005gl022762</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Liou, K. N.: Cirrus clouds and climate in McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science
and Technology, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, USA, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Liu, X. H. and Penner, J. E.: Ice nucleation parameterization for global
models, Meteorol. Z., 14, 499–514, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2005/0059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1127/0941-2948/2005/0059</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Liu, X. H., Penner, J. E., and Wang, M. H.: Influence of anthropogenic
sulfate and black carbon on upper tropospheric clouds in the NCAR CAM3 model
coupled to the IMPACT global aerosol model, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D03204,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010492" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008jd010492</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Luebke, A. E., Afchine, A., Costa, A., Grooß, J.-U., Meyer, J., Rolf, C.,
Spelten, N., Avallone, L. M., Baumgardner, D., and Krämer, M.: The origin
of midlatitude ice clouds and the resulting influence on their microphysical
properties, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5793–5809,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5793-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-5793-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Lynch, D. K., Sassen, K., Starr, D., and Stephens, G.: Cirrus, Oxford
University Press, New York, USA, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Mace, G. G., Clothiaux, E. E., and Ackerman, T. P.: The composite
characteristics of cirrus clouds: Bulk properties revealed by one year of
continuous cloud radar data, J. Climate, 14, 2185–2203,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2185:tccocc&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2185:tccocc&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Mace, G. G., Benson, S., and Vernon, E.: Cirrus clouds and the large-scale
atmospheric state: Relationships revealed by six years of ground-based data,
J. Climate, 19, 3257–3278, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3786.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jcli3786.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Massie, S. T., Heymsfield, A., Schmitt, C., Muller, D., and Seifert, P.:
Aerosol indirect effects as a function of cloud top pressure, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, D06202, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007383" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007383</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Muhlbauer, A., Ackerman, T. P., Comstock, J. M., Diskin, G. S., Evans, S. M.,
Lawson, R. P., and Marchand, R. T.: Impact of large-scale dynamics on the
microphysical properties of midlatitude cirrus, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
3976–3996, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020035" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020035</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Murray, B. J., O'Sullivan, D., Atkinson, J. D., and Webb, M. E.: Ice
nucleation by particles immersed in supercooled cloud droplets, Chem. Soc.
Rev., 41, 6519–6554, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c2cs35200a" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/c2cs35200a</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Ou, S. S. C., Liou, K. N., Wang, X. J., Hansell, R., Lefevre, R., and Cocks,
S.: Satellite remote sensing of dust aerosol indirect effects on ice cloud
formation, Appl. Optics, 48, 633–642, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.48.000633" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.48.000633</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Penner, J. E., Xu, L., and Wang, M. H.: Satellite methods underestimate
indirect climate forcing by aerosols, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108,
13404–13408, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018526108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1018526108</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., King, M. D., and Meyer, K. G.: MODIS cloud optical properties:
user guide for the collection 6 level-2 MOD06/MYD06 product and associated
level-3 datasets, available at:
<uri>https://modis-images.gsfc.nasa.gov/_docs/C6MOD06OPUserGuide.pdf</uri> (last
access: 15 October 2017), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Pruppacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D.: Microphysics of Cloud and Precipitation,
Springer, New York, USA, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Tanre, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A., Martins, J.
V., Li, R. R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T. F., Vermote,
E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS aerosol algorithm, products, and validation,
J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/Jas3385.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/Jas3385.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Riihimaki, L. D. and McFarlane, S. A.: Frequency and morphology of tropical
tropopause layer cirrus from CALIPSO observations: Are isolated cirrus
different from those<?pagebreak page1078?> connected to deep convection?, J. Geophys. Res., 115,
D18201, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013133" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009jd013133</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D. and Woodley, W. L.: Deep convective clouds with sustained
supercooled liquid water down to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>37.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, Nature, 405, 440–442,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35013030" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/35013030</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., de Leeuw, G., Donovan, D.
P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekas, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt, K. S.,
Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of
aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52,
750–808, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000441" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013RG000441</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Seinfeld, J. H., Bretherton, C., Carslaw, K. S., Coe, H., DeMott, P. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Feingold, G., Ghan, S., Guenther, A. B., Kahn, R., Kraucunas,
I., Kreidenweis, S. M., Molina, M. J., Nenes, A., Penner, J. E., Prather, K.
A., Ramanathan, V., Ramaswamy, V., Rasch, P. J., Ravishankara, A. R.,
Rosenfeld, D., Stephens, G., and Wood, R.: Improving our fundamental
understanding of the role of aerosol-cloud interactions in the climate
system, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 5781–5790,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514043113" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1514043113</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Shi, X. and Liu, X.: Effect of cloud-scale vertical velocity on the
contribution of homogeneous nucleation to cirrus formation and radiative
forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6588–6595, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069531" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL069531</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Shi, X., Liu, X., and Zhang, K.: Effects of pre-existing ice crystals on
cirrus clouds and comparison between different ice nucleation
parameterizations with the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5), Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 1503–1520, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1503-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-1503-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Stein, T. H. M., Delanoe, J., and Hogan, R. J.: A Comparison among Four
Different Retrieval Methods for Ice-Cloud Properties Using Data from
CloudSat, CALIPSO, and MODIS, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 50, 1952–1969,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jamc2646.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011jamc2646.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Su, H., Jiang, J. H., Lu, X. H., Penner, J. E., Read, W. G., Massie, S.,
Schoeberl, M. R., Colarco, P., Livesey, N. J., and Santee, M. L.: Observed
Increase of TTL Temperature and Water Vapor in Polluted Clouds over Asia, J
Climate, 24, 2728–2736, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3749.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2010JCLI3749.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Twohy, C. H. and Poellot, M. R.: Chemical characteristics of ice residual
nuclei in anvil cirrus clouds: evidence for homogeneous and heterogeneous ice
formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2289–2297, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2289-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-2289-2005</ext-link>,
2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: Influence of pollution on shortwave albedo of clouds, J. Atmos.
Sci., 34, 1149–1152,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:tiopot&gt;2.0.co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:tiopot&gt;2.0.co;2</ext-link>,
1977.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Waliser, D. E., Li, J. L. F., Woods, C. P., Austin, R. T., Bacmeister, J.,
Chern, J., Del Genio, A., Jiang, J. H., Kuang, Z. M., Meng, H., Minnis, P.,
Platnick, S., Rossow, W. B., Stephens, G. L., Sun-Mack, S., Tao, W. K.,
Tompkins, A. M., Vane, D. G., Walker, C., and Wu, D.: Cloud ice: A climate
model challenge with signs and expectations of progress, J. Geophys. Res.,
114, D00A21, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD010015</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Wang, F., Guo, J. P., Zhang, J. H., Huang, J. F., Min, M., Chen, T. M., Liu,
H., Deng, M. J., and Li, X. W.: Multi-sensor quantification of
aerosol-induced variability in warm clouds over eastern China, Atmos.
Environ., 113, 1–9, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.04.063" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.04.063</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Wang, J. D., Zhao, B., Wang, S. X., Yang, F. M., Xing, J., Morawska, L.,
Ding, A. J., Kulmala, M., Kerminen, V. M., Kujansuu, J., Wang, Z. F., Ding,
D. A., Zhang, X. Y., Wang, H. B., Tian, M., Petaja, T., Jiang, J. K., and
Hao, J. M.: Particulate matter pollution over China and the effects of
control policies, Sci. Total Environ., 584, 426–447,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.027</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Wang, S. X., Zhao, B., Cai, S. Y., Klimont, Z., Nielsen, C. P., Morikawa, T.,
Woo, J. H., Kim, Y., Fu, X., Xu, J. Y., Hao, J. M., and He, K. B.: Emission
trends and mitigation options for air pollutants in East Asia, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 14, 6571–6603, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6571-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-6571-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Winker, D. M., Hunt, W. H., and McGill, M. J.: Initial performance assessment
of CALIOP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L19803, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030135" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007gl030135</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Wylie, D. P., Menzel, W. P., Woolf, H. M., and Strabala, K. I.: 4 Years of
Global Cirrus Cloud Statistics Using Hirs, J. Climate, 7, 1972–1986,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007&lt;1972:Fyogcc&gt;2.0.Co;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007&lt;1972:Fyogcc&gt;2.0.Co;2</ext-link>,
1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Wylie, D. P., Jackson, D. L., Menzel, W. P., and Bates, J. J.: Trends in
global cloud cover in two decades of HIRS observations, J. Climate, 18,
3021–3031, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli3461.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/Jcli3461.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, B., Jiang, J. H., Gu, Y., Diner, D., Worden, J., Liou, K. N., Su, H.,
Xing, J., Garay, M., and Huang, L.: Decadal-scale trends in regional aerosol
particle properties and their linkage to emission changes, Environ. Res.
Lett., 12, 054021, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cb2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cb2</ext-link>, 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Zhao, B., Liou, K. N., Gu, Y., Li, Q. B., Jiang, J. H., Su, H., He, C. L.,
Tseng, H. L. R., Wang, S. X., Liu, R., Qi, L., Lee, W. L., and Hao, J. M.:
Enhanced PM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.5</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> pollution in China due to aerosol-cloud interactions,
Sci. Rep.-UK, 7, 4453, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04096-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-017-04096-8</ext-link>, 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Impact of aerosols on ice crystal size</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The interactions between aerosols and ice clouds represent one of the largest
uncertainties in global radiative forcing from pre-industrial time to the
present. In particular, the impact of aerosols on ice crystal effective
radius (<i>R</i><sub>ei</sub>), which is a key parameter determining ice clouds'
net radiative effect, is highly uncertain due to limited and conflicting
observational evidence. Here we investigate the effects of aerosols on
<i>R</i><sub>ei</sub> under different meteorological conditions using 9-year
satellite observations. We find that the responses of <i>R</i><sub>ei</sub> to
aerosol loadings are modulated by water vapor amount in conjunction with
several other meteorological parameters. While there is a significant
negative correlation between <i>R</i><sub>ei</sub> and aerosol loading in moist
conditions, consistent with the <q>Twomey effect</q> for liquid clouds, a strong
positive correlation between the two occurs in dry conditions. Simulations
based on a cloud parcel model suggest that water vapor modulates the relative
importance of different ice nucleation modes, leading to the opposite aerosol
impacts between moist and dry conditions. When ice clouds are decomposed into
those generated from deep convection and formed in situ, the water vapor
modulation remains in effect for both ice cloud types, although the
sensitivities of <i>R</i><sub>ei</sub> to aerosols differ noticeably between them
due to distinct formation mechanisms. The water vapor modulation can largely
explain the difference in the responses of <i>R</i><sub>ei</sub> to aerosol
loadings in various seasons. A proper representation of the water vapor
modulation is essential for an accurate estimate of aerosol–cloud radiative
forcing produced by ice clouds.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Anderson, T. L., Charlson, R. J., Winker, D. M., Ogren, J. A., and Holmen,
K.: Mesoscale variations of tropospheric aerosols, J. Atmos. Sci., 60,
119–136,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0119:Mvota&gt;2.0.Co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2003)060&lt;0119:Mvota&gt;2.0.Co;2</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Atmospheric Science Data Center: CALIPSO Quality Statements Lidar Level 2
Cloud and Aerosol Layer Products Version Releases: 3.01, 3.02, available at:
<a href="https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/calipso/Quality_Summaries/CALIOP_L2LayerProducts_3.01.html" target="_blank">https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/calipso/Quality_Summaries/CALIOP_L2LayerProducts_3.01.html</a>
(last access: 1 October 2016), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Bailey, M. P. and Hallett, J.: A Comprehensive Habit Diagram for Atmospheric
Ice Crystals: Confirmation from the Laboratory, AIRS II, and Other Field
Studies, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 2888–2899, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jas2883.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009jas2883.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Brennan, J. I., Kaufman, Y. J., Koren, I., and Li, R. R.: Aerosol-cloud
interaction-misclassification of MODIS clouds in heavy aerosol, IEEE
T. Geosci. Remote, 43, 911–915, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/Tgrs.2005.844662" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/Tgrs.2005.844662</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Choi, Y. S., Lindzen, R. S., Ho, C. H., and Kim, J.: Space observations of
cold-cloud phase change, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 11211–11216,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006241107" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1006241107</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Chylek, P., Dubey, M. K., Lohmann, U., Ramanathan, V., Kaufman, Y. J.,
Lesins, G., Hudson, J., Altmann, G., and Olsen, S.: Aerosol indirect effect
over the Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L06806,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl025397" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl025397</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Clarke, A. and Kapustin, V.: Hemispheric aerosol vertical profiles:
Anthropogenic impacts on optical depth and cloud nuclei, Science, 329,
1488–1492, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188838" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1188838</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Costantino, L. and Breon, F. M.: Analysis of aerosol-cloud interaction from
multi-sensor satellite observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L11801,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041828</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Delanoe, J. and Hogan, R. J.: A variational scheme for retrieving ice cloud
properties from combined radar, lidar, and infrared radiometer, J. Geophys.
Res., 113, D07204, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009000" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009000</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Delanoe, J. and Hogan, R. J.: Combined CloudSat-CALIPSO-MODIS retrievals of
the properties of ice clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00H29,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012346" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012346</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
DeMott, P. J., Prenni, A. J., Liu, X., Kreidenweis, S. M., Petters, M. D.,
Twohy, C. H., Richardson, M. S., Eidhammer, T., and Rogers, D. C.: Predicting
global atmospheric ice nuclei distributions and their impacts on climate,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 11217–11222, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910818107" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910818107</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Fan, J. W., Wang, Y., Rosenfeld, D., and Liu, X. H.: Review of Aerosol–Cloud
Interactions: Mechanisms, Significance, and Challenges, J. Atmos. Sci., 73,
4221–4252, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Fu, Q. and Liou, K. N.: Parameterization of the Radiative Properties of
Cirrus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 50, 2008–2025,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050&lt;2008:Potrpo&gt;2.0.Co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050&lt;2008:Potrpo&gt;2.0.Co;2</a>,
1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Heymsfield, A. J., Miloshevich, L. M., Schmitt, C., Bansemer, A., Twohy, C.,
Poellot, M. R., Fridlind, A., and Gerber, H.: Homogeneous ice nucleation in
subtropical and tropical convection and its influence on cirrus anvil
microphysics, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 41–64, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-3360.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-3360.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Hong, Y. L. and Liu, G. S.: The Characteristics of Ice Cloud Properties
Derived from CloudSat and CALIPSO Measurements, J. Climate, 28, 3880–3901,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00666.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-14-00666.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Hoose, C. and Möhler, O.: Heterogeneous ice nucleation on atmospheric
aerosols: a review of results from laboratory experiments, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 12, 9817–9854, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9817-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9817-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Huang, L., Jiang, J. H., Tackett, J. L., Su, H., and Fu, R.: Seasonal and
diurnal variations of aerosol extinction profile and type distribution from
CALIPSO 5-year observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 4572–4596,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50407" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50407</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Ikawa, M. and Saito, K.: Description of a Non-hydrostatic Model Developed at
the Forecast Research Department of the MRI, Meteorological Research
Institute, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, available at:
<a href="http://www.mri-jma.go.jp/Publish/Technical/DATA/VOL_28/28_en.html" target="_blank">http://www.mri-jma.go.jp/Publish/Technical/DATA/VOL_28/28_en.html</a> (last
access: 30 June 2017), 1991.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K.,
Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and
Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, 1535 pp., 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Schoeberl, M. R., Massie, S. T., Colarco, P., Platnick,
S., and Livesey, N. J.: Clean and polluted clouds: Relationships among
pollution, ice clouds, and precipitation in South America, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 35, L14804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gl034631" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008gl034631</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Massie, S. T., Colarco, P. R., Schoeberl, M. R., and
Platnick, S.: Aerosol–CO relationship and aerosol effect on ice cloud
particle size: Analyses from Aura Microwave Limb Sounder and Aqua Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer observations, J. Geophys. Res., 114,
D20207, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd012421" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd012421</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Jiang, J. H., Su, H., Zhai, C., Massie, S. T., Schoeberl, M. R., Colarco, P.
R., Platnick, S., Gu, Y., and Liou, K.-N.: Influence of convection and
aerosol pollution on ice cloud particle effective radius, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,
11, 457–463, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-457-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-457-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Kärcher, B. and Lohmann, U.: A parameterization of cirrus cloud
formation: Heterogeneous freezing, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4402,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003220" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002jd003220</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Kaufman, Y. J., Koren, I., Remer, L. A., Rosenfeld, D., and Rudich, Y.: The
effect of smoke, dust, and pollution aerosol on shallow cloud development
over the Atlantic Ocean, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 11207–11212,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505191102" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505191102</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Koenig, L. R.: The glaciating behavior of small cumulonimbus clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci., 20, 29–47,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020&lt;0029:tgbosc&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020&lt;0029:tgbosc&gt;2.0.co;2</a>,
1963.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Koenig, L. R.: Drop freezing through drop breakup, J. Atmos. Sci., 22,
448–451,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1965)022&lt;0448:dftdb&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1965)022&lt;0448:dftdb&gt;2.0.co;2</a>,
1965.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Krämer, M., Rolf, C., Luebke, A., Afchine, A., Spelten, N., Costa, A.,
Meyer, J., Zöger, M., Smith, J., Herman, R. L., Buchholz, B., Ebert, V.,
Baumgardner, D., Borrmann, S., Klingebiel, M., and Avallone, L.: A
microphysics guide to cirrus clouds – Part 1: Cirrus types, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 16, 3463–3483, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3463-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3463-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Kuebbeler, M., Lohmann, U., Hendricks, J., and Kärcher, B.: Dust ice
nuclei effects on cirrus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 3027–3046,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3027-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3027-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Lawson, R. P., Baker, B., Pilson, B., and Mo, Q. X.: In situ observations of
the microphysical properties of wave, cirrus, and anvil clouds. Part II:
Cirrus clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 63, 3186–3203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jas3803.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jas3803.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Lawson, R. P., Woods, S., and Morrison, H.: The Microphysics of Ice and
Precipitation Development in Tropical Cumulus Clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 72,
2429–2445, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-d-14-0274.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jas-d-14-0274.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Mattoo, S., Ichoku, C., Kahn, R.,
and Eck, T. F.: Global evaluation of the Collection 5 MODIS dark-target
aerosol products over land, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10399–10420,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10399-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Li, Q. B., Jiang, J. H., Wu, D. L., Read, W. G., Livesey, N. J., Waters, J.
W., Zhang, Y. S., Wang, B., Filipiak, M. J., Davis, C. P., Turquety, S., Wu,
S. L., Park, R. J., Yantosca, R. M., and Jacob, D. J.: Convective outflow of
South Asian pollution: A global CTM simulation compared with EOS MLS
observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14826, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl022762" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl022762</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Liou, K. N.: Cirrus clouds and climate in McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science
and Technology, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York, USA, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X. H. and Penner, J. E.: Ice nucleation parameterization for global
models, Meteorol. Z., 14, 499–514, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2005/0059" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2005/0059</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, X. H., Penner, J. E., and Wang, M. H.: Influence of anthropogenic
sulfate and black carbon on upper tropospheric clouds in the NCAR CAM3 model
coupled to the IMPACT global aerosol model, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D03204,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010492" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008jd010492</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Luebke, A. E., Afchine, A., Costa, A., Grooß, J.-U., Meyer, J., Rolf, C.,
Spelten, N., Avallone, L. M., Baumgardner, D., and Krämer, M.: The origin
of midlatitude ice clouds and the resulting influence on their microphysical
properties, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 5793–5809,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5793-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-5793-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Lynch, D. K., Sassen, K., Starr, D., and Stephens, G.: Cirrus, Oxford
University Press, New York, USA, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Mace, G. G., Clothiaux, E. E., and Ackerman, T. P.: The composite
characteristics of cirrus clouds: Bulk properties revealed by one year of
continuous cloud radar data, J. Climate, 14, 2185–2203,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2185:tccocc&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014&lt;2185:tccocc&gt;2.0.co;2</a>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Mace, G. G., Benson, S., and Vernon, E.: Cirrus clouds and the large-scale
atmospheric state: Relationships revealed by six years of ground-based data,
J. Climate, 19, 3257–3278, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3786.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3786.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Massie, S. T., Heymsfield, A., Schmitt, C., Muller, D., and Seifert, P.:
Aerosol indirect effects as a function of cloud top pressure, J. Geophys.
Res., 112, D06202, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007383" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007383</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Muhlbauer, A., Ackerman, T. P., Comstock, J. M., Diskin, G. S., Evans, S. M.,
Lawson, R. P., and Marchand, R. T.: Impact of large-scale dynamics on the
microphysical properties of midlatitude cirrus, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
3976–3996, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020035" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020035</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Murray, B. J., O'Sullivan, D., Atkinson, J. D., and Webb, M. E.: Ice
nucleation by particles immersed in supercooled cloud droplets, Chem. Soc.
Rev., 41, 6519–6554, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/c2cs35200a" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/c2cs35200a</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Ou, S. S. C., Liou, K. N., Wang, X. J., Hansell, R., Lefevre, R., and Cocks,
S.: Satellite remote sensing of dust aerosol indirect effects on ice cloud
formation, Appl. Optics, 48, 633–642, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.48.000633" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.48.000633</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Penner, J. E., Xu, L., and Wang, M. H.: Satellite methods underestimate
indirect climate forcing by aerosols, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108,
13404–13408, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018526108" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018526108</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Platnick, S., King, M. D., and Meyer, K. G.: MODIS cloud optical properties:
user guide for the collection 6 level-2 MOD06/MYD06 product and associated
level-3 datasets, available at:
<a href="https://modis-images.gsfc.nasa.gov/_docs/C6MOD06OPUserGuide.pdf" target="_blank">https://modis-images.gsfc.nasa.gov/_docs/C6MOD06OPUserGuide.pdf</a> (last
access: 15 October 2017), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Pruppacher, H. R. and Klett, J. D.: Microphysics of Cloud and Precipitation,
Springer, New York, USA, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Remer, L. A., Kaufman, Y. J., Tanre, D., Mattoo, S., Chu, D. A., Martins, J.
V., Li, R. R., Ichoku, C., Levy, R. C., Kleidman, R. G., Eck, T. F., Vermote,
E., and Holben, B. N.: The MODIS aerosol algorithm, products, and validation,
J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 947–973, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/Jas3385.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/Jas3385.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Riihimaki, L. D. and McFarlane, S. A.: Frequency and morphology of tropical
tropopause layer cirrus from CALIPSO observations: Are isolated cirrus
different from those connected to deep convection?, J. Geophys. Res., 115,
D18201, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013133" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013133</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenfeld, D. and Woodley, W. L.: Deep convective clouds with sustained
supercooled liquid water down to −37.5&thinsp;°C, Nature, 405, 440–442,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35013030" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/35013030</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Rosenfeld, D., Andreae, M. O., Asmi, A., Chin, M., de Leeuw, G., Donovan, D.
P., Kahn, R., Kinne, S., Kivekas, N., Kulmala, M., Lau, W., Schmidt, K. S.,
Suni, T., Wagner, T., Wild, M., and Quaas, J.: Global observations of
aerosol-cloud-precipitation-climate interactions, Rev. Geophys., 52,
750–808, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000441" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000441</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H., Bretherton, C., Carslaw, K. S., Coe, H., DeMott, P. J.,
Dunlea, E. J., Feingold, G., Ghan, S., Guenther, A. B., Kahn, R., Kraucunas,
I., Kreidenweis, S. M., Molina, M. J., Nenes, A., Penner, J. E., Prather, K.
A., Ramanathan, V., Ramaswamy, V., Rasch, P. J., Ravishankara, A. R.,
Rosenfeld, D., Stephens, G., and Wood, R.: Improving our fundamental
understanding of the role of aerosol-cloud interactions in the climate
system, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 5781–5790,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514043113" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514043113</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Shi, X. and Liu, X.: Effect of cloud-scale vertical velocity on the
contribution of homogeneous nucleation to cirrus formation and radiative
forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 6588–6595, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069531" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069531</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Shi, X., Liu, X., and Zhang, K.: Effects of pre-existing ice crystals on
cirrus clouds and comparison between different ice nucleation
parameterizations with the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5), Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 15, 1503–1520, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1503-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-1503-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Stein, T. H. M., Delanoe, J., and Hogan, R. J.: A Comparison among Four
Different Retrieval Methods for Ice-Cloud Properties Using Data from
CloudSat, CALIPSO, and MODIS, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 50, 1952–1969,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jamc2646.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011jamc2646.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Su, H., Jiang, J. H., Lu, X. H., Penner, J. E., Read, W. G., Massie, S.,
Schoeberl, M. R., Colarco, P., Livesey, N. J., and Santee, M. L.: Observed
Increase of TTL Temperature and Water Vapor in Polluted Clouds over Asia, J
Climate, 24, 2728–2736, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3749.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3749.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Twohy, C. H. and Poellot, M. R.: Chemical characteristics of ice residual
nuclei in anvil cirrus clouds: evidence for homogeneous and heterogeneous ice
formation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 2289–2297, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2289-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-2289-2005</a>,
2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: Influence of pollution on shortwave albedo of clouds, J. Atmos.
Sci., 34, 1149–1152,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:tiopot&gt;2.0.co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:tiopot&gt;2.0.co;2</a>,
1977.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Waliser, D. E., Li, J. L. F., Woods, C. P., Austin, R. T., Bacmeister, J.,
Chern, J., Del Genio, A., Jiang, J. H., Kuang, Z. M., Meng, H., Minnis, P.,
Platnick, S., Rossow, W. B., Stephens, G. L., Sun-Mack, S., Tao, W. K.,
Tompkins, A. M., Vane, D. G., Walker, C., and Wu, D.: Cloud ice: A climate
model challenge with signs and expectations of progress, J. Geophys. Res.,
114, D00A21, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010015</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, F., Guo, J. P., Zhang, J. H., Huang, J. F., Min, M., Chen, T. M., Liu,
H., Deng, M. J., and Li, X. W.: Multi-sensor quantification of
aerosol-induced variability in warm clouds over eastern China, Atmos.
Environ., 113, 1–9, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.04.063" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.04.063</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, J. D., Zhao, B., Wang, S. X., Yang, F. M., Xing, J., Morawska, L.,
Ding, A. J., Kulmala, M., Kerminen, V. M., Kujansuu, J., Wang, Z. F., Ding,
D. A., Zhang, X. Y., Wang, H. B., Tian, M., Petaja, T., Jiang, J. K., and
Hao, J. M.: Particulate matter pollution over China and the effects of
control policies, Sci. Total Environ., 584, 426–447,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.027" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.027</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, S. X., Zhao, B., Cai, S. Y., Klimont, Z., Nielsen, C. P., Morikawa, T.,
Woo, J. H., Kim, Y., Fu, X., Xu, J. Y., Hao, J. M., and He, K. B.: Emission
trends and mitigation options for air pollutants in East Asia, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 14, 6571–6603, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6571-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6571-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Winker, D. M., Hunt, W. H., and McGill, M. J.: Initial performance assessment
of CALIOP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L19803, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030135" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007gl030135</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wylie, D. P., Menzel, W. P., Woolf, H. M., and Strabala, K. I.: 4 Years of
Global Cirrus Cloud Statistics Using Hirs, J. Climate, 7, 1972–1986,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007&lt;1972:Fyogcc&gt;2.0.Co;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1994)007&lt;1972:Fyogcc&gt;2.0.Co;2</a>,
1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Wylie, D. P., Jackson, D. L., Menzel, W. P., and Bates, J. J.: Trends in
global cloud cover in two decades of HIRS observations, J. Climate, 18,
3021–3031, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli3461.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/Jcli3461.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, B., Jiang, J. H., Gu, Y., Diner, D., Worden, J., Liou, K. N., Su, H.,
Xing, J., Garay, M., and Huang, L.: Decadal-scale trends in regional aerosol
particle properties and their linkage to emission changes, Environ. Res.
Lett., 12, 054021, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cb2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cb2</a>, 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Zhao, B., Liou, K. N., Gu, Y., Li, Q. B., Jiang, J. H., Su, H., He, C. L.,
Tseng, H. L. R., Wang, S. X., Liu, R., Qi, L., Lee, W. L., and Hao, J. M.:
Enhanced PM<sub>2.5</sub> pollution in China due to aerosol-cloud interactions,
Sci. Rep.-UK, 7, 4453, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04096-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04096-8</a>, 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
