<?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">
  <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-20-1565-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Above-cloud aerosol optical depth from airborne observations<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> in the
southeast Atlantic</article-title><alt-title>Above-cloud aerosol optical depth </alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Above-cloud aerosol optical depth }?><?xmltex \runningauthor{S. E. LeBlanc et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>LeBlanc</surname><given-names>Samuel E.</given-names></name>
          <email>samuel.leblanc@nasa.gov</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0173-3890</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Redemann</surname><given-names>Jens</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2404-7984</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Flynn</surname><given-names>Connor</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Pistone</surname><given-names>Kristina</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6130-0192</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Kacenelenbogen</surname><given-names>Meloë</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff4">
          <name><surname>Segal-Rosenheimer</surname><given-names>Michal</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5 aff2">
          <name><surname>Shinozuka</surname><given-names>Yohei</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Dunagan</surname><given-names>Stephen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6 aff2">
          <name><surname>Dahlgren</surname><given-names>Robert P.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1122-9639</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Meyer</surname><given-names>Kerry</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5361-9200</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Podolske</surname><given-names>James</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff8">
          <name><surname>Howell</surname><given-names>Steven G.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff8">
          <name><surname>Freitag</surname><given-names>Steffen</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1951-5576</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff8">
          <name><surname>Small-Griswold</surname><given-names>Jennifer</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4563-8596</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Holben</surname><given-names>Brent</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1251-9809</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff9">
          <name><surname>Diamond</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2147-5921</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff9">
          <name><surname>Wood</surname><given-names>Robert</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1401-3828</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff10">
          <name><surname>Formenti</surname><given-names>Paola</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0372-1351</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff11">
          <name><surname>Piketh</surname><given-names>Stuart</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff12">
          <name><surname>Maggs-Kölling</surname><given-names>Gillian</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff13">
          <name><surname>Gerber</surname><given-names>Monja</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff13">
          <name><surname>Namwoonde</surname><given-names>Andreas</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1209-2574</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, Moffett Field, CA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Geophysics and Planetary Sciences, Porter School of the
Environment and Earth Sciences,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>California State University Monterey Bay, Seaside, CA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>8</label><institution>University of Hawai`i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff9"><label>9</label><institution>University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff10"><label>10</label><institution>LISA, UMR CNRS 7583, Université Paris-Est Créteil et
Université Paris Diderot,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?>
Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Créteil, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff11"><label>11</label><institution>North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff12"><label>12</label><institution>Gobabeb Research and Training Center, Gobabeb, Namibia</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff13"><label>13</label><institution>Sam Nujoma Marine and Coastal Resources Research Centre (SANUMARC),<?xmltex \hack{\break}?>
University of Namibia, Henties Bay, Namibia</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Samuel E. LeBlanc (samuel.leblanc@nasa.gov)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>7</day><month>February</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>20</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1565</fpage><lpage>1590</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>17</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>30</day><month>January</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>20</day><month>November</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>21</day><month>December</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <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><title>Abstract</title>
    <?pagebreak page1566?><p id="d1e365">The southeast Atlantic (SEA) region is host to a climatologically significant
biomass burning aerosol layer overlying marine stratocumulus. We present the
first results of the directly measured above-cloud aerosol optical depth (ACAOD)
from the recent ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS
(ORACLES) airborne field campaign during August and September 2016. In our
analysis, we use data from the Spectrometers for Sky-Scanning Sun-Tracking
Atmospheric Research (4STAR) instrument and found an average ACAOD of 0.32
at 501 nm (range of 0.02 to 1.04), with an average Ångström exponent
(AE) above clouds of 1.71. The AE is much lower at 1.25 for the full column
(including below-cloud-level aerosol, with an average of 0.36 at 501 nm and
a range of 0.02 to 0.74), indicating the presence of large aerosol
particles, likely marine aerosol, in the lower atmospheric column. The ACAOD is
observed from 4STAR to be highest near the coast at about 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,
whereas its variability is largest at the southern edge of the average
aerosol plume, as indicated by 12 years of MODIS observations. In comparison
to MODIS-derived ACAOD and long-term fine-mode plume-average AOD along a
diagonal routine track extending out from the coast of Namibia, the
directly measured ACAOD from 4STAR is slightly lower than the ACAOD product
from MODIS. The peak ACAOD expected from MODIS AOD retrievals averaged over
a long term along the routine diagonal flight track (peak of 0.5) was
measured to be closer to coast in 2016 at about 1.5–4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, with 4STAR ACAOD averages showing a peak of 0.42. When
considering the full observation set over the SEA, by spatially binning each
sampled AOD, we obtain a geographically representative mean ACAOD of 0.37.
Vertical profiles of AOD showcase the variability in the altitude of the
aerosol plume and its separation from the cloud top. We measured larger AOD at a
high altitude near the coast than farther from the coast, while generally
observing a larger vertical gap farther from the coast. Changes in AOD with
altitude are correlated with carbon monoxide, a gas tracer of the biomass
burning aerosol plume. Vertical extent of gaps between aerosol and cloud
show a wide distribution, with a near-zero gap being most frequent. The gap
distribution with longitude is observed to be largest at about 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, farther from coast than expected from previous studies.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e404">Aerosol above clouds have been identified as a leading source of uncertainty
in measuring the global source of aerosol burden, globally constituting
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of the total burden (Waquet et al., 2013a). In the southeast
Atlantic (SEA), where one of Earth's semipermanent stratocumulus cloud
decks exists, the frequency of occurrence of an overlying aerosol layer
averaged over the entire region is more than 30 % on an annual basis and
increases to more than 50 % during the peak biomass burning season of July
through November (Devasthale and Thomas, 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). These
aerosols above clouds impact climate by directly affecting the
radiative budget (e.g., Schulz et al., 2006), interacting with clouds via
a change in the atmospheric thermal profile (semi-direct effects) (Sakaeda
et al., 2011) or  directly modifying cloud properties (indirect/Twomey
effect) (Bond et al., 2013; Twomey, 1974). One of the driving uncertainties
in quantifying the impact of these aerosols is due to the difficulty in
retrieving the above-cloud aerosol optical depth (ACAOD) from satellite
measurements, where the ACAOD is the optical depth of the aerosol layers
that are present at higher altitudes than the cloud tops. To constrain the
climatic effect of the aerosols above clouds in the SEA, an airborne field
campaign, ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS
(ORACLES), was conducted in the peak of the biomass burning season (ORACLES
Science Team, 2017) in conjunction with other large-scale field missions
focused in the same region, including CLARIFY (CLoud–Aerosol–Radiation
InteRactions and Forcing for Year 2017; Zuidema et al., 2016), AEROCLO-sA
(AErosols, RadiatiOn and CLOuds in southern Africa; Formenti et al., 2019),
and LASIC (Layered Atlantic Smoke Interactions with Clouds; Zuidema et al.,
2018). We show in this paper the directly measured ACAOD and its vertical
dependence during the first phase of ORACLES.</p>
      <p id="d1e419">Although much progress to quantify aerosols above clouds has been made,
direct measurements of the ACAOD in the SEA is limited. Previous
measurements during the Southern African Regional Science Initiative Project
(SAFARI-2000) sampled only small near-coast portions of the overlying
aerosol layer with limited instrumentation (Keil and Haywood, 2003;
Bergstrom et al., 2003). To date, several passive satellite sensors – e.g.,
Moderate Resolution  Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Polarization and
Directionality of the Earth's Reflectances (POLDER), and Ozone Monitoring Instrument
(OMI) – have been used to detect aerosols above clouds and retrieve the ACAOD over
the SEA region (e.g., Jethva et al., 2013, 2014; Waquet et al., 2009,
2013b; Torres et al., 2012; De Graaf et al., 2012, 2014; Meyer et al.,
2015; Peers et al., 2015; Feng and Christopher, 2015; Sayer et al.,
2016; and Chang and Christopher, 2016, 2017).
However, current passive satellite ACAOD retrieval techniques could be biased by what is called the
“cloud adjacency effect” (Wen et al., 2007) or the “3-D cloud radiative
effect”, i.e., brightening of cloud-free air near clouds, that also extends
to above-cloud aerosol properties and has been observed using polarized
light (Cornet et al., 2018). 3-D cloud radiative effects also impact
retrievals of aerosols above clouds, where the underlying cloud heterogeneity
impacts the aerosol subjected radiance (Peers et al., 2015). This is why some
studies have used active sensors such as CALIOP (Cloud Aerosol LIdar with
Orthogonal Polarization) instead of passive satellite sensors to retrieve
the ACAOD (e.g. Hu et al., 2007; Chand et al., 2009; Wilcox, 2012; Matus et al.,
2015; Zhang et al., 2014; and Kacenelenbogen et al., 2019). We refer the reader
to Table 1 of Kacenelenbogen et al. (2019) for a more complete list of
passive and active satellite sensors used in the observation of the ACAOD over
other parts of the world.</p>
      <p id="d1e422">Underlying assumptions of aerosol optical and microphysical properties and
of cloud properties in retrievals of the ACAOD from satellites can lead to large
uncertainties or biases. Examples of assumptions include the following: a constant
spectral aerosol absorption, which has the largest influence on retrieval
uncertainty (e.g., Chand et al., 2009; Meyer et al., 2015); aerosol
properties do not vary over a large spatial region or are representative of
all aerosols over large regions and have a constant vertical dependence
(e.g., Torres et al., 2012); retrieved aerosol properties over highly
reflective and opaque clouds are representative of all aerosols (e.g., Hu et
al., 2007; Peers et al., 2015); and/or the impact of aerosol absorption on
polarized reflectances can be neglected (e.g., Waquet et al., 2013b; Peers
et al., 2015). Active remote sensors also have issues with retrieving the ACAOD
due to a low signal-to-noise ratio of aerosol backscatter attenuated by
overlying aerosols, as demonstrated for CALIOP during daytime (e.g., Hu et
al., 2007; Deaconu et al., 2017). The ACAOD presented here does not suffer
from these common retrieval assumptions, as it is directly measured with an
airborne sunphotometer and can be used to calibrate/validate satellite
retrievals of the ACAOD (e.g., Sayer et al., 2019).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1567?><p id="d1e425">Not only is the climatological magnitude of the ACAOD in question, but its
vertical dependence and relative distribution with respect to clouds are
uncertain as well. Distinct clear-air slots (CAS) separating aerosol and
cloud layers were first reported by Hobbs (2003). A separation of the cloud
and aerosol layers indicates that aerosols are not directly modifying cloud
microphysical properties (e.g., Twomey, 1977) but rather directly modifying the
radiation field and semi-directly modifying the underlying clouds (e.g., Graßl,
1979; Lohmann and Feichter, 2005), or it indicates that clouds were previously processed and
depleted overlying aerosols. Past work has shown that the elevated aerosol
layers in this region are frequently separated from the underlying cloud
top. Devasthale and Thomas (2011) found that 90 %–95 % of
above-cloud aerosol cases observed by CALIOP (which has known limitations,
e.g., Kacenelenbogen et al., 2014) showed a gap larger than 100 m. Rajapakshe
et al. (2017) showed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % incidence of a gap between the cloud
top and aerosol layer bottom as measured by the spaceborne lidar
Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS; McGill et al., 2015), of which 60 %
have a gap of less than 360 m. Additionally, the gap is expected to be
dependent on the distance from the coast, decreasing farther from the coast, with a
few examples of situations without a gap between cloud and aerosol, as
observed by CALIOP (Sakaeda et al., 2011;  Deaconu et al., 2019). The differences between these estimates on the presence of the
CAS, can be refined through direct airborne sampling, as during ORACLES.</p>
      <p id="d1e439">In Sect. 2, we present an overview of the first ORACLES deployment and
introduce the instruments and related data quality. Section 3 details some
of the methodology for specific analysis. Section 4 presents the
measurements of ORACLES ACAOD, their spatial and spectral dependence, and a
comparison to the ACAOD climatologies derived from MODIS satellite measurements.
Additionally, in Sect. 4 we show some advanced analysis from the airborne
sunphotometer of the vertical dependence of the ACAOD and the measured gap
between the aerosol layer and the clouds. The summary of our results is
presented in Sect. 5. An appendix describes the processing methodology and data quality for the 4STAR instrument.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Data and instrumentation</title>
      <p id="d1e450">We focus on the aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements from the
Spectrometers for Sky-Scanning Sun-Tracking Atmospheric Research (4STAR;
Dunagan et al., 2013) airborne sunphotometer on board the NASA P-3 during
ORACLES 2016. For additional context, we use a combination of in situ
instrumentation providing aerosol optical properties, cloud particles, and
trace gas measurements. We also use nearby AERONET (Aerosol Robotic Network;
Holben et al., 1998, 2018) stations and regional satellite AOD data for
spatial context and comparisons. Satellite measurements give context by
either a long-term record using neighboring clear sky AOD retrieval from the
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS; Levy et al., 2013) or
a short-term record using the newly developed retrieval of the ACAOD from MODIS
(Meyer et al., 2015).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS (ORACLES)</title>
      <p id="d1e460">The ORACLES field campaign is aimed at directly measuring the SEA ACAOD and
its direct, indirect, and semi-direct radiative effects on climate via
airborne sampling during three intensive operating periods (September 2016, August 2017, and October 2018) (Zuidema et al., 2016). The NASA P-3 flew as an airborne platform
for in situ and remote sensing measurements of aerosols and clouds in all
three campaigns, along with the NASA ER-2 high-altitude remote sensing platform
in 2016 only. The 2016 deployment out of Walvis Bay, Namibia, included 15
successful flights for the P-3 from 27 August to 29 September (ORACLES
Science Team, 2017). Nearly half of these research flights followed a
routine flight path extending diagonally from 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S to 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, and the other half focused on paths
with increased chance of successful sampling with all instruments (see Fig. 1). All flights (P-3 and ER-2) were planned using the research flight
planning software developed by LeBlanc (2018).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e501">Map of the southeast Atlantic (SEA) region with flight paths from the NASA P-3B during ORACLES deployment of 2016. Climatological aerosol optical depth from MODIS for September (2001–2013) is overlaid as colored shaded contours (yellow shading represents an AOD of 0.25, with deep red shading for 0.5, adapted from Zuidema et al., 2016). </p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f01.jpg"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1568?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Spectrometers for Sky-Scanning Sun-Tracking Atmospheric Research (4STAR)</title>
      <p id="d1e520">The 4STAR instrument determines in-flight aerosol optical depth (AOD) from
airborne measurements of direct solar radiation. 4STAR incorporates a
modular sun-tracking/sky-scanning optical head protruding above the aircraft
fuselage, an instrument rack within the aircraft cabin, housing a computer,
motion control, and two grating spectrometers, and an electrical umbilical
and fiber optic cable connecting the optical head and the rack. This
airborne sun tracker and sky radiometer has multiple operating modes (direct
sun mode presented here; sky scan mode as in Pistone et al., 2019; and zenith under cloud mode as in LeBlanc et
al., 2015), which are selected by an operator depending on the sky
conditions. Using two spectrometers, 4STAR records hyperspectral radiation
measurements spanning the continuous wavelength range from 350 to 1750 nm, with spectral resolution of 2–3 nm below 1000 nm and 3–7 nm at
longer wavelengths. These hyperspectral radiation measurements yield AOD
over the continuous wavelength range, broken only by prominent gas
absorption lines. The full width of the field of view for the direct beam
irradiance measurement is 2.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with a radiometric deviations of less
than 1 % across this span. The nominal calibration accuracy of AOD
measurements from 4STAR is dependent on wavelength, time of day, tracking
stability, stability of radiometric calibration, and various second-order
corrections (such as removal of light absorption by trace gases). The
accuracy is typically near 1 % in transmittance (at 500 nm), resulting in
an AOD uncertainty of 0.01 at solar noon. The details of the calibration,
corrections, and uncertainty assessment of 4STAR AODs are found in the
Appendix.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>In situ instrumentation: HiGEAR, PDI, and COMA</title>
      <p id="d1e540">A combination of in situ instruments is used to provide context for the AOD
measurements. We use aerosol scattering from nephelometers from the Hawaii
Group for Environmental Aerosol Research (HiGEAR), cloud droplet number
concentration from the Artium Flight Probe Dual Range Phase Doppler
Interferometer (PDI), and CO concentration from CO Measurements and Analysis
(COMA), as described below.</p>
      <p id="d1e543">We use the aerosol scattering coefficient at 550 nm, corrected for ambient
outside relative humidity, which is calculated from nephelometer
measurements operated as part of the HiGEAR extensive airborne measurement
suite (similar to Howell et al., 2006). These nephelometers directly ingest
aerosol from ambient air and together with other HiGEAR instrumentation
provide size-resolved assessment of aerosol physical and chemical properties
and their relationship to measured optical and microphysical behavior. The
scattering coefficient of the aerosol is sampled with three-wavelength
nephelometers (TSI 3563, at 450, 550, and 700 nm) while dependence on
humidity is measured with paired single-wavelength nephelometers (Radiance Research M903 measuring at 540 nm; one had air humidified to 80 % relative humidity (RH), and the other did not control the RH). Comparisons
between the dry Radiance Research and the TSI nephelometers are used to
correct the truncation issues of the Radiance Research nephelometer, while the humidity
dependence of the scattering coefficient is calculated from a gamma
relationship obtained from the paired Radiance Research nephelometers
(following Quinn et al., 2005). We also use an extinction coefficient at 550 nm, which is calculated from the corrected scattering and measured
absorption coefficient. The absorption coefficient is measured in dry
conditions using particle soot absorption photometers (PSAPs) from Radiance
Research. The solid diffuser inlet efficiently samples particles
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with a 50 % cutoff at approximately 3 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (McNaughton  et
al., 2007).</p>
      <p id="d1e576">Cloud drop concentration was sampled from the PDI, mounted on a wing pylon
of the NASA P-3. The PDI uses interferometry with a diagnostic technique for
sampling cloud droplet size and velocity at the same time (e.g., Chuang et
al., 2008; Small et al., 2009). The combined range of two lasers with
differing wavelengths covers liquid cloud droplets sized 1 to 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
or larger.</p>
      <p id="d1e589">CO concentration from the in-situ-sampled air is reported using the COMA
instrument, which includes the ABB/Los Gatos Research <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
Analyzer modified for flight operations. It uses off-axis ICOS (integrated cavity output spectroscopy) technology to
make stable cavity-enhanced absorption measurements of CO, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the infrared spectral region, technology that previously flew on
other airborne research platforms with a precision of 0.5 ppbv over 10 s (Provencal et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2017).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Local AERONET stations</title>
      <p id="d1e649">New AERONET stations were set up to give context to ORACLES measurements in
southwestern Africa along with two pre-existing stations in Namibia,
neighboring the SEA. In addition to the new permanent sites, the highly
spatially resolved DRAGON (Distributed Regional Aerosol Gridded Observation
Networks; Holben et al., 2018) network of six AERONET stations were located
near Henties Bay, about 100 km north of the NASA P-3 base station at Walvis
Bay, Namibia, for the duration of ORACLES 2016. In addition to these
stations, we use the data from the stations located at Walvis Bay Airport,
Gobabeb, and Henties Bay in Namibia and Lubango and Namibe in Angola. The
reported data from these AERONET sites and DRAGON represent the entire span
of available sampled full-column AOD during the deployment time range,
including potential local sources. To focus on the smaller aerosols of the
lofted biomass burning aerosol (e.g., Pósfai et al., 2003) and reduce
the influence of local sources such as large dust and sea salt aerosol
particles,<?pagebreak page1569?> we report the fine-mode AOD, derived using the spectral
deconvolution algorithm (O'Neill et al., 2003).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Satellites and climatology</title>
      <p id="d1e660">Recent advances in satellite imagery retrieval methodology enables the use of
MODIS spectral cloud reflectances to obtain the overlying aerosol optical
properties jointly with the cloud optical properties (Jethva et al., 2014;
Meyer et al., 2015; and Sayer et al., 2016). The algorithm used here, MOD06ACAERO
(Meyer et al., 2015), simultaneously retrieves the above-cloud AOD and cloud
optical thickness and effective radius of the underlying marine boundary
layer clouds while also providing pixel-level estimates of retrieval
uncertainty that accounts for known and quantifiable error sources (e.g.,
radiometry, atmospheric profiles, and cloud and aerosol radiative models).
MOD06ACAERO uses reflectance observations at six MODIS spectral channels
from the visible to the shortwave infrared. Retrievals are run on both Terra
(morning) and Aqua (afternoon) MODIS instruments with a constant
aerosol–cloud vertical geometry and two different aerosol intrinsic property
model assumptions. The aerosol models stem from either Haywood et al. (2003)
or the standard MODIS Dark Target land aerosol product, which is the
model used in this work (MOD04; Levy et al., 2009). The cloud forward model,
ancillary data, and other retrieval assumptions are consistent with those of
the operational MODIS cloud products (MOD06) (Platnick et al., 2017). Meyer
et al. (2015) showed MOD06ACAERO retrieved cloud optical thicknesses and
effective radius are consistent in range and values with the standard MODIS
cloud products and larger than the standard above-cloud AOD product from
the spaceborne CALIOP. Consistent with Meyer et al. (2015), we only report
the AOD from MOD06ACAERO above clouds with an optical thickness of greater
than 4 and AOD uncertainties lower than 100 %. Also note that for this
work the retrievals are aggregated to a 0.1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> equal-angle
latitude/longitude grid.</p>
      <p id="d1e672">For another comparison, we use the standard Dark Target aerosol retrieval
from MODIS clear-sky pixels in the SEA that has been retrieving aerosol
properties from reflectances measured since 2001 (Levy et al., 2013). We used
12 years of the high-resolution time series of the MODIS-retrieved fine-mode
AOD sampled during August and September as a proxy for an ACAOD climatology
similarly to Zuidema et al. (2016). Our use of the fine-mode total-column AOD to
represent the smoke aerosol above clouds in this region is supported by the typically smaller size of the
aerosol (Pósfai et al., 2003) and is used to
exclude the coarse-mode aerosol which mostly consists of boundary layer sea
salt and dust along the coast. The presence of biomass burning aerosol
results in the fine-mode fraction vastly dominating the optical
characteristics of above-cloud aerosol in the region (e.g., Yoon et al.,
2012, and the fine-mode fraction by volume in Russell et al., 2014). When there
is a significant amount of biomass burning aerosol in the boundary layer in
addition to the aerosol above clouds, this fine-mode assumption is expected
to be an overestimate.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>AOD above-cloud determination</title>
      <p id="d1e691">During ORACLES, we sampled multiple types of scenes, some of which were
described by Hobbs (2003), which had CAS (i.e., described in this paper as
gaps) within aerosol layers and between aerosol and cloud layers. Some
scenes show a gap between the aerosol layer and the clouds, some show no
gap, and some show a gap between two aerosol layers. Examples of these cases
have been collected via photography from the NASA P-3 and are shown in Fig. 2; they were similarly portrayed by Hobbs (2003). These photographs were selected for
easier visual identification, although they are not always showing scenes with
100 % cloud cover. Aerosol appears visually darker than the background
light blue sky when the observer is at or below the altitude of the aerosol
layer (Fig. 2a, b). When the aerosol appears directly above clouds, it
can be interpreted as a lighter colored haze extending from the cloud top,
sometimes making it harder to distinguish between aerosol and cloud
boundaries (Fig. 2c).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e696">Photographs taken from the P-3 of <bold>(a)</bold> a gap between two aerosol layers, <bold>(b)</bold> a gap between an aerosol layer and cloud, and <bold>(c)</bold> no gap between aerosol and cloud.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e714">The AOD measurements that are used to quantify the aerosol above clouds in
the presence of a gap, can extend thousands of meters vertically because
the aerosol within a gap contributes minimally to the overall ACAOD. For
conditions without gaps, where the lowest aerosol layer is touching the top
of the cloud, the ACAOD is measured when the aircraft is immediately above
clouds. To identify the measurements where 4STAR sampled ACAOD (including AOD
measurements within a gap), we start with the periods of flights defined by
the P-3 module flags as legs directly above clouds. These P-3 module flags
were created using manual inspection of flight altitude time series and
flight scientist mission notes from every flight (Diamond et al., 2018). We
supplement these module flags with a manual inspection of the AOD time
series from 4STAR and select each sample measured directly above a cloud
layer and up to the bottom of the aerosol layer. The cloud layer was defined
by a cloud drop concentration greater than 10 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" 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> as measured by the
PDI. When the PDI was not operational, we used lack of sun tracking from
4STAR, high outside ambient relative humidity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %), and/or
visual inspection of in-flight video as the metric for being in clouds. The
bottom edge of the aerosol layer is defined as the altitude that has a
10 % change in AOD and either a dry scattering coefficient at 550 nm of at least 50 Mm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" 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> or where the in-plume dry scattering coefficient drops by more than 75 %. Figure 3 shows profiles with
color-coded vertical regions to demonstrate the selection of the ACAOD
portion of the AOD measurements.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e754">Examples of profiles of cloud drop concentration from PDI, aerosol scattering (at 550 nm) from HiGEAR's nephelometer, and AOD measurements used to evaluate the ACAOD portion of the total AOD column taken from flight on 12 September 2016. <bold>(a)</bold> Case from 18.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 8.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E where there is a gap (light blue shading) between cloud top (grey shading) and an aerosol layer (light red shading). The yellow markers within the green AOD profile denote the vertical portion of the flight representing the ACAOD. <bold>(b)</bold> Case from 10.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 0.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E with a near-zero separation between cloud top and aerosol layer but with an embedded gap within the aerosol layer. For this case, only the AOD directly above clouds is considered the ACAOD.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1570?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{{\AA}ngstr\"{o}m exponent (AE) calculations}?><title>Ångström exponent (AE) calculations</title>
      <p id="d1e817">The relationship of the AOD at various wavelengths is used to determine the
Ångström exponent (AE, or sometimes referred to as the <italic>extinction</italic>
Ångström exponent) (Ångström, 1929), which is inversely
related to the size of the aerosol particles. The AE for the sampled AOD is
dependent not only on the size distribution of aerosol particles but also on
the type of aerosol measured (e.g., Russell et al., 2010, 2014). As a first
approximation, large aerosol particles will typically have small AE values,
and small aerosol particles will have large AE values – e.g., an AE value
between 0.1 and 1 for large marine aerosols (Sayer et al., 2012) or above
1.5 for small biomass burning or urban industrial aerosols (Russell et al.,
2014, Fig. 6; LeBlanc et al., 2012). According to Dubovik et al. (2002),
AERONET-derived AE values (computed between 440 and 870 nm) for biomass
burning aerosols are between 1.2 and 2.1 in Bolivia or Brazil, whereas AE
values from desert dust aerosol are between 0.1 and 0.9 in Saudi Arabia. The
AE measured in the source regions of the biomass burning from SAFARI-2000
showed a range between 1.6 and 2.1 from Mongu, Zambia, during the biomass
burning season (Eck et al., 2003). Here we evaluate AE using two methods: (1) by fitting a second-order polynomial to the logarithm of the AOD spectra
from selected wavelengths from 355 to 1650 nm and finding its
derivative at any one wavelength (here at 500 nm; AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) – a similar
method to O'Neill et al.  (2001) and Shinozuka et al. (2011);  (2) by using the negative
of the slope of the AOD with wavelength on a logarithmic scale (two wavelengths are used here, 470 and 865 nm; AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) – e.g., as in Dubovik et
al. (2002).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1571?><p id="d1e846">When AOD spectra are not a straight line in a log–log plot but rather
slightly curved, this indicates that the AE is wavelength dependent. The
curvature of AE (spectral dependence of the AE) is related to the aerosol
size distribution (e.g., Kaufman, 1993; Eck et al., 1999; O'Neill et al.,
2001; and Yoon et al., 2012) and additionally to the aerosol absorption
(Kaskaoutis and Kambezidis, 2008). The two methods to calculate AE
(evaluated at different wavelengths) can be used to quantify the AE
curvature and refine the aerosol size distribution or fine-mode fraction
(e.g., Yoon et al., 2012).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Results and discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Statistics of sampled ACAOD and spatial distribution</title>
      <p id="d1e865">We have separated all 4STAR measurements in the SEA into either ACAOD (11.5 h of measurements, from flags described in Sect. 3.1) or full-column
AOD (0.9 h of measurements in level legs or profiles below 600 m in
altitude). The full-column AOD is distinct from the ACAOD measurements as
these necessarily require conditions without overlying cloud and thus will
include the elevated biomass burning layer as well as any lower-level
aerosol near the sea surface. We note that these two populations do not
necessarily coincide directly in space and time but may be combined in a
statistical sense. Figure 4 shows the distribution of those measurements,
with roughly 1 sample s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" 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>, at two wavelengths. The ACAOD at 501 nm
(ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) from all samples (blue bars) has a mean, median, and
standard deviation of 0.32, 0.33, and 0.15 respectively, with an absolute
range of 0.02 to 1.04. The full-column AOD (pink bars) has a mean, median,
and standard deviation of 0.36, 0.30, and 0.18, respectively, with an
absolute range of 0.02 to 0.74. The larger mean AODs are likely
representative of the combined aerosol burden from within the boundary layer
as well as the typical plume observed aloft, although exhibiting larger
variability as shown by the larger standard deviation. The smaller range of
values for the full-column AOD as compared to ACAOD, is likely caused by the
lower number of full-column AOD measurements and their differences in
location and time compared to the ACAOD measurements. The small difference
between the mean above-cloud and full-column AODs indicates that the
majority of the AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> sampled in the region is due to the elevated
layers of aerosol. In contrast, the AOD sampled at 1020 nm (AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1020</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) is
much larger for the full column than its above-cloud counterpart by nearly
70 %, with the full-column AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1020</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> having a mean, median, and
standard deviation of 0.15, 0.13, and 0.06 respectively, and the
ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1020</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at 0.09, 0.09, and 0.05 respectively with a range of 0.01 to
0.75 (Fig. 4b).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e928">Histograms of above-cloud (blue) and full-column (pink) AOD sampled by 4STAR at <bold>(a)</bold> 501 nm and <bold>(b)</bold> 1020 nm. “Full column” denotes sampling below an altitude of 0.6 km where no cloud is between 4STAR and the sun (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3388</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), while “Only above clouds” denotes the AOD flagged to be only above clouds (see Sect. 3.1, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">41</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 189). Vertical solid lines denote the mean of the distribution (colored accordingly), while dashed vertical lines denote the median.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e967">Considered together, the ACAOD and full-column AOD (denoted by the total
extent of the histogram bars in Fig. 4) represent what a satellite remote
sensor would retrieve in the region if it were spatially and temporally
colocated to the NASA P-3 aircraft and the retrievals would not
discriminate between full-column and over-cloud measurements. The mean, median, and
standard deviation of AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for all combined measurements are 0.32,
0.33, and 0.15, respectively, though we note that this is dominated by the
greater sampling of the ACAOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 229) vs. full-column AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3395</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
uncertainty in the ACAOD sampled at 501 nm (1020 nm) by 4STAR due to instrumental artifacts and
calibration (see appendix for more details) are 0.011, 0.01, and 0.008
(0.013, 0.012, and 0.012) for the average, median, and standard deviation,
respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e1004">The spatial distribution of the ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is presented in Fig. 5. The
ACAOD was averaged in nearly equidistant latitude and longitude bins
(0.65<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude by 0.6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude). We observe highest the
ACAOD near the western coast of Africa at the northernmost parts of the
sampled region, while the lowest ACAOD is in the south of the sampled
region. The higher ACAOD extends to the west but with a reduced AOD compared to
near the coast, consistent with the expected behavior of the climatological
plume (see Fig. 1; Zuidema et al., 2016). The higher average ACAOD in the
northernmost part of the sampled region is also observed in the fine-mode
AOD from ground-based AERONET stations along the southern African coast
(triangle symbols in Fig. 5).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1036"><bold>(a)</bold> Map of mean ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from all P-3 flights, spatially binned during ORACLES 2016 deployment period. The triangles indicate the location of the ground-based AERONET stations, colored by their average full-column fine-mode AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. The overlaid circle size denotes the number of individual samples within that bin. <bold>(b)</bold> The standard deviation of ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> within each bin with the size of the squares denoting the number of days (abbreviated as “d”) sampled within each bin. The legend in the bottom left of <bold>(b)</bold> denotes the different sizes of the square symbol relating to the number of sampled days in each bin. The triangles indicate the standard deviation of the fine-mode AOD measured by the ground-based AERONET stations (from north to south): Lubango, Namibe, the DRAGON network at Henties Bay, Walvis Bay Airport, and Gobabeb. <bold>(c)</bold> The mean full-column AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> measurements and their location, with size of the square denoting the number of days sampled. The associated AERONET locations in triangle are for the total (fine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> coarse-mode) AOD.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=469.470472pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1100">The variability in standard deviation shows that, in the north, variability
in the measured ACAOD is low (Fig. 5b). Note that the standard deviation here is
calculated as a fraction of all samples, and we show the total number of
flight days contributing to each bin to give context as to the temporal
variability observed. The largest variability in the sampled ACAOD seems to
be concentrated in the central portion of the measured region, around
18<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,  8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, with the ACAOD<?pagebreak page1572?> standard deviation exceeding
0.15 over the 3–5 d sampled. This high variability is consistent with
a day-to-day change in the location of the southern edge of the highest AOD
in the aerosol plume climatology for September (Fig. 1 and Zuidema et al., 2016). Large variability is also observed near Walvis Bay, Namibia, outside
the typical climatology for the biomass burning plume. This variability in the
ACAOD is likely caused by local production of aerosol, observed to be mostly
dust or large particles. This hypothesis is corroborated with ground-based
measurements from an AERONET station located at the Walvis Bay Airport which
show a large but variable coarse-mode fraction of AOD (average
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">58</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">19</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of coarse-mode fraction) and consistently larger
aerosol effective radius from sky scan retrievals. The fine-mode fraction of
the AOD sampled by AERONET near the Walvis Bay Airport also shows some
variability (Fig. 5b), but this is dwarfed by the coarse-mode variability
(not shown).</p>
      <p id="d1e1141">The full-column AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> sampled by 4STAR and AERONET locations is
presented in Fig. 5c, where its paucity of samples is apparent particularly
in the central sampling region where the ACAOD shows higher than average values.
The occasions where the P-3 sampled the full-column AOD occurred nearly
always at the edges of the cloud layers. These full-column measurements were
not inside pockets of open cells clouds (POC; Stevens et al., 2005; Wood et
al., 2011). Full-column AOD measurements were more commonly measured past
the southern edge of the stratocumulus cloud deck and where the marine
boundary layer was both polluted by biomass burning or with a clean
background (ORACLES Science Team, 2017). Where a direct comparison of the
full-column AOD and the ACAOD is possible, the full-column AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is
on average 0.03 higher (a mean full-column AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.38 vs. a mean
ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.35 at the same locations). This difference is nearly
reproduced by AERONET, impacted by dust and sea salt in the boundary layer
over land with overlying biomass burning aerosol, for the average fine-mode
AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.2) and total AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.24).</p>
      <p id="d1e1199">An average ACAOD for this region can be calculated from these binned spatial
statistics, representing a more even weighting of the ACAOD (equal spatial
bins) as compared to averaging over the total number of samples which could
be influenced by variability in sampling density. This averaging method
attempts to reduce the spatial sampling bias by sampling the same area
multiple times (like for the relatively low ACAOD near Walvis Bay) but at a
cost of temporal resolution. The mean ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and its mean uncertainty
is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is arguably more representative of the SEA
region, as determined by the average of the mean within each spatial bin.
The median ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and median uncertainty of the region is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.34</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the spatially averaged ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> standard deviation and the averaged standard deviation of its uncertainty is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The equivalent spatially averaged mean,
median, and standard deviation of the ACAOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1020</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and its uncertainty is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Spectral AOD above clouds and its {\AA}ngstr\"{o}m exponent}?><title>Spectral AOD above clouds and its Ångström exponent</title>
      <?pagebreak page1573?><p id="d1e1320">The spectral characteristics of the ACAOD are related to the aerosol intensive
properties (shape, size distribution, absorption, and refractive index)
(e.g., Kaskaoutis and Kambezidis, 2008; O'Neill et al., 2001). From all
measurements of the ACAOD at wavelengths outside strong gas absorption, we
created the ACAOD spectra representing the mean, median, and related standard
deviation (Fig. 6), which is representative of the sampled ACAOD throughout
this deployment. This ACAOD spectra are consistent with the mean, median, and
standard deviation of the ACAOD at 501 and 1020 nm presented in Fig. 4.
The ACAOD spectra for both the mean (0.38 at 452 nm; 0.13 at 865 nm) and
median (0.38 at 452 nm; 0.12 at 865 nm) are easily within the mean
uncertainty (0.013 at 452 nm; 0.008 at 865 nm) of the measured spectra. The
standard deviation of the ACAOD (0.18 at 452 nm; 0.06 at 865 nm) is nearly
equivalent to its mean at the longest wavelengths (longer than 1600 nm).
This larger standard deviation at longer wavelengths can be caused by
sporadic larger AODs at those longer wavelengths, agreeing with the notion
of the intermittent presence of dust or marine aerosol, or alternatively, this
may be linked to a lower signal-to-noise ratio of the 4STAR spectrometers.
From the AE information, we can have a sense of the particle size, and we
can have an educated insight into the aerosol type with the accompanying measurements
and prior information for the region. To separate aerosol type (dust or sea
salt), a more advanced aerosol classification method would be needed, such
as the pre-specified clustering method described by Russell et al. (2014),
which used the wavelength-dependent single-scattering albedo and refractive
index.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1325">ACAOD spectra representing the mean, median, and standard deviation of measurements by 4STAR for selected wavelengths, which have minimal influence of gas absorption and high signal to noise ratio. The mean measured ACAOD at each wavelength is shown in black, along with its mean uncertainty (as error bars in black), median in blue circles, and the range of 1 standard deviation surrounding the mean for all the measured ACAOD (dashed grey lines). The magnitude of the standard deviation is also included, denoted by a thin pink line with triangles.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1334"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>There is a distinction between mean AE from the ACAOD vs. full-column AOD
observed using both methods, AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, described in Sect.
3.2. The mean AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for the ACAOD and full column are 1.45 and 1.08, while
the mean AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> are 1.71 and 1.25, respectively (see blue and pink
solid lines in Fig. 7). The distribution of AE in Fig. 7 seems to indicate
that most of the ACAOD is influenced by fine-mode aerosol particles, which
is consistent with aerosols that are aged biomass burning as reported by Eck
et al. (1999) and with the in situ aerosol sizing measurements taken on
board the NASA P-3 (albeit there are inlet passing inefficiencies for
accurately sampling larger aerosol; Pistone et al., 2019). Even though the
differences between full-column AOD and the ACAOD at 501 nm is small, the higher
relative difference at 1020 nm significantly modulates the AE for above-cloud and full-column AE.
This is consistent with the notion that even a relatively small population of larger aerosol particles (in this case likely
sea salt), has a large impact on the AE, because of their larger AOD in the
longer wavelengths (e.g., Yoon et al., 2012).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1387">Histograms of Ångström exponent (AE) calculated from <bold>(a)</bold> a polynomial fit of AOD sampled by 4STAR evaluated at 500 nm and <bold>(b)</bold> using the two-wavelength ratio (470 and 865 nm) in log–normal space, for the full-column AOD (pink) and the ACAOD (blue).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1402">The difference in average AE evaluated at different wavelengths, (AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>–AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.26</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the ACAOD, which is very similar to the
combination of AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and AE difference (centered at an AE
difference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.85) sampled by the Mongu
AERONET station within the biomass burning source region of southern Africa
(Yoon et al., 2012). The full-column average AE difference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with an
AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.25 is typical of coarse-mode dominant, with Mie theory
predicting 30 %–40 % of fine-mode fraction for this combination of AE
difference and AE<?pagebreak page1574?> values (Yoon et al., 2012). This large coarse-mode
fraction is corroborated by the in situ measurements of large marine aerosol
particles during the boundary layer flight segments during ORACLES and
reports of local dust in the boundary layer sampled at the AERONET Mongu
station.</p>
      <p id="d1e1501">The spatial patterns (Fig. 8) of the above-cloud AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, calculated
from each AOD measurement, help indicate the potential changes in aerosol
intensive properties measured during ORACLES 2016. For the sampled region,
the spatial mean AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), obtained by averaging the mean
of each bin over the entire region, is 1.65 (1.44), with a spatial average
of the medians of 1.66 (1.48) and a spatial average of the standard
deviation within each bin of 0.10 (0.06). This same spatial averaging method
was also used in Sect. 4.1. The spatial statistics of AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for the full-column AOD is lower than its ACAOD counterpart by
0.4 for the mean and by 0.3 for the median, with similar standard
deviations. The smallest AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (similarly for AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, not
shown) is observed in locations near the coast in the southern part of the
sampling region and south of the routine flight paths. A distinctively
smaller than average AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> value is also observed near Walvis Bay,
Namibia. This low AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> may be coincident with dust or marine
aerosol within the sampled column of the ACAOD at altitudes of 300 to 3700 m.
Farther from the coast, there is a small tendency towards decreasing AE
values, present in multiple flights, from about 1.8 to 1.6 at 5
to 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, as compared to similar latitudes near the coast. At those
same locations (not shown), the AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> of the above-cloud aerosol does
not show a similar trend, possibly indicating a change in aerosol
composition and size. There is, however, a trend of higher AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">500</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> near the
center of the region (7 to 11<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 20
to 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S), by more than 0.2 as compared to the furthest west
points. Similar to the map of the standard deviation of the ACAOD (Fig. 5),
a larger standard deviation in AE is observed near 18<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,
8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (Fig. 8), at the variable southern edge of the climatological
mean aerosol plume in an area with multiple sampling days. The high standard
deviation in AE in this region is associated with an ACAOD between 0.2 and 0.45,
with AE from 0.2 to 1.2. These aerosols, sampled over more than 1 d, may
not be uniquely biomass burning, but the low AE may indicate that there is
water vapor condensation on aerosol by neighboring mid-level clouds,
observed in a few flights in that region. Farther northwest, a nearly
equivalent number of days were sampled, but the standard deviation of the
AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is lower, indicating lower day-to-day variability. In the
northern near-coast region, there are multiple bins that were sampled during
only 1 d; here the standard deviation should not be taken to represent
the actual variability in the aerosol but rather of the sampling accuracy
within a day.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1696">Map of mean AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from AOD spectra of aerosols above clouds, calculated from <bold>(a)</bold> two wavelengths (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) and <bold>(b)</bold> the standard deviation of the AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, where the size of the squares represents the number of sampling days (abbreviated as “d”) used to build the statistics within each gridded bin, nearly the same number as shown in Fig. 5a.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Airborne AOD in context of climatology and satellite measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e1759">To contextualize the ACAOD sampled during the ORACLES 2016 measurements, we
compared the ACAOD measured directly below the aerosol layers from the NASA
P-3 to those retrieved from MODIS satellite measurements (both standard
aerosol Dark Target and above-cloud retrievals). We focus on the diagonal
routine flight paths (southeast to northwest), where the P-3 sampled the
same locations numerous times over the course of the month-long deployment
and the MODIS pixels within 15 km of the P-3 tracks. The sampled ACAOD for
each of the routine flights (identified by their day in Fig. 9a) is compared
to its equivalent above-cloud aerosol retrieved from the combination of
MODIS sensors from Aqua and Terra using the MOD06ACAERO methodology
described by Meyer et al. (2015) (Sect. 2.5). When comparing the ACAOD from
4STAR and MOD06ACAERO for each sampling day, a general agreement for most
days is observed with some high deviations at certain longitudes for
MOD06ACAERO, albeit with day-to-day variability as to the direction of the
agreement. For example, MOD06ACAERO was high compared to 4STAR measurements
on 12 September near 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, and higher than average ACAOD was
measured by both 4STAR and MOD06ACAERO near 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E on 31 August and
4 September.</p>
      <p id="d1e1780">We compile the daily 4STAR ACAOD and MOD06ACAERO values to a mean and median
(spanning the August–September 2016 ORACLES deployment period), which we
then compare to a proxy of ACAOD climatology based on the standard MODIS
Dark Target fine-mode aerosol retrieval (Fig. 9b, c). The ACAOD proxy
is the monthly averaged MODIS fine-mode AOD for clear-sky pixels that have
been aggregated from its original high resolution to 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in
latitude and longitude following the diagonal routine flight track of the
P-3. The above-cloud aerosol is fine-mode dominant (Sect. 4.2), while the
boundary layer aerosol is coarse mode dominant. The general longitudinal
dependence and magnitudes of the mean ACAOD as measured by 4STAR are
consistent with the MODIS fine-mode climatology, with larger ACAODs in the
western region (Fig. 9b).</p>
      <p id="d1e1792">The peak in this climatology occurs near 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E along the diagonal,
whereas the 4STAR ACAOD broadly peaks closer to 3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, and MOD06ACAERO
subsampled to routine flights is closer to 2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. The larger mean
MOD06ACAERO at 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E as compared with 4STAR and the climatology is
likely due to anomalously high days skewing the mean (such as 12 September).
On the eastern end, between 10 and 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 4STAR measured a
much lower ACAOD (below 0.1) than the climatology and MOD06ACAERO but
measured a higher ACAOD (0.27) at the easternmost edge of the routine flight
path, near 14<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. The easternmost 4STAR measurements are within
0.05 of the averages from AERONET ground-based<?pagebreak page1575?> measurements over the same
routine flight days, which are higher by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than monthly
averages from AERONET measured during August or September 2016. For the
entire longitude span investigated here, the 4STAR ACAOD averaged 12.2 % lower
than the climatology (difference of 0.04 AOD) and 16.0 % lower than
MOD06ACAERO for September (12.1 % of the August mean) along the routine
flight track.</p>
      <p id="d1e1860">The longitudes with the smallest difference between the subsampled
MOD06ACAERO and the monthly averages shows where the flight sampling is
adequate to represent monthly mean, whereas for regions with large
differences, the sampled ACAOD is not representative of its monthly mean.
The peak mean ACAOD for all August and September MOD06ACAERO at the most
western edge of the region, near 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, is shifted to the east in
the mean MOD06ACAERO subsampled for routine flights.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e1875">ACAOD at 501 nm along the diagonal routine flight path (13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E 23<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S to 0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S) for ORACLES 2016 compared to a MODIS climatology, MOD06ACAERO (aerosol above clouds retrieved from MODIS satellites; Meyer et al., 2015) retrievals as a function of longitude, and nearby ground-based AERONET fine-mode AOD. <bold>(a)</bold> The 4STAR ACAOD sampled during the days when the NASA P-3 followed the routine flight path and its equivalent retrievals from MOD06ACAERO. The 4STAR ACAOD is represented by box-and-whisker plots, for binned longitudes, whereas the MOD06ACAERO is represented by its mean value within a longitude by an “x” and connecting line. The AERONET fine-mode AOD measured from the DRAGON network at Henties Bay, Namibia, for the same days are presented in the far right of <bold>(a–c)</bold> as circles. <bold>(b)</bold> The mean of the ACAOD sampled over the days listed in <bold>(a)</bold> for 4STAR and MOD06ACAERO compared to other retrieved measurements over a longer time period. The monthly mean MOD06ACAERO for August and September 2016 along with the clear-sky mean total and fine-mode AOD from MODIS from September averaged over the years 2001–2013. The mean AOD from 4STAR sampled within the altitude range of 0.5–1.6 km. <bold>(c)</bold> Median ACAOD instead of mean.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1936">The largest differences between the monthly mean MOD06ACAERO for September
2016 and the subsampled MOD06ACAERO (around 2, 6–7, and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) suggest that sampling in that region
is not representative of the monthly mean. There is good agreement between
the MOD06ACAERO subsampled and the monthly mean in other longitudes (within
0.05) suggesting that the 4STAR ACAOD can be compared to monthly statistics at
those locations. In these locations, the 4STAR ACAOD had a bias of about 0.05–0.08 for most of the flight tracks (4STAR being lower than the subsampled
and monthly mean MOD06ACAERO). There is a divergence near the coast
(12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) between the 4STAR ACAOD and MOD06ACAERO, showing a
longitudinal trend in this bias by greater than 0.1.</p>
      <p id="d1e1957">Similar longitudinal dependence of the ACAOD is observed in the medians as with
the means but with greater differences at most longitudes between the 4STAR
ACAOD and MOD06ACAERO. Differences between the mean and the medians are
shown here to reduce impact of outliers in our sparsely sampled data. The
MODIS fine-mode climatology medians peak twice in the western edge, near
1 and 4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, whereas the measured 4STAR ACAOD peaks at
1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E;  MOD06ACAERO also peaks at 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and again at
7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, like its means. Median and mean differences for both
MOD06ACAERO and 4STAR seem to move their respective maximum farther west
and increase matching farther east (notably at 9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E), indicating a
changing ACAOD distribution with longitude.</p>
      <p id="d1e2005">Overall, the ACAOD sampled by 4STAR is slightly lower than the MOD06ACAERO
counterpart for averages and medians over the same days; additionally, it is
lower than the MODIS AOD fine-mode climatology. The peak for September 2016
was more eastward than what the MODIS AOD fine-mode climatology indicates,
with 4STAR measurements peaking even more to the east than those from MOD06ACAERO. This shift
in peak ACAOD is likely related to differences in meteorology and associated
wind patterns or a shifting of the biomass burning source locations for
September 2016 as compared to the 12-year climatology. The assumption that
all fine-mode AOD in clear sky retrieved by MODIS over 12 years is
representative of the above-cloud AOD should be revisited, as this assumes
that (1) no aerosol in the marine boundary layer contributes to the fine-mode
AOD and (2) aerosol in clear sky is representative of the above-cloud
aerosol. As far as the first assumption is concerned, a polluted marine
boundary layer with non-negligible black carbon concentrations was observed
at times during ORACLES 2016 (ORACLES Science Team, 2017), which would
indicate that the proxy ACAOD from MODIS 12-year climatology may be an upper
bound of the ACAOD. The synoptic scale of the near-constant ACAOD values (see
Fig. 1) spans both the marine stratocumulus clouds and neighboring<?pagebreak page1576?> clear sky
pixels for given days, leading credence to the second assumption.</p>
      <p id="d1e2008">Additionally, the filtering of MOD06ACAERO to only apply to retrievals over
opaque water clouds (with optical thicknesses greater than 4) may lead to
systemic biases in the ACAOD. Aerosols embedded within clouds have been shown
from spaceborne polarimeter measurements to skew ACAOD retrievals (Deaconu
et al., 2017). Although based on different retrieval principles, having
aerosol embedded within clouds would likely produce a reflectance
spectrum in MODIS measurements similar to the aerosol above clouds, leading to biased
high retrievals of the ACAOD that include the optical impact of cloud-embedded
aerosols.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>Vertical profiles of aerosol optical properties</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4.SSS1">
  <label>4.4.1</label><title>Spatial variability in AOD profiles</title>
      <p id="d1e2026">The vertical distribution of the measured AOD is presented in Fig. 10, with
the vast majority representing the ACAOD profiles and some representing
full-column profiles. Here, we show a subset of the AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> profiles
divided into northern and southern geographic regions to compare the coastal
flights (Fig. 10b, d) to those along the routine diagonal farther from the coast (Fig. 10a, c). Of particular interest are the considerably
high values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">501</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> observed in coastal flights at
the base of the aerosol plume, compared with similar altitudes (about 2500 m) along the routine diagonal region. The tops of the aerosol plume for all
these profiles are within the range of 4000 to 6000 m. In these altitude
profiles, which show column AOD of the aerosol only above the aircraft at a
given time, a near-vertical AOD trace (i.e., no change in AOD with height)
denotes a vertical range where the aerosol content is low or its
contribution to the total optical depth is marginal, i.e., a gap. Although
variability is observed, particularly farther from the coast, such
near-vertical lines occur more often and for larger vertical distances along
the routine diagonal. Similarly, a negative slope with altitude denotes the
presence of aerosols with a large impact on the total optical depth. As
expected, for the observed profiles, this feature coincides with high
concentration of the in situ biomass burning tracer CO (above 200 ppbv)
measured from the COMA instrument.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2059">A subset of AOD at 501 nm vertical profiles along the routine diagonal <bold>(a, c)</bold> and near the African coast <bold>(b, d)</bold> at the northernmost edge of the flight tracks (<bold>a, b</bold>; 8 to 14<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S) and near the bottom edge of the plume (<bold>c, d</bold>; 16 to 18<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S). Note that only a subset of profiles, roughly equal for each area, are shown for clarity of interpretation, though the middle-latitude profiles generally exhibit features of both latitude bins shown. Color indicates the CO concentration of the ambient air mass, measured by the in situ COMA instrument. The aerosol–cloud vertical gap is most prominent farther from the coast, as indicated by altitudes where low CO values are measured simultaneously with a low vertical gradient in AOD. Flights near the coast show more variability and fewer cases of an unpolluted gap above clouds (greater low-level CO and a stronger AOD gradient with altitude), although each condition is seen within both regions. The central map shows the location of the subsets overlaid with all flight paths from ORACLES-2016 (black lines) and all P-3 aircraft profiles (red circles). </p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=384.112205pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f10.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2099">Although generalities can be inferred from these profiles, a high degree of
variability is noticeable, especially when<?pagebreak page1577?> contrasting the near-coast
profiles versus those along the routine diagonal. This variability is more
commonly found in the presence of a gap between cloud and aerosol and the
vertical distance of the gap. For the coastal flights, the vertical
distance of the gap ranges from 0 to 2500 m, while for the routine flights it is 0–4000 m. As an indicator of the variability in the AOD profiles in these
different regions, we observed at 2000 m AOD ranges from 0.17 to 0.6
(0.28 to 0.72) for the southern (northern) profiles along the routine
diagonal and 0.3 to 0.58 (0.35 to 0.93) for the southern (northern) coastal
profiles. The vertical thickness of the plume itself is also generally
larger in the northern regions (Fig. 10a, b), consistent with the
climatological understanding of the plume spatial and vertical location
(Zuidema et al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4.SSS2">
  <label>4.4.2</label><title>AE vertical dependence</title>
      <p id="d1e2110">Considering all measurements made during ORACLES 2016 from the P-3, the
AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is roughly constant at a median value of 1.75 for the column
of aerosol extending from base altitudes ranging between 600 m and 6 km to
the top of atmosphere, whereas for column bases below that, the median
decreases monotonically to 0.6 (Fig. 11). The AE flagged as ACAOD (blue
colors, Fig. 11) is calculated from individual AOD spectra only for the
portions encompassing the entirety of the above-cloud aerosol layer. The AE
for all data is calculated from AOD spectra representing aerosol above the
aircraft altitude, often only partially representing aerosol layers,
regardless of whether there are clouds or aerosol in the underlying column.
The inclusion of all data permits the quantification of AE at altitudes
higher than the highest base<?pagebreak page1578?> altitude of aerosol above-cloud layer(s) (which
is just shy of 4000 m). The ACAOD AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> above 3000 m increases up
to 2.1, diverging from the AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> found from all data. Although this may
indicate a trend, the low sampling (less than 3 d, denoted by the light
color shading) for the ACAOD data at those altitudes may simply be spurious
as compared to AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> at the same altitude calculated from all AOD.
This larger AE at elevated altitudes for the ACAOD seems to indicate that when
considering the above-cloud AOD only, the ACAOD of aerosol layers with the
most elevated bases are likely to be comprised of relatively small
particles, especially compared to all data sampled at that same altitude.
The relatively consistent AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> with altitude is an indicator of a
constant aerosol particle size distribution throughout the vertical layer,
above 600 m. Below that, the much smaller average AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is a
telltale sign of larger aerosol particles near the surface of the sea and is
reproduced over more than 9 d of sampling, even when filtering out the
profiles near Walvis Bay (not shown), where there was significant dust. The
mean and median are vertically uniform, but there is a larger variability at
higher altitudes, especially near 4800 m.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2200">Binned vertical profile of AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> for all measured AOD greater than 0.1, including all data (red-purple colors) and aerosol flagged as representing ACAOD (blue colors). These represent the AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> calculated from all AOD spectra representing the aerosol above that altitude and binned by 100 m. The mean of each binned vertical population is represented by the green circle, the median by the gold vertical line; the thick horizontal line represents the span of AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> from the 25th to the 75th percentile, while the range is denoted by the span of the thin blue (or pink) line. The shading of each box-and-whisker plot denotes the number of days sampled within this altitude bin, linked to the color scales on the left side.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f11.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4.SSS3">
  <label>4.4.3</label><title>Hyperspectral ACAOD profile example</title>
      <p id="d1e2259">For a singular case, 4STAR's hyperspectral sampling allows an analysis of AOD
at multiple wavelengths, covering a vast spatial region including vertical
flight profiles. Figure 12 shows hyperspectral AODs for the above-aircraft
aerosol layer during a selected flight segment on 20 September 2016. This
case, sampled near 16.7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 8.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, has a full-column
ACAOD of 0.63 at 501 nm. No gap is observed between the cloud top (950 m; bottom
of profile) and aerosol layer. There are, however, changes in AOD
gradient with altitude, indicating variable aerosol extinction with
altitude, likely due to the vertical structure of aerosol concentration or type
within the full aerosol plume. The top of the aerosol layer extends to 5916 m; there is minimal change in AOD observed above that altitude. The vertical
profile (Fig. 12a) is not always continuous, with some breaks in AOD
measurements linked to sampling issues, such as a momentary loss of
sun tracking through a spiral maneuver of the aircraft found at 3500 m of
altitude.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2282">Hyperspectral AOD profile from 20 September 2018, from a square spiral at 11:52 to 12:15 UTC. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the AOD continuously using color (linked to the color scale at the far right) and as a function of wavelength and altitude. The shaded regions denote where strong gas absorbers, namely water vapor and oxygen impact the spectra. <bold>(b)</bold> Hyperspectral AOD at select altitudes, denoted by the dashed lines in <bold>(a)</bold>. The “x” symbols denote the particular wavelengths at which the AOD is available in the ORACLES data archive, matching some wavelengths used by other instruments, of which the AOD is of highest confidence</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f12.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2300">AOD measured here has a smoothly varying dependence on wavelength in the
ultraviolet to near-infrared range. This vertical profile of AOD shows a
mostly constant wavelength dependence of the AOD at different altitudes
(Fig. 12b). In addition to the AOD, we included total optical depth, which
includes the contributions of strongly absorbing gas components (water
vapor and the oxygen A-band) in shaded wavelength regions. The AOD spectra at
different altitudes (Fig. 12b) are seen to be mostly smoothly varying, except
for locations of low signal-to-noise for the 4STAR detectors, such as the
longest wavelength region near 1600 nm, and at wavelength regions near 430 nm, where a slight “bump” over the smoothly varying spectra is observed and
likely linked to signal issues of the detectors.</p>
      <p id="d1e2304">Figure 13 shows profiles of the ACAOD at specific wavelengths (Fig. 13a), as
well as the AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as an indicator of above aircraft aerosol
particle size (Fig. 13b). The AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> does not change significantly
from 1.75 for altitudes up to 4500 m, above which it is reduced down to 1.25,
corresponding with low AOD (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The aerosol extinction
coefficient can also be derived for the AOD vertical profile (Fig. 13c) by
using the differential of AOD with respect to altitude change with a
smoothing of 50 s (similarly to Shinozuka et al., 2013). This
extinction coefficient compares well to the in situ extinction coefficient
(Fig. 13d), derived using the HiGEAR nephelometers  for the scattering
coefficient adjusted to ambient relative humidity and the absorption
coefficient of dry particles measured using the PSAP. We also see that
regions of high extinction coefficient track well<?pagebreak page1579?> with elevated CO
concentration for this profile (Fig. 13e). Slight deviation between the
extinction coefficient calculated from 4STAR AOD and in situ measurements
are likely linked to a differing RH dependence of the aerosol particles and
its adjustments, particularly where there is variability in the ambient RH,
or when there is a different instrumental representation of the RH scattering
absorption. The relative humidity for this profile is between 10 % and
80 % within the aerosol layers (Fig. 13f), with the majority of the
profile near 20 % RH.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e2347">Aerosol optical properties profiles from the same case on 20 September 2016 as in Fig. 11. <bold>(a)</bold> Vertical profile of AOD at a few selected wavelengths. <bold>(b)</bold> AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> profile, <bold>(c)</bold> derived extinction coefficient from 4STAR AOD at a few wavelengths, <bold>(d)</bold> extinction coefficient at 540 nm derived from 4STAR AOD and in situ measurements, <bold>(e)</bold> CO concentration, and <bold>(f)</bold> ambient relative humidity (RH).</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=412.564961pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f13.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS5">
  <label>4.5</label><title>AOD distance to clouds</title>
      <?pagebreak page1580?><p id="d1e2399">The vertical profiles of AOD showcase the large variability in the gap size
and location along the atmospheric column (Fig. 10). The ACAOD flag,
described in Sect. 3.1, allows assessment of the frequency of cases where
there is and is not a gap between the aerosol layer and clouds, (Fig. 2b and
c), though it is not able to identify more complex scenes with a gap within
aerosol layers. During any one profile, the vertical extent of the
continuous measurements flagged as ACAOD quantifies the gap between the cloud
top and aerosol layer bottom. For cases in which this vertical extent is near 0 m (within an uncertainty of 60 m), it is said that the profile has no gap
between aerosol and cloud. Unlike previous studies from spaceborne lidars
(Devasthale and Thomas, 2011; Rajapakshe et al., 2017), we found that within
the entire region sampled by the NASA P-3 the gap does not linearly decrease
towards the west in a near-monotonic fashion (Fig. 14). Figure 14a shows the
meridionally averaged gap extent for all the samples, convolving the
temporal and latitudinal variations. The smallest gap extent is observed at
longitudes west of 2.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, similar to what is observed in CALIOP measurements
(not shown; Deaconu et al., 2019), but this may be biased due to the low number
of days sampled (only a maximum of 3 d, with six different profiles),
resulting in a relatively large impact of the meteorological state
compared to the driving impact of the climatology. The largest average
gap is not nearest to coast but rather midway into this sampling region at
about 7.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and is observed over 5 nonconsecutive days spanning
31 August to 20 September, with gaps larger than 1 km observed on 6 September at 18.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, on 10 September  at 17.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, and on 14 September at 16.1 to
17.7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S. Similarly, a local maximum in gap extent near
7.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E was described by Rajapakshe et al. (2017) using CATS and CALIOP measurements observed in nighttime. Nearer to coast, between
8.5 and 11.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, there is a region of close to near-zero gap extent, with median extents below 500 m. Combined in
larger longitude spans with a higher number of samples (Fig. 14b, c, and
d), omitting the profiles taken over land during take-off and landing at
14.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, the mean of the gap extent distribution peaks between
5 and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. Another way to view this dependence with longitude of the distribution is the proportion of the total profiles or cases that have a gap of less than 60 m (near zero for this analysis) or through the larger distance defined by McGill et al. (2015) as clouds embedded
within an aerosol layer (CEAL; 360 m), denoted by the gold and brown
colors in Fig. 14. We see a region where 0 % of the 3 d (4 profiles)
measured a near-zero gap extent at 5.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, and 0 % of the 3 d
(16 profiles) are considered CEAL cases at 5.5  to
7.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. The peak of the cases that have no gap or CEAL occurs at
the westernmost edge, with a secondary peak between 8.5  and
11.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. For all measurements, the proportion of CEAL cases is
observed here at 48 %, a statistically significant lower value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of
0.027) than reported for a larger region sampled with CATS (60 %) by
Rajapakshe et al. (2017).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e2521">Distribution of vertical extent where the AOD does not change significantly with changing altitude (aerosol–cloud gap). <bold>(a)</bold> Box-and-whisker plot (red line representing mean of the bin, box representing the interquartile range, whiskers representing the minimum and maximum range, and outliers represented by dots, which are farther than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the first or third quartile) of the vertical extent binned by longitude. Numbers indicate the number of days sampled represented within each bin, where each sampled day constitutes more than one profile. The proportion of sampled days that are considered to have a small extent is denoted by the gold and brown colors. <bold>(b, c, d)</bold> The gap altitude distribution represented as a histogram for all sampled ACAOD from 4STAR for three separate longitudinal regions. The proportion of the gap extent that is near zero is indicated as a percentage in each panel <bold>(b, c, d)</bold>, the equivalent statistic for CEAL cases (within 360 m) is below in parentheses.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1565/2020/acp-20-1565-2020-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2539">The direct radiative effect of aerosol above clouds is not likely to be
significantly modified by whether the aerosol is touching the top of the
cloud or not but rather by the modulation of inherent aerosol and cloud properties.
The direct aerosol radiative effect varies by only 1 %–3 % when
considering changes in height above clouds of the back carbon aerosol layer
(Zarzycki and Bond, 2010). Alternatively, for the indirect aerosol–cloud
interactions, we have observed aerosol layers touching the top of the
clouds. We have observed more direct contact between clouds and aerosol by up
to 12 % for CATS as reported by McGill et al. (2015) and potentially by
more than 40 % for CALIPSO as compared to Devasthale and Thomas (2011),
this increases the potential of a larger indirect effect. However, touching
of the aerosol and cloud is not always the best indicator of potential
aerosol–cloud interactions for indirect effects, especially when considering
that there may have been past interactions between a specific cloud and
aerosol layer (e.g., Diamond et al., 2018). The exact representativeness of
these results, including the aerosol layer vertical distribution, from
airborne sampling to the natural world, are investigated in future studies
(e.g., Shinozuka et al., 2019). There is likely a large
interannual variability and geographical sampling variations in the SEA,
which could skew the comparison between airborne and satellite sampling.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Summary and Discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e2552">During the ORACLES 2016 campaign, the NASA P-3 sampled aerosol above marine
stratocumulus clouds in the southeast Atlantic during the month of
September, coinciding with the peak of the biomass burning season in
sub-Saharan Africa. The 4STAR instrument, on board the P-3, sampled the AOD
from a range of flight altitudes, a portion of which is defined as the ACAOD.
The ACAOD is presented here in<?pagebreak page1581?> terms of distribution of its magnitude,
spatial dependence, vertical variability, and spectral dependence.</p>
      <p id="d1e2555">For all measured spectral AOD during September 2016, different statistics
(mean, median, and standard deviation) are calculated by two methods,
summarized in Table 1: first, by averaging all measurements equally and
second, by utilizing spatial binning before averaging to assess the influence
of highly sampled regions. By calculating the mean, median, and standard
deviation from all measurements, we inherently give more weight to regions
most often sampled during the field campaign (specifically the routine
flight paths), whereas the spatial binning of these statistics represents a
more evenly spatially weighted representation of the measured values. Here
we see that the mean spatially binned ACAOD is higher than the value from all
measurements, indicating that we disproportionally sampled low-ACAOD
regions, similar to the total AOD and ACAOD uncertainty. The spatially
binned AE is smaller than its all measurement counterpart, showing that our
sampling locations and focus were biased high for smaller aerosol particles
in comparison to a more evenly spatial distribution.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e2561">Summary of measured aerosol optical properties during September 2016 as part of ORACLES.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col5" align="center" colsep="1">All measurements </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col8" align="center">Spatially binned </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">SD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">SD</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ACAOD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">501 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.05</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1020 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.05</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.09</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.02</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total-column   AOD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">501 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.38</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.03</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1020 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.06</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.04</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">ACAOD uncertainty</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">501 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.004</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1020 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.013</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.012</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.012</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.015</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.011</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.004</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">AE of ACAOD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">470/865 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.71</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.65</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.66</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.10</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">500 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.48</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.06</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">AE of total column</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">470/865 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.09</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">500 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.08</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">0.07</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2908">Observed variations in AOD and AE during the sampling period are
significant, from changes in spatial patterns to changes in vertical
profiles. The northern region near the coast sees the largest measured optical
depth, as observed in the spatial pattern of the ACAOD. This is also where
12 years of MODIS AOD sampling shows the most optically thick aerosol plume.
Along the diagonal flight path, measured during routine flights from the
NASA P-3, the lowest ACAOD is observed at the southern end, with the largest
variability in the ACAOD occurring midway through, linked to the latitudinal movement of the
southern edge of the aerosol plume. This region of high ACAOD variability
coincides with high variability in the AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the ACAOD
spectral dependence. This coincident high variability indicates that we
sampled a mixture of aerosol particle populations comprised of a majority of
small particles from the optically thicker biomass burning plume and a
minority of aerosol particles with larger variability in aerosol size or
composition near the southern edge of the climatological plume. Looking at
the ensemble of the region, Table 1 shows that for the full-column AOD, the
AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is lower than the AE from the ACAOD. This is more evident when
considering the spatially binned AE from full-column AOD vs. the ACAOD, which
are well outside one standard deviation from their respective means. This
notion is also supported by the vertical profile of AE (Fig. 11) which
indicates the presence of large aerosol particles, potentially marine
aerosol embedded within the lower boundary layer, only present when
considering the full-column AOD.</p>
      <p id="d1e2939">When compared to satellite measurements and long-term AOD measurements in
the region, the measured ACAOD is lower than both coincident MOD06ACAERO
retrievals and the long-term fine-mode MODIS clear-sky AOD average over the
region. 4STAR systematically reports a lower ACAOD by 0.05–0.08 less than
MOD06ACAERO, even when considering only the days sampled by the aircraft.
The ACAOD from 4STAR also has a peak closer to shore and more to the south than
the MODIS AOD climatology mean and median (both fine and coarse-mode),<?pagebreak page1582?> with
differences near the coast between the 4STAR ACAOD measurements and MOD06ACAERO
retrievals. Differences between the 4STAR ACAOD and the MOD06ACAERO subsampled
for the same day are possibly linked with daily air mass movement and
underlying cloud diurnal cycle, especially when there is a mismatch between
MODIS overpass times and aircraft sampling times. The subsampled MOD06ACAERO
is more similar to the August average than the September average, which
can partially explain the sampling representativeness, and therefore some
differences, between the 4STAR ACAOD and September climatology built from MODIS
measurements.</p>
      <p id="d1e2942">The regions where the largest divergence between MOD06ACAERO and the 4STAR ACAOD
coincides with the largest variability in AE (near 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) likely indicate a link between aerosol properties and the accuracy of
MOD06ACAERO. Complicating factors for satellite retrievals in this region
may be linked to the occurrence of mid-level clouds topping the aerosol
layer, which have been observed in this region and have also been reported,
in the form of elevated RH, to occur over a longer time sample from
satellite and sounding observations by Adebiyi et al. (2015). Differences
between MOD06ACAERO and the 4STAR ACAOD may also be attributable to satellite
retrieval sensitivities to aerosol embedded within clouds, although these
differences do not seem to correlate with the gap extent. Embedded aerosol
within clouds is still possible through the inclusion of marine boundary
layer aerosols mixing upwards in clouds, or past mixing of above-cloud
aerosol into underlying clouds (Diamond et al., 2018). Other possible
sources of differences may be the underlying selection of aerosol model
(aerosol single scattering albedo, asymmetry parameter, etc.) in the MODIS
ACAOD retrieval or the cloud mask applied (i.e., only using cloud of optical
thickness 4 and above). Here we found a smaller AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (mean:
1.71) than what is defined in the aerosol model within the MO06ACAERO
retrieval – <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> when the AOD at 550 nm is 0.5 (AE dependence on AOD is described by Levy et al., 2007) – which may suggest the underlying aerosol
model needs refinement.</p>
      <p id="d1e2978">Differences in vertical AOD profiles are indicative of the variability in
the altitude and magnitude of the aerosol plume. We have observed distinct
AOD profiles along the routine diagonal and for coastal flights. Coastal
flights typically had larger AOD at high altitude (averaging to 0.51 at 2500 m altitude) as compared to flight along the routine diagonal (averaging to
0.38 at 2500 m altitude). The vertical extent where the AOD does not change
significantly, here used to indicate a gap between aerosol and cloud, spans
a larger distance farther from the coast than near to the coast (0–4000 m
far from the coast; 0–2500 m near to the coast). A strong decrease in AOD with
increasing altitude coincides with locations of high concentrations of CO, a
tracer of biomass burning. The derived extinction coefficient from 4STAR AOD
profiles and in situ measurements appear to match very well for the one example
shown. In the vertical domain, the AOD is observed to be spectrally smooth,
with AE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">470</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">865</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> nearly vertically constant for the majority of the
measurements, only significantly decreasing near the surface. The gap vertical
extent calculated from 4STAR data, in conjunction with in situ measurements
of scattering coefficient and cloud drop concentration, appears to have a
more complex dependence with longitude than was initially expected from
CALIOP space-borne observations. Visual observations from the NASA P-3
flights corroborate previous observations of clear air slots and their
inherent variability. There is a prevalence of near-zero gap extent, while
the largest gaps extents are not observed close to coast, as expected, but rather
off-shore near 7<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. We have also observed a lower proportion of
cases where the aerosol layer is near the cloud top as compared to previous
studies – 48 % of CEAL instead of the 60 % reported using CATS by
Rajapakshe et al. (2017).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1583?><p id="d1e3004">From these airborne measurements, we have seen that the ACAOD is lower than
expected from subsampled MODIS satellite retrievals (MOD06ACAERO) during the
measurement period (by 0.05–0.08) and from a 12-year climatology (by 0.04).
We have also observed the largest variability in aerosol optical properties
(ACAOD and AE) at the southern edge of the climatological aerosol plume for
September. The vertical dependence of the ACAOD was highly variable, even
for the same regions, with aerosol layer tops ranging from 4000  to 6000 m,
while their bottoms were from 400   to 4000 m. We observed that the extent
of the aerosol–cloud gap peaked at a longitude of 7.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, unlike
the expectation of a gradual decrease in this gap as the aerosol plume moves
westward, farther from coast.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>

<?pagebreak page1584?><app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>Description of 4STAR AOD data quality</title>
      <p id="d1e3028">AOD sampled by 4STAR is subject to various sources of measurement
uncertainty (stability of calibration coefficients, sun tracking accuracy,
dark count stability, air mass calculations, Rayleigh scattering
subtraction, gas absorption impact, and diffuse light contributions; see
Appendix A in Shinozuka et al., 2013). In addition to uncertainty sources
described by Shinozuka et al. (2013), we include for ORACLES 2016 4STAR
AOD the impact of (1) changes in calibration linked to changing spectrometer
throughput during the field mission, (2) in-flight window
deposition, and (3) angular response to radiometric calibration of
the 4STAR head. These corrections are processed within the open-source processing code of 4STAR (4STAR Team, 2018).</p>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>A1</label><title>4STAR calibration and performance</title>
      <p id="d1e3038">To calculate AODs from 4STAR, we obtain a radiometric calibration in terms
of the inferred signal that would be observed by 4STAR at the top of the
atmosphere using a refined Langley extrapolation method based on the
Beer–Lambert law (Schmid and Wehrli, 1995), used by Shinozuka et al. (2013). To reduce the potential for calibration bias, we use a collection of
calibrations from refined Langley extrapolations near sunrise and sunset
taken from airborne measurements and from the high-altitude Mauna Loa
Observatory (MLO) in Hawaii. The airborne calibrations (five total) were
executed during high-altitude portions of flights (including the transit
flights), with low calculated AOD (below 0.05 at 501 nm) and an air mass
change of greater than 2. The Langley extrapolations from MLO were taken
weeks before (pre-deployment) and after (post-deployment) the observation
campaign, under minimally polluted conditions with a spread of air mass
factor from 1.8 to 12. Using similar metrics to those described by Shinozuka
et al. (2013), the relative standard deviation of the calibration derived
from six Langley extrapolations during pre-deployment MLO is 0.63 %
(0.17 %) at 501 nm (1040 nm). For post-deployment MLO, this relative
standard deviation calculated from four Langley extrapolations is 1.2 %
(0.39 %) at 501 nm (1040 nm). For all in-flight Langley extrapolations, we
obtained a relative standard deviation of 1.1 % (0.91 %) at 501 nm (1040 nm), deviating from the post-deployment MLO by 0.99 % higher at 501 nm and
0.56 % lower at 1040 nm. The calibration from the post-deployment MLO
Langley extrapolations shows a decrease of 2.9 % (an equivalent maximum
AOD of 0.029 when sun is overhead) at 501 nm and an increase of 0.2 %
(equivalent to 0.002 AOD) at 1040 nm as compared to pre-deployment MLO. This
variation between the pre- and post-deployment MLO calibration is attributed
to a disconnection of the fiber optic linking the 4STAR head and the
spectrometers during the time between the MLO pre-deployment calibration and
the ORACLES deployment. Subsequent disconnections did not occur. Because of
this disconnect, we did not use the pre-deployment MLO calibrations for
ORACLES data, but its repeatability helps describe the precision of the instrument over multiple weeks, for an unaltered instrument condition.</p>
      <p id="d1e3041">During ORACLES, the AODs derived from 4STAR measurements were sensitive to
relative humidity variations of the spectrometers when failure of the
humidity control occurred (desiccant was depleted). To mitigate these
effects, we incorporate another calibration from AOD measured under high-altitude, near-solar-noon,  low-aerosol loading conditions when 4STAR was
effectively sampling the stratospheric AOD contribution and was subjected
to different spectrometer humidity. A set of new calibrations was obtained
from the average of the Langley extrapolation obtained during post-deployment
MLO, in-flight Langley extrapolations, and calibrations derived from
matching a reference stratospheric AOD spectrum to high-altitude high-sun
measurements. The reference stratospheric AOD spectrum is obtained from the
lowest AOD measured at the AERONET (Holben et al., 1998) Bonanza, Namibia,
site (an altitude of 1.3 km) over the course of 3 months, which was found to
be 0.016 at 501 nm, and then a log–log second-order polynomial fit (e.g.,
Shinozuka et al., 2013) was used to interpolate the reference AOD spectrum
to the wavelengths sampled by 4STAR. From this method, a total of seven sets of
calibrations (described within the archived 4STAR AOD data; ORACLES Science
Team, 2017) were applied to 4STAR, separating periods of varying relative
humidity of the enclosure containing the spectrometers. The relative
standard deviation of all these calibrations is 0.83 % (1.12 %) at 501 nm (1040 nm). Similar performance from 4STAR has been observed in previous
field campaigns (e.g., Shinozuka et al., 2013), where extensive comparisons
to ground-based AERONET stations resulted in a root-mean-square difference
of 0.01 for wavelengths between 501 and 1020 nm, 0.02 at 380 and 1640 nm,
and 0.03 at 440 nm.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>A2</label><title>4STAR corrections and uncertainty</title>
      <p id="d1e3052">Accurate 4STAR measurements of AOD require corrections for some instrument
artifacts and the impact of light absorption by trace gases. Corrections were related
to light transmission variations due to angular variability in the fiber
optic rotating joint (FORJ),  deposition of material on the outside
window of 4STAR's sun barrel, and, finally, the atmospheric trace gases
contribution to AOD estimates.</p>
      <p id="d1e3055">Light transmission variability due to the FORJ is corrected using the
azimuthal position of the 4STAR sun-tracking head in relation to the axis of the plane. This azimuthal dependence is measured in between each flight by a full
rotation in each direction while staring at a stable light source (a light
emitting diode that has less than 0.1 % variation in radiance during the
time of the test). The variations have a near-sinusoidal shape with features
departing from the mean by no more than 1.4 % and are repeatable in
between each<?pagebreak page1585?> measurement (within 0.2 % over the course of the field
mission), with the largest features not moving by more than 30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3067">The impact of window deposition on the transmission of 4STAR's sun barrel is
quantified by measuring the change in signal from a stable light source
before versus after cleaning the window and is performed after each flight.
We attributed any window deposition observed to discrete events during
flight, notably during low-level near-water flight segments or during cloud
insertions. The uncertainty in the AOD surrounding these events (within
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> min) has been increased to the magnitude of the optical depth of the window
deposition and by 30 % of the corrected magnitude for the
rest of the flight, producing a step-change in the AOD uncertainty. The
impacts of these events were quantified by the change in high-altitude AOD
before and after the low-level segments. Differences of greater than 2 %
but not more than 4.5 % occurred in 4 of the 15 research flights and have
been accounted for, both the magnitude of the AOD and its related
uncertainty, using the above-described method.</p>
      <p id="d1e3080">AOD is influenced by trace gas absorption in the entire column in distinct
wavelength regions. We correct the influence of trace gases (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) by convolving their retrieved
vertical column gas abundance and profile with their spectral absorption
coefficients (Segal-Rosenheimer et al., 2014). This results in an optical
depth contribution from these gases (typically very minor) which is then
subtracted from the AOD spectrum.</p><?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?>
</sec>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e3156">All ORACLES 2016 in situ data used in this study are publicly available at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/ORACLES/P3/2016_V1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Suborbital/ORACLES/P3/2016_V1</ext-link>
(ORACLES Science Team, 2017). This is a fixed-revision subset of the entire
ORACLES mission dataset. It contains only the file revisions that were
available on 15 June 2018. The 4STAR raw data have been analyzed to produce AOD in this dataset using the open-source software published by the 4STAR Team (2018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1492912" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1492912</ext-link>).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3168">SL and JR conceived the study. JR acquisitioned the funding. SL and KP
analyzed the data with help from CF, ML, MSR, YS, and SGH. YS helped with
curating the data from ORACLES. SL, CF, KP, MK, MSR, YS, JP, SGH, SF, JSG,
MD, and RW collected data on board the NASA P-3, while AERONET data was
collected by BH, PF, SP, GMK, MG, and AN. KM and RW provided satellite data
and analysis. SD and RPD provided engineering support for 4STAR. SL wrote
the paper with reviews from all authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3174">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3180">This article is part of the special issue “New observations and related modelling studies of the aerosol–cloud–climate system in the southeast Atlantic and southern Africa regions (ACP/AMT inter-journal SI)”. It is not associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e3186">The authors wish to acknowledge all of the ORACLES science team and the NASA
P-3 flight and maintenance crew for the successful deployment.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3191">ORACLES is funded by NASA Earth Venture Suborbital-2 grant NNH13ZDA001N-EVS2. The
Henties Bay and Gobabeb AERONET stations are maintained by the French Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and the South African National
Research Foundation (NRF) through the Groupement de Recherche
Internationale Atmospheric Research in southern Africa and the Indian
Ocean (GDRI ARSAIO), the “Projet International de Coopération
Scientifique” (PICS) “Long-term observations of aerosol properties in
Southern Africa” (contract n. 260888), and the Partenariats Hubert Curien
(PHC) PROTEA of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International
Development (contract numbers 33913SF and 38255ZE).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3197">This paper was edited by Jérôme Riedi and reviewed by three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>4STAR Team:  LeBlanc, S.,  Flynn, C. J.,  Shinozuka, Y.,
Segal-Rozenhaimer, M.,  Pistone, K.,  Kacenelenbogen,  M.,
Redemann,  J.,  Schmid, B., Russell, P., Livingston, J., and Zhang, Q.:
4STAR_codes: 4STAR processing codes,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1492912" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1492912</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Adebiyi, A. A., Zuidema, P., and Abel, S. J.: The convolution of dynamics and
moisture with the presence of shortwave absorbing aerosols over the
southeast Atlantic, J. Climate, 28, 1997–2024,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00352.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00352.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ångström, A.: On the Atmospheric Transmission of Sun Radiation and
on Dust in the Air, Geogr. Ann., 11, 156–166,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/20014422.1929.11880498" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/20014422.1929.11880498</ext-link>, 1929.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bergstrom, R., Pilewskie, P., Schmid, B., and Russell, P. B.: Estimates of
the spectral aerosol single scattering albedo and aerosol radiative effects
during SAFARI 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 1–11,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002435" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002435</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T.,
Deangelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C.
S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5380–5552,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50171</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chand, D.,  Wood, R.,  Anderson, T. L.,  Satheesh, S. K., and  Charlson, R. J.:
Satellite-derived direct radiative effect of aerosols dependent on cloud
cover, Nat. Geosci., 2, 181–184, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo437" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo437</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chang, I. and Christopher, S. A.: Identifying Absorbing Aerosols above Clouds from the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager Coupled with NASA A-Train Multiple Sensors, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 54, 3163–3173, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2015.2513015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2015.2513015</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chang, I. and Christopher, S. A.:  The impact of seasonalities on direct radiative
effects and radiative heating rates of absorbing aerosols above clouds, Q.
J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 1395–1405, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.3012</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chuang, P. Y.,  Saw, E. W.,  Small, J. D.,  Shaw, R. A.,  Sipperley, C. M.,
Payne, G. A., and  Bachalo, W. D.: Airborne Phase Doppler Interferometry for Cloud
Microphysical Measurements, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 42, 685–703,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802232956" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820802232956</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cornet, C., C.-Labonnote, L., Waquet, F., Szczap, F., Deaconu, L., Parol, F., Vanbauce, C., Thieuleux, F., and Riédi, J.: Cloud heterogeneity on cloud and aerosol above cloud properties retrieved from simulated total and polarized reflectances, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 3627–3643, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3627-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-3627-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Deaconu, L. T., Waquet, F., Josset, D., Ferlay, N., Peers, F., Thieuleux, F., Ducos, F., Pascal, N., Tanré, D., Pelon, J., and Goloub, P.: Consistency of aerosols above clouds characterization from A-Train active and passive measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 3499–3523, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3499-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-3499-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Deaconu, L. T., Ferlay, N., Waquet, F., Peers, F., Thieuleux, F., and Goloub, P.: Satellite inference of water vapour an<?pagebreak page1587?>d above-cloud aerosol combined effect on radiative budget and cloud-top processes in the southeastern Atlantic Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 11613–11634, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11613-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-11613-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>De Graaf, M.,  Tilstra, L. G.,  Wang, P., and  Stammes, P.: Retrieval of the
aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from spaceborne spectrometry, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D07207, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD017160</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>De Graaf, M.,  Bellouin, N.,  Tilstra, L. G.,  Haywood, J., and  Stammes, P.:
Aerosol direct radiative effect of smoke over clouds over the southeast
Atlantic Ocean from 2006 to 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 7723–7730,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061103" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GL061103</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Devasthale, A. and Thomas, M. A.: A global survey of aerosol-liquid water cloud overlap based on four years of CALIPSO-CALIOP data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1143–1154, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1143-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-1143-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Diamond, M. S., Dobracki, A., Freitag, S., Small Griswold, J. D., Heikkila, A., Howell, S. G., Kacarab, M. E., Podolske, J. R., Saide, P. E., and Wood, R.: Time-dependent entrainment of smoke presents an observational challenge for assessing aerosol–cloud interactions over the southeast Atlantic Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14623–14636, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14623-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-14623-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y. J., King, M.
D., Tanré, D., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of Absorption and Optical
Properties of Key Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations, J. Atmos.
Sci., 59, 590–608, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dunagan, S. E., Johnson, R., Zavaleta, J., Russell, P. B., Schmid, B.,
Flynn, C., Redemann, J., Shinozuka, Y., Livingston, J., and
Segal-Rosenhaimer, M.: Spectrometer for Sky-Scanning Sun-Tracking
Atmospheric Research (4STAR): Instrument technology, Remote Sens., 5,
3872–3895, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5083872" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs5083872</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eck, T., Holben, B., and Reid, J.: Wavelength dependence of the optical depth
of biomass burning, urban, and desert dust aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
104, 31333–31349, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900923" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD900923</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Ward, D. E., Mukelabai, M. M., Dubovik, O.,
Smirnov, A., Schafer, J. S., Hsu, N. C., Piketh, S. J., Queface, A., Roux,
J. Le, Swap, R. J., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of biomass burning aerosol
optical characteristics in southern Africa during the SAFARI 2000 dry season
campaign and a comparison of single scattering albedo estimates from
radiometric measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8477,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002321" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002321</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Feng, N.  and  Christopher, S. A.: Measurement-based estimates of direct
radiative effects of absorbing aerosols above clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 6908–6921, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023252" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023252</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Formenti, P., D'Anna, B., Flamant, C., Mallet, M., Piketh, S. J.,
Schepanski, K., Waquet, F., Auriol, F., Brogniez, G., Burnet, F.,
Chaboureau, J.-P., Chauvigné, A., Chazette, P., Denjean, C., Desboeufs,
K., Doussin, J.-F., Elguindi, N., Feuerstein, S., Gaetani, M., Giorio, C.,
Klopper, D., Mallet, M. D., Nabat, P., Monod, A., Solmon, F., Namwoonde, A.,
Chikwililwa, C., Mushi, R., Welton, E. J., and Holben, B.: The Aerosols,
Radiation and Clouds in southern Africa (AEROCLO-sA) field campaign in
Namibia: overview, illustrative observations and way forward, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 100, 1277–1298,   <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0278.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0278.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Graßl, H.: Possible changes of planetary albedo due to aerosol
particles, in: Man's Impact on Climate, edited by:  Bach, W.,  Pankrath, J., and
Kellogg, W., Elsevier, New York, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M.,  Osborne, S. R.,  Francis, P. N.,  Keil, A.,  Formenti, P.,
Andreae, M. O., and  Kaye, P. H.: The mean physical and optical properties of
regional haze dominated by biomass burning aerosol measured from the C-130
aircraft during SAFARI 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8473,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002226" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002226</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hobbs, P. V.: Clean air slots amid dense atmospheric pollution in southern
Africa, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8490, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002156" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002156</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanre, D., Vermote, E., Reagan, J.
A., Kaufman, Y. J., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F., Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.:
AERONET – A Federated Instrument Network and Data Archive for Aerosol
Characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1–16, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00031-5" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00031-5</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Holben, B. N., Kim, J., Sano, I., Mukai, S., Eck, T. F., Giles, D. M., Schafer, J. S., Sinyuk, A., Slutsker, I., Smirnov, A., Sorokin, M., Anderson, B. E., Che, H., Choi, M., Crawford, J. H., Ferrare, R. A., Garay, M. J., Jeong, U., Kim, M., Kim, W., Knox, N., Li, Z., Lim, H. S., Liu, Y., Maring, H., Nakata, M., Pickering, K. E., Piketh, S., Redemann, J., Reid, J. S., Salinas, S., Seo, S., Tan, F., Tripathi, S. N., Toon, O. B., and Xiao, Q.: An overview of mesoscale aerosol processes, comparisons, and validation studies from DRAGON networks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 655–671, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-655-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-655-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Howell, S. G., Clarke, A. D., Shinozuka, Y., Kapustin, V., McNaughton, C.
S., Huebert, B. J., Doherty, S. J., and Anderson, T. L.: Influence of
relative humidity upon pollution and dust during ACE-Asia: Size
distributions and implications for optical properties, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, 1–11, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005759" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005759</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hu, Y., Vaughan, M., Liu, Z., Powell, K., and Rodier, S.: Retrieving Optical
Depths and Lidar Ratios for Transparent Layers Above Opaque Water Clouds
From CALIPSO Lidar Measurements, IEEE Geosci. Remote, 4, 523–526, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H.,  Torres, O.,  Remer, L. A., and  Bhartia, P. K.: A color ratio method
for simultaneous retrieval of aerosol and cloud optical thickness of
above-cloud absorbing aerosols from passive sensors: Application to MODIS
measurements, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 3862–3870,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H., Torres, O.,  Waquet, F.,  Chand, D., and  Hu, Y.: How do A-train
sensors intercompare in the retrieval of above cloud aerosol optical depth?
A case study-based assessment, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,   1–7,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058405" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013GL058405</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kacenelenbogen, M. S., Vaughan, M. A., Redemann, J., Young, S. A., Liu, Z., Hu, Y., Omar, A. H., LeBlanc, S., Shinozuka, Y., Livingston, J., Zhang, Q., and Powell, K. A.: Estimations of global shortwave direct aerosol radiative effects above opaque water clouds using a combination of A-Train satellite sensors, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4933–4962, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1588?><ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kaskaoutis, D. G. and Kambezidis, H. D.: Comparison of the Ångström
parameters retrieval in different spectral ranges with the use of different
techniques, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 99, 233–246, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-007-0279-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00703-007-0279-y</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kaufman, Y. J.: Aerosol optical thickness and atmospheric path radiance, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 2677– 2692,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/92JD02427" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/92JD02427</ext-link>, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Keil, A. and Haywood, J. M.: Solar radiative forcing by biomass burning
aerosol particles during SAFARI 2000: A case study based on measured aerosol
and cloud properties, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8467,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002315" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002315</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>LeBlanc, S. E.: samuelleblanc/fp: Moving Lines: NASA airborne research
flight planning tool release, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1478126" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5281/zenodo.1478126</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>LeBlanc, S. E., Schmidt, K. S., Pilewskie, P., Redemann, J., Hostetler, C.,
Ferrare, R., Hair, J., Langridge, J. M., and Lack, D. A.: Spectral aerosol
direct radiative forcing from airborne radiative measurements during CalNex
and ARCTAS, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D00V20, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018106" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD018106</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., and Dubovik, O.: Global aerosol optical properties
and application to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol
retrieval over land, J. Geophys. Res., 112, 1–15,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007815" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007815</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C.,  Remer, L. A.,  Tanre, D.,  Mattoo, S., and  Kaufman, Y. J.: Algorithm
for remote sensing of tropospheric aerosol over dark targets from MODIS,
ATBD Reference Number: ATBD-MOD-04, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Munchak, L. A., Remer, L. A., Sayer, A. M., Patadia, F., and Hsu, N. C.: The Collection 6 MODIS aerosol products over land and ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2989–3034, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Huey, G., Yokelson, R. J., Selimovic, V., Simpson, I., Müller,
M., Jimenez, J., Campuzano-Jost, P., Beyersdorf, A., Blake, D., Butterfield,
Z., Choi, Y., Crounse, J., Day, D., Diskin, G., Dubey, M., Fortner, E.,
Hanisco, T., Weiwei, H., King, L., Kleinman, L., Meinardi, S., Mikoviny, T.,
Onasch, T., Palm, B., Peischl, J., Pollack, I., Ryerson, T., Sachse, G.,
Sedlacek, A., Shilling, J., Springston, S., St. Clair, J., Tanner, D., Teng,
A., Wennberg, P., Wisthaler, A., and Wolfe, G.: Airborne measurements of
western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air
quality implications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 6108–6129,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026315" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JD026315</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Matus, A. V., L'Ecuyer, T. S., Kay, J. E., Hannay, C., and Lamarque, J.-F.: The role of clouds in modulating global aerosol
direct radiative effects in spaceborne active observations and the Community
Earth System Model,  J. Climate, 28, 2986–3003, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McGill, M. J., Yorks, J. E., Scott, V. S., Kupchock, A. W., and Selmer, P. A.:
The Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS): a technology demonstration on the
International Space Station, Proc. SPIE, 9612,  34–39,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2190841" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1117/12.2190841</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McNaughton, C. S., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Anderson, B., Thornhill,
L., Hudgins, C., Dibb, J. E., Scheuer, E., Maring, H., Mcnaughton, C. S.,
Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Hudgins, C.,
Winstead, E., Dibb, J. E., Mcnaughton, C. S., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G.,
Pinkerton, M., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Hudgins, C., Winstead, E., Dibb,
J. E., Scheuer, E., and Maring, H.: Results from the DC-8 Inlet
Characterization Experiment (DICE): Airborne Versus Surface Sampling of
Mineral Dust and Sea Salt Aerosols Results from the DC-8 Inlet
Characterization Experiment (DICE): Airborne Versus Surface Sampling of
Mineral Dust and, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 6826, 136–159,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820601118406" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02786820601118406</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meyer, K., Platnick, S., and Zhang, Z.: Simultaneously inferring above-cloud
absorbing aerosol optical thickness and underlying liquid phase cloud
optical and microphysical properties using MODIS, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
120, 5524–5547, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023128" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023128</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>O'Neill, N. T., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Smirnov, A., Dubovik, O., and Royer, A.:
Bimodal size distribution influences on the variation of Angstrom
derivatives in spectral and optical depth space, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
9787–9806, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>O'Neill, N. T., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., and Thulasiraman, S.:
Spectral discrimination of coarse and fine mode optical depth, J. Geophys.
Res., 108, 4559, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002975" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002975</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>ORACLES Science Team: Suite of Aerosol, Cloud, and Related Data Acquired
Aboard P3 During ORACLES 2016, Version 1, NASA Ames Earth Science Project
Office, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/ORACLES/P3/2016_V1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Suborbital/ORACLES/P3/2016_V1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Peers, F., Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Dubuisson, P., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Szczap, F., Tanré, D., and Thieuleux, F.: Absorption of aerosols above clouds from POLDER/PARASOL measurements and estimation of their direct radiative effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 4179–4196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pistone, K., Redemann, J., Doherty, S., Zuidema, P., Burton, S., Cairns, B., Cochrane, S., Ferrare, R., Flynn, C., Freitag, S., Howell, S. G., Kacenelenbogen, M., LeBlanc, S., Liu, X., Schmidt, K. S., Sedlacek III, A. J., Segal-Rozenhaimer, M., Shinozuka, Y., Stamnes, S., van Diedenhoven, B., Van Harten, G., and Xu, F.: Intercomparison of biomass burning aerosol optical properties from in situ and remote-sensing instruments in ORACLES-2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9181–9208, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9181-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-9181-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., Meyer, K. G., King, M. D., Wind, G., Amarasinghe, N.,
Marchant, B., Arnold, G. T., Zhang, Z., Hubanks, P. A., Holz, R. E., Yang,
P., Ridgway, W. L., and Riedi, J.: The MODIS Cloud Optical and Microphysical
Products: Collection 6 Updates and Examples From Terra and Aqua, IEEE T.
Geosci. Remote, 55, 502–525, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pósfai, M., Simonics, R., Li, J., Hobbs, P. V., and Buseck, P. R.:
Individual aerosol particles from biomass burning in southern Africa: 1.
Compositions and size distributions of carbonaceous particles, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 108, 8483, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002291" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002291</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1589?><ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Provencal, R., Gupta, M., Owano, T. G., Baer, D. S., Ricci, K. N., O'Keefe,
A., and Podolske, J. R.: Cavity-enhanced quantum-cascade laser-based
instrument for carbon monoxide measurements, Appl. Optics, 44, 6712–6717,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.44.006712" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1364/AO.44.006712</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Baynard, T., Clarke, A. D., Onasch, T. B., Wang,
W., Rood, M. J., Andrews, E., Allan, J., Carrico, C. M., Coffman, D., and
Worsnop, D.: Impact of particulate organic matter on the relative humidity
dependence of light scattering: A simplified parameterization, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, 3–6, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024322" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL024322</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rajapakshe, C., Zhang, Z., Yorks, J. E., Yu, H., Tan, Q., Meyer, K.,
Platnick, S., and Winker, D. M.: Seasonally transported aerosol layers over
southeast Atlantic are closer to underlying clouds than previously reported,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5818–5825, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073559" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL073559</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Russell, P. B., Bergstrom, R. W., Shinozuka, Y., Clarke, A. D., DeCarlo, P. F., Jimenez, J. L., Livingston, J. M., Redemann, J., Dubovik, O., and Strawa, A.: Absorption Angstrom Exponent in AERONET and related data as an indicator of aerosol composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1155–1169, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-1155-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-1155-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Russell, P. B., Kacenelenbogen, M., Livingston, J. M., Hasekamp, O. P.,
Redemann, J., Ramachandran, S., Holben, B., and Al, R. E. T.: A
multiparameter aerosol classification method and its application to
retrievals from spaceborne polarimetry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
9838–9863, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021411" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD021411</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sakaeda, N., Wood, R., and Rasch, P. J.: Direct and semidirect aerosol
effects of southern African biomass burning aerosol, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, 1–19, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015540" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD015540</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M.,  Smirnov, A.,  Hsu, N. C., and  Holben, B. N.: A pure marine aerosol
model, for use in
remote sensing applications, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05213,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016689" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016689</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Lee, J., Redemann, J., Schmid,
B., and Shinozuka, Y.: Extending “Deep Blue” aerosol retrieval coverage to
cases of absorbing aerosols above clouds: Sensitivity analysis and first
case studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 4830–4854,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024729" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024729</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Lee, J., Kim, W. V., Burton, S., Fenn, M. A., Ferrare, R. A., Kacenelenbogen, M., LeBlanc, S., Pistone, K., Redemann, J., Segal-Rozenhaimer, M., Shinozuka, Y., and Tsay, S.-C.: Two decades observing smoke above clouds in the south-eastern Atlantic Ocean: Deep Blue algorithm updates and validation with ORACLES field campaign data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3595–3627, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3595-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-3595-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schmid, B. and Wehrli, C.: Comparison of sun photometer calibration by
Langley technique and standard lamp, Appl. Optics, 34, 4500–4512, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A., Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura, T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Segal‐Rosenheimer, M., Russell, P. B., Schmid, B., Redemann, J., Livingston, J. M., Flynn, C. J., Johnson, R. R., Dunagan, S. E., Shinozuka, Y., Herman, J. R., Cede, A., Abuhassan, N., Comstock, J. M., Hubbe, J. M., Zelenyuk, A., and Wilson, J.: Tracking elevated pollution layers with a
newly developed hyperspectral Sun/Sky spectrometer (4STAR): Results from the
TCAP 2012 and 2013 campaigns, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 1–18,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020884" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020884</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shinozuka, Y., Redemann, J., Livingston, J. M., Russell, P. B., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Freitag, S., O'Neill, N. T., Reid, E. A., Johnson, R., Ramachandran, S., McNaughton, C. S., Kapustin, V. N., Brekhovskikh, V., Holben, B. N., and McArthur, L. J. B.: Airborne observation of aerosol optical depth during ARCTAS: vertical profiles, inter-comparison and fine-mode fraction, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3673–3688, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3673-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-3673-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shinozuka, Y., Saide, P. E., Ferrada, G. A., Burton, S. P., Ferrare, R., Doherty, S. J., Gordon, H., Longo, K., Mallet, M., Feng, Y., Wang, Q., Cheng, Y., Dobracki, A., Freitag, S., Howell, S. G., LeBlanc, S., Flynn, C., Segal-Rosenhaimer, M., Pistone, K., Podolske, J. R., Stith, E. J., Bennett, J. R., Carmichael, G. R., da Silva, A., Govindaraju, R., Leung, R., Zhang, Y., Pfister, L., Ryoo, J.-M., Redemann, J., Wood, R., and Zuidema, P.: Modeling the smoky troposphere of the southeast Atlantic: a comparison to ORACLES airborne observations from September of 2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-678" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-2019-678</ext-link>, in review, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Small, J. D., Chuang, P. Y., Feingold, G., and Jiang, H.: Can aerosol
decrease cloud lifetime?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 1–5,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038888" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL038888</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stevens, B.,  Vali, G.,  Comstock, K.,  Wood, R.,  van Zanten, M. C.,  Austin, P. H.,
Bretherton, C. S., and  Lenschow, D. H.: Pockets of open cells and drizzle in
marine stratocumulus, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 51–58,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-51" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-86-1-51</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Torres, O.,  Hiren, J., and  Bhartia, P. K.: Retrieval of aerosol optical depth
above clouds from OMI observations: Sensitivity analysis and case studies.
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1037–1053, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds, J.
Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Twomey, S. A.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 8,
1251–1256, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Waquet, F.,  Riedi, J.,  Labonnote, L. C.,  Goloub, P.,  Cairns,  B.,  Deuzé, J.-L.,
and  Tanré, D.: Aerosol Remote Sensing over Clouds Using A-Train
Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 2468–2480, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Waquet, F., Peers, F., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Platnick, S., Riedi, J.,
Tanré, D., and Thieuleux, F.: Global analysis of aerosol properties above
clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 5809–5814, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL057482" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013GL057482</ext-link>,
2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Deuzé, J.-L., Dubovik, O., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Herman, M., Lapyonok, T., Labonnote, L. C., Riedi, J., Tanré, D., Thieuleux, F., and Vanbauce, C.: Retrieval of aerosol microphysical and optical properties above liquid clouds from POLDER/PARASOL polarization measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 991–1016, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-991-2013</ext-link>, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wen, G., Marshak, A., Cahalan, R. F., Remer, L. A., and Kleidman, R. G.: 3-D
aerosol-cloud radiative interaction observed in collocated MODIS and ASTER
images o<?pagebreak page1590?>f cumulus cloud fields, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, 1–14,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008267" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD008267</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wilcox, E. M.: Direct and semi-direct radiative forcing of smoke aerosols over clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 139–149, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-139-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-139-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wood, R., Bretherton, C. S., Leon, D., Clarke, A. D., Zuidema, P., Allen, G., and Coe, H.: An aircraft case study of the spatial transition from closed to open mesoscale cellular convection over the Southeast Pacific, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 2341–2370, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2341-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-2341-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yoon, J., von Hoyningen-Huene, W., Kokhanovsky, A. A., Vountas, M., and Burrows, J. P.: Trend analysis of aerosol optical thickness and Ångström exponent derived from the global AERONET spectral observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 1271–1299, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-1271-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-5-1271-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zarzycki, C. M. and Bond, T. C.: How much can the vertical distribution of
black carbon affect its global direct radiative forcing?, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 37, L20807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044555" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL044555</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, Z., Meyer, K., Platnick, S., Oreopoulos, L., Lee, D., and Yu, H.: A novel method for estimating shortwave direct radiative effect of above-cloud aerosols using CALIOP and MODIS data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1777–1789, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1777-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-1777-2014</ext-link>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, Z., Meyer, K., Yu, H., Platnick, S., Colarco, P., Liu, Z., and Oreopoulos, L.: Shortwave direct radiative effects of above-cloud aerosols over global oceans derived from 8 years of CALIOP and MODIS observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2877–2900, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Redemann, J., Haywood, J., Wood, R., Piketh, S., Hipondoka, M.,
and Formenti, P.: Smoke and clouds above the southeast Atlantic: Upcoming
field campaigns probe absorbing aerosol's impact on climate, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 97, 1131–1135, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Alvarado, M., Chiu, C., DeSzoeke, S., Fairall, C., Feingold,
G., Freedman, A., Ghan, S., Haywood, J., Kollias, P., Lewis, E., McFarquhar,
G., McComiskey, A., Mechem, D., Onasch, T., Redemann, J., Romps, D., Turner,
D., Wang, H., Wood, R., Yuter, S., and Zhu, P.: Layered Atlantic Smoke
Interactions with Clouds (LASIC) Field Campaign Report, DOE/ARM F. Campaign
Rep.,   37,  May 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Above-cloud aerosol optical depth from airborne observations in the southeast Atlantic</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The southeast Atlantic (SEA) region is host to a climatologically significant
biomass burning aerosol layer overlying marine stratocumulus. We present the
first results of the directly measured above-cloud aerosol optical depth (ACAOD)
from the recent ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS
(ORACLES) airborne field campaign during August and September 2016. In our
analysis, we use data from the Spectrometers for Sky-Scanning Sun-Tracking
Atmospheric Research (4STAR) instrument and found an average ACAOD of 0.32
at 501&thinsp;nm (range of 0.02 to 1.04), with an average Ångström exponent
(AE) above clouds of 1.71. The AE is much lower at 1.25 for the full column
(including below-cloud-level aerosol, with an average of 0.36 at 501&thinsp;nm and
a range of 0.02 to 0.74), indicating the presence of large aerosol
particles, likely marine aerosol, in the lower atmospheric column. The ACAOD is
observed from 4STAR to be highest near the coast at about 12°&thinsp;S,
whereas its variability is largest at the southern edge of the average
aerosol plume, as indicated by 12 years of MODIS observations. In comparison
to MODIS-derived ACAOD and long-term fine-mode plume-average AOD along a
diagonal routine track extending out from the coast of Namibia, the
directly measured ACAOD from 4STAR is slightly lower than the ACAOD product
from MODIS. The peak ACAOD expected from MODIS AOD retrievals averaged over
a long term along the routine diagonal flight track (peak of 0.5) was
measured to be closer to coast in 2016 at about 1.5–4°&thinsp;E, with 4STAR ACAOD averages showing a peak of 0.42. When
considering the full observation set over the SEA, by spatially binning each
sampled AOD, we obtain a geographically representative mean ACAOD of 0.37.
Vertical profiles of AOD showcase the variability in the altitude of the
aerosol plume and its separation from the cloud top. We measured larger AOD at a
high altitude near the coast than farther from the coast, while generally
observing a larger vertical gap farther from the coast. Changes in AOD with
altitude are correlated with carbon monoxide, a gas tracer of the biomass
burning aerosol plume. Vertical extent of gaps between aerosol and cloud
show a wide distribution, with a near-zero gap being most frequent. The gap
distribution with longitude is observed to be largest at about 7°&thinsp;E, farther from coast than expected from previous studies.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
4STAR Team:  LeBlanc, S.,  Flynn, C. J.,  Shinozuka, Y.,
Segal-Rozenhaimer, M.,  Pistone, K.,  Kacenelenbogen,  M.,
Redemann,  J.,  Schmid, B., Russell, P., Livingston, J., and Zhang, Q.:
4STAR_codes: 4STAR processing codes,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1492912" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1492912</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Adebiyi, A. A., Zuidema, P., and Abel, S. J.: The convolution of dynamics and
moisture with the presence of shortwave absorbing aerosols over the
southeast Atlantic, J. Climate, 28, 1997–2024,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00352.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00352.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Ångström, A.: On the Atmospheric Transmission of Sun Radiation and
on Dust in the Air, Geogr. Ann., 11, 156–166,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/20014422.1929.11880498" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/20014422.1929.11880498</a>, 1929.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bergstrom, R., Pilewskie, P., Schmid, B., and Russell, P. B.: Estimates of
the spectral aerosol single scattering albedo and aerosol radiative effects
during SAFARI 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 1–11,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002435" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002435</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T.,
Deangelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C.
S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5380–5552,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Chand, D.,  Wood, R.,  Anderson, T. L.,  Satheesh, S. K., and  Charlson, R. J.:
Satellite-derived direct radiative effect of aerosols dependent on cloud
cover, Nat. Geosci., 2, 181–184, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo437" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo437</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chang, I. and Christopher, S. A.: Identifying Absorbing Aerosols above Clouds from the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager Coupled with NASA A-Train Multiple Sensors, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 54, 3163–3173, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2015.2513015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2015.2513015</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Chang, I. and Christopher, S. A.:  The impact of seasonalities on direct radiative
effects and radiative heating rates of absorbing aerosols above clouds, Q.
J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 1395–1405, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3012</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Chuang, P. Y.,  Saw, E. W.,  Small, J. D.,  Shaw, R. A.,  Sipperley, C. M.,
Payne, G. A., and  Bachalo, W. D.: Airborne Phase Doppler Interferometry for Cloud
Microphysical Measurements, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 42, 685–703,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802232956" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802232956</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Cornet, C., C.-Labonnote, L., Waquet, F., Szczap, F., Deaconu, L., Parol, F., Vanbauce, C., Thieuleux, F., and Riédi, J.: Cloud heterogeneity on cloud and aerosol above cloud properties retrieved from simulated total and polarized reflectances, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 3627–3643, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3627-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3627-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Deaconu, L. T., Waquet, F., Josset, D., Ferlay, N., Peers, F., Thieuleux, F., Ducos, F., Pascal, N., Tanré, D., Pelon, J., and Goloub, P.: Consistency of aerosols above clouds characterization from A-Train active and passive measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 3499–3523, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3499-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3499-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Deaconu, L. T., Ferlay, N., Waquet, F., Peers, F., Thieuleux, F., and Goloub, P.: Satellite inference of water vapour and above-cloud aerosol combined effect on radiative budget and cloud-top processes in the southeastern Atlantic Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 11613–11634, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11613-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11613-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>De Graaf, M.,  Tilstra, L. G.,  Wang, P., and  Stammes, P.: Retrieval of the
aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from spaceborne spectrometry, J.
Geophys. Res., 117, D07207, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>De Graaf, M.,  Bellouin, N.,  Tilstra, L. G.,  Haywood, J., and  Stammes, P.:
Aerosol direct radiative effect of smoke over clouds over the southeast
Atlantic Ocean from 2006 to 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 7723–7730,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061103" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061103</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Devasthale, A. and Thomas, M. A.: A global survey of aerosol-liquid water cloud overlap based on four years of CALIPSO-CALIOP data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1143–1154, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1143-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1143-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Diamond, M. S., Dobracki, A., Freitag, S., Small Griswold, J. D., Heikkila, A., Howell, S. G., Kacarab, M. E., Podolske, J. R., Saide, P. E., and Wood, R.: Time-dependent entrainment of smoke presents an observational challenge for assessing aerosol–cloud interactions over the southeast Atlantic Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14623–14636, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14623-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14623-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y. J., King, M.
D., Tanré, D., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of Absorption and Optical
Properties of Key Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations, J. Atmos.
Sci., 59, 590–608, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Dunagan, S. E., Johnson, R., Zavaleta, J., Russell, P. B., Schmid, B.,
Flynn, C., Redemann, J., Shinozuka, Y., Livingston, J., and
Segal-Rosenhaimer, M.: Spectrometer for Sky-Scanning Sun-Tracking
Atmospheric Research (4STAR): Instrument technology, Remote Sens., 5,
3872–3895, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5083872" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5083872</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Eck, T., Holben, B., and Reid, J.: Wavelength dependence of the optical depth
of biomass burning, urban, and desert dust aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
104, 31333–31349, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900923" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900923</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Ward, D. E., Mukelabai, M. M., Dubovik, O.,
Smirnov, A., Schafer, J. S., Hsu, N. C., Piketh, S. J., Queface, A., Roux,
J. Le, Swap, R. J., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of biomass burning aerosol
optical characteristics in southern Africa during the SAFARI 2000 dry season
campaign and a comparison of single scattering albedo estimates from
radiometric measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8477,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002321" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002321</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Feng, N.  and  Christopher, S. A.: Measurement-based estimates of direct
radiative effects of absorbing aerosols above clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 6908–6921, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023252" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023252</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Formenti, P., D'Anna, B., Flamant, C., Mallet, M., Piketh, S. J.,
Schepanski, K., Waquet, F., Auriol, F., Brogniez, G., Burnet, F.,
Chaboureau, J.-P., Chauvigné, A., Chazette, P., Denjean, C., Desboeufs,
K., Doussin, J.-F., Elguindi, N., Feuerstein, S., Gaetani, M., Giorio, C.,
Klopper, D., Mallet, M. D., Nabat, P., Monod, A., Solmon, F., Namwoonde, A.,
Chikwililwa, C., Mushi, R., Welton, E. J., and Holben, B.: The Aerosols,
Radiation and Clouds in southern Africa (AEROCLO-sA) field campaign in
Namibia: overview, illustrative observations and way forward, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 100, 1277–1298,   <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0278.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0278.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Graßl, H.: Possible changes of planetary albedo due to aerosol
particles, in: Man's Impact on Climate, edited by:  Bach, W.,  Pankrath, J., and
Kellogg, W., Elsevier, New York, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M.,  Osborne, S. R.,  Francis, P. N.,  Keil, A.,  Formenti, P.,
Andreae, M. O., and  Kaye, P. H.: The mean physical and optical properties of
regional haze dominated by biomass burning aerosol measured from the C-130
aircraft during SAFARI 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 8473,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002226" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002226</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Hobbs, P. V.: Clean air slots amid dense atmospheric pollution in southern
Africa, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8490, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002156" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002156</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Holben, B. N., Eck, T. F., Slutsker, I., Tanre, D., Vermote, E., Reagan, J.
A., Kaufman, Y. J., Nakajima, T., Lavenu, F., Jankowiak, I., and Smirnov, A.:
AERONET – A Federated Instrument Network and Data Archive for Aerosol
Characterization, Remote Sens. Environ., 66, 1–16, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00031-5" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(98)00031-5</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Holben, B. N., Kim, J., Sano, I., Mukai, S., Eck, T. F., Giles, D. M., Schafer, J. S., Sinyuk, A., Slutsker, I., Smirnov, A., Sorokin, M., Anderson, B. E., Che, H., Choi, M., Crawford, J. H., Ferrare, R. A., Garay, M. J., Jeong, U., Kim, M., Kim, W., Knox, N., Li, Z., Lim, H. S., Liu, Y., Maring, H., Nakata, M., Pickering, K. E., Piketh, S., Redemann, J., Reid, J. S., Salinas, S., Seo, S., Tan, F., Tripathi, S. N., Toon, O. B., and Xiao, Q.: An overview of mesoscale aerosol processes, comparisons, and validation studies from DRAGON networks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 655–671, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-655-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-655-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Howell, S. G., Clarke, A. D., Shinozuka, Y., Kapustin, V., McNaughton, C.
S., Huebert, B. J., Doherty, S. J., and Anderson, T. L.: Influence of
relative humidity upon pollution and dust during ACE-Asia: Size
distributions and implications for optical properties, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, 1–11, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005759" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005759</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Hu, Y., Vaughan, M., Liu, Z., Powell, K., and Rodier, S.: Retrieving Optical
Depths and Lidar Ratios for Transparent Layers Above Opaque Water Clouds
From CALIPSO Lidar Measurements, IEEE Geosci. Remote, 4, 523–526, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Jethva, H.,  Torres, O.,  Remer, L. A., and  Bhartia, P. K.: A color ratio method
for simultaneous retrieval of aerosol and cloud optical thickness of
above-cloud absorbing aerosols from passive sensors: Application to MODIS
measurements, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 3862–3870,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Jethva, H., Torres, O.,  Waquet, F.,  Chand, D., and  Hu, Y.: How do A-train
sensors intercompare in the retrieval of above cloud aerosol optical depth?
A case study-based assessment, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41,   1–7,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058405" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058405</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Kacenelenbogen, M. S., Vaughan, M. A., Redemann, J., Young, S. A., Liu, Z., Hu, Y., Omar, A. H., LeBlanc, S., Shinozuka, Y., Livingston, J., Zhang, Q., and Powell, K. A.: Estimations of global shortwave direct aerosol radiative effects above opaque water clouds using a combination of A-Train satellite sensors, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4933–4962, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Kaskaoutis, D. G. and Kambezidis, H. D.: Comparison of the Ångström
parameters retrieval in different spectral ranges with the use of different
techniques, Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 99, 233–246, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-007-0279-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-007-0279-y</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Kaufman, Y. J.: Aerosol optical thickness and atmospheric path radiance, J. Geophys. Res., 98, 2677– 2692,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/92JD02427" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/92JD02427</a>, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Keil, A. and Haywood, J. M.: Solar radiative forcing by biomass burning
aerosol particles during SAFARI 2000: A case study based on measured aerosol
and cloud properties, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8467,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002315" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002315</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>LeBlanc, S. E.: samuelleblanc/fp: Moving Lines: NASA airborne research
flight planning tool release, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1478126" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1478126</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>LeBlanc, S. E., Schmidt, K. S., Pilewskie, P., Redemann, J., Hostetler, C.,
Ferrare, R., Hair, J., Langridge, J. M., and Lack, D. A.: Spectral aerosol
direct radiative forcing from airborne radiative measurements during CalNex
and ARCTAS, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D00V20, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018106" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018106</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Remer, L. A., and Dubovik, O.: Global aerosol optical properties
and application to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol
retrieval over land, J. Geophys. Res., 112, 1–15,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007815" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007815</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C.,  Remer, L. A.,  Tanre, D.,  Mattoo, S., and  Kaufman, Y. J.: Algorithm
for remote sensing of tropospheric aerosol over dark targets from MODIS,
ATBD Reference Number: ATBD-MOD-04, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Munchak, L. A., Remer, L. A., Sayer, A. M., Patadia, F., and Hsu, N. C.: The Collection 6 MODIS aerosol products over land and ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2989–3034, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Liu, X., Huey, G., Yokelson, R. J., Selimovic, V., Simpson, I., Müller,
M., Jimenez, J., Campuzano-Jost, P., Beyersdorf, A., Blake, D., Butterfield,
Z., Choi, Y., Crounse, J., Day, D., Diskin, G., Dubey, M., Fortner, E.,
Hanisco, T., Weiwei, H., King, L., Kleinman, L., Meinardi, S., Mikoviny, T.,
Onasch, T., Palm, B., Peischl, J., Pollack, I., Ryerson, T., Sachse, G.,
Sedlacek, A., Shilling, J., Springston, S., St. Clair, J., Tanner, D., Teng,
A., Wennberg, P., Wisthaler, A., and Wolfe, G.: Airborne measurements of
western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air
quality implications, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 6108–6129,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026315" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD026315</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Matus, A. V., L'Ecuyer, T. S., Kay, J. E., Hannay, C., and Lamarque, J.-F.: The role of clouds in modulating global aerosol
direct radiative effects in spaceborne active observations and the Community
Earth System Model,  J. Climate, 28, 2986–3003, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>McGill, M. J., Yorks, J. E., Scott, V. S., Kupchock, A. W., and Selmer, P. A.:
The Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS): a technology demonstration on the
International Space Station, Proc. SPIE, 9612,  34–39,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2190841" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2190841</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>McNaughton, C. S., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Anderson, B., Thornhill,
L., Hudgins, C., Dibb, J. E., Scheuer, E., Maring, H., Mcnaughton, C. S.,
Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Hudgins, C.,
Winstead, E., Dibb, J. E., Mcnaughton, C. S., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G.,
Pinkerton, M., Anderson, B., Thornhill, L., Hudgins, C., Winstead, E., Dibb,
J. E., Scheuer, E., and Maring, H.: Results from the DC-8 Inlet
Characterization Experiment (DICE): Airborne Versus Surface Sampling of
Mineral Dust and Sea Salt Aerosols Results from the DC-8 Inlet
Characterization Experiment (DICE): Airborne Versus Surface Sampling of
Mineral Dust and, Aerosol Sci. Tech., 6826, 136–159,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820601118406" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820601118406</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Meyer, K., Platnick, S., and Zhang, Z.: Simultaneously inferring above-cloud
absorbing aerosol optical thickness and underlying liquid phase cloud
optical and microphysical properties using MODIS, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
120, 5524–5547, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023128" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023128</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>O'Neill, N. T., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Smirnov, A., Dubovik, O., and Royer, A.:
Bimodal size distribution influences on the variation of Angstrom
derivatives in spectral and optical depth space, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
9787–9806, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>O'Neill, N. T., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Holben, B. N., and Thulasiraman, S.:
Spectral discrimination of coarse and fine mode optical depth, J. Geophys.
Res., 108, 4559, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002975" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002975</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>ORACLES Science Team: Suite of Aerosol, Cloud, and Related Data Acquired
Aboard P3 During ORACLES 2016, Version 1, NASA Ames Earth Science Project
Office, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/ORACLES/P3/2016_V1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Suborbital/ORACLES/P3/2016_V1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Peers, F., Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Dubuisson, P., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Szczap, F., Tanré, D., and Thieuleux, F.: Absorption of aerosols above clouds from POLDER/PARASOL measurements and estimation of their direct radiative effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 4179–4196, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Pistone, K., Redemann, J., Doherty, S., Zuidema, P., Burton, S., Cairns, B., Cochrane, S., Ferrare, R., Flynn, C., Freitag, S., Howell, S. G., Kacenelenbogen, M., LeBlanc, S., Liu, X., Schmidt, K. S., Sedlacek III, A. J., Segal-Rozenhaimer, M., Shinozuka, Y., Stamnes, S., van Diedenhoven, B., Van Harten, G., and Xu, F.: Intercomparison of biomass burning aerosol optical properties from in situ and remote-sensing instruments in ORACLES-2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9181–9208, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9181-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9181-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., Meyer, K. G., King, M. D., Wind, G., Amarasinghe, N.,
Marchant, B., Arnold, G. T., Zhang, Z., Hubanks, P. A., Holz, R. E., Yang,
P., Ridgway, W. L., and Riedi, J.: The MODIS Cloud Optical and Microphysical
Products: Collection 6 Updates and Examples From Terra and Aqua, IEEE T.
Geosci. Remote, 55, 502–525, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Pósfai, M., Simonics, R., Li, J., Hobbs, P. V., and Buseck, P. R.:
Individual aerosol particles from biomass burning in southern Africa: 1.
Compositions and size distributions of carbonaceous particles, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 108, 8483, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002291" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002291</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Provencal, R., Gupta, M., Owano, T. G., Baer, D. S., Ricci, K. N., O'Keefe,
A., and Podolske, J. R.: Cavity-enhanced quantum-cascade laser-based
instrument for carbon monoxide measurements, Appl. Optics, 44, 6712–6717,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.44.006712" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.44.006712</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Baynard, T., Clarke, A. D., Onasch, T. B., Wang,
W., Rood, M. J., Andrews, E., Allan, J., Carrico, C. M., Coffman, D., and
Worsnop, D.: Impact of particulate organic matter on the relative humidity
dependence of light scattering: A simplified parameterization, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 32, 3–6, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024322" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024322</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Rajapakshe, C., Zhang, Z., Yorks, J. E., Yu, H., Tan, Q., Meyer, K.,
Platnick, S., and Winker, D. M.: Seasonally transported aerosol layers over
southeast Atlantic are closer to underlying clouds than previously reported,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5818–5825, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073559" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073559</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Russell, P. B., Bergstrom, R. W., Shinozuka, Y., Clarke, A. D., DeCarlo, P. F., Jimenez, J. L., Livingston, J. M., Redemann, J., Dubovik, O., and Strawa, A.: Absorption Angstrom Exponent in AERONET and related data as an indicator of aerosol composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 1155–1169, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-1155-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-1155-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Russell, P. B., Kacenelenbogen, M., Livingston, J. M., Hasekamp, O. P.,
Redemann, J., Ramachandran, S., Holben, B., and Al, R. E. T.: A
multiparameter aerosol classification method and its application to
retrievals from spaceborne polarimetry, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
9838–9863, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021411" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021411</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Sakaeda, N., Wood, R., and Rasch, P. J.: Direct and semidirect aerosol
effects of southern African biomass burning aerosol, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, 1–19, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015540" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015540</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M.,  Smirnov, A.,  Hsu, N. C., and  Holben, B. N.: A pure marine aerosol
model, for use in
remote sensing applications, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D05213,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016689" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016689</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Lee, J., Redemann, J., Schmid,
B., and Shinozuka, Y.: Extending “Deep Blue” aerosol retrieval coverage to
cases of absorbing aerosols above clouds: Sensitivity analysis and first
case studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 4830–4854,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024729" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024729</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Lee, J., Kim, W. V., Burton, S., Fenn, M. A., Ferrare, R. A., Kacenelenbogen, M., LeBlanc, S., Pistone, K., Redemann, J., Segal-Rozenhaimer, M., Shinozuka, Y., and Tsay, S.-C.: Two decades observing smoke above clouds in the south-eastern Atlantic Ocean: Deep Blue algorithm updates and validation with ORACLES field campaign data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3595–3627, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3595-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3595-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Schmid, B. and Wehrli, C.: Comparison of sun photometer calibration by
Langley technique and standard lamp, Appl. Optics, 34, 4500–4512, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A., Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura, T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>Segal‐Rosenheimer, M., Russell, P. B., Schmid, B., Redemann, J., Livingston, J. M., Flynn, C. J., Johnson, R. R., Dunagan, S. E., Shinozuka, Y., Herman, J. R., Cede, A., Abuhassan, N., Comstock, J. M., Hubbe, J. M., Zelenyuk, A., and Wilson, J.: Tracking elevated pollution layers with a
newly developed hyperspectral Sun/Sky spectrometer (4STAR): Results from the
TCAP 2012 and 2013 campaigns, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 1–18,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020884" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020884</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Shinozuka, Y., Redemann, J., Livingston, J. M., Russell, P. B., Clarke, A. D., Howell, S. G., Freitag, S., O'Neill, N. T., Reid, E. A., Johnson, R., Ramachandran, S., McNaughton, C. S., Kapustin, V. N., Brekhovskikh, V., Holben, B. N., and McArthur, L. J. B.: Airborne observation of aerosol optical depth during ARCTAS: vertical profiles, inter-comparison and fine-mode fraction, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3673–3688, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3673-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3673-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Shinozuka, Y., Saide, P. E., Ferrada, G. A., Burton, S. P., Ferrare, R., Doherty, S. J., Gordon, H., Longo, K., Mallet, M., Feng, Y., Wang, Q., Cheng, Y., Dobracki, A., Freitag, S., Howell, S. G., LeBlanc, S., Flynn, C., Segal-Rosenhaimer, M., Pistone, K., Podolske, J. R., Stith, E. J., Bennett, J. R., Carmichael, G. R., da Silva, A., Govindaraju, R., Leung, R., Zhang, Y., Pfister, L., Ryoo, J.-M., Redemann, J., Wood, R., and Zuidema, P.: Modeling the smoky troposphere of the southeast Atlantic: a comparison to ORACLES airborne observations from September of 2016, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-678" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-678</a>, in review, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>Small, J. D., Chuang, P. Y., Feingold, G., and Jiang, H.: Can aerosol
decrease cloud lifetime?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 1–5,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038888" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038888</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>Stevens, B.,  Vali, G.,  Comstock, K.,  Wood, R.,  van Zanten, M. C.,  Austin, P. H.,
Bretherton, C. S., and  Lenschow, D. H.: Pockets of open cells and drizzle in
marine stratocumulus, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 86, 51–58,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-51" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-86-1-51</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>Torres, O.,  Hiren, J., and  Bhartia, P. K.: Retrieval of aerosol optical depth
above clouds from OMI observations: Sensitivity analysis and case studies.
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1037–1053, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: The influence of pollution on the shortwave albedo of clouds, J.
Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>Twomey, S. A.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 8,
1251–1256, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>Waquet, F.,  Riedi, J.,  Labonnote, L. C.,  Goloub, P.,  Cairns,  B.,  Deuzé, J.-L.,
and  Tanré, D.: Aerosol Remote Sensing over Clouds Using A-Train
Observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 66, 2468–2480, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>Waquet, F., Peers, F., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Platnick, S., Riedi, J.,
Tanré, D., and Thieuleux, F.: Global analysis of aerosol properties above
clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 5809–5814, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL057482" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL057482</a>,
2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Deuzé, J.-L., Dubovik, O., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Herman, M., Lapyonok, T., Labonnote, L. C., Riedi, J., Tanré, D., Thieuleux, F., and Vanbauce, C.: Retrieval of aerosol microphysical and optical properties above liquid clouds from POLDER/PARASOL polarization measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 991–1016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013</a>, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>Wen, G., Marshak, A., Cahalan, R. F., Remer, L. A., and Kleidman, R. G.: 3-D
aerosol-cloud radiative interaction observed in collocated MODIS and ASTER
images of cumulus cloud fields, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, 1–14,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008267" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD008267</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Wilcox, E. M.: Direct and semi-direct radiative forcing of smoke aerosols over clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 139–149, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-139-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-139-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R., Bretherton, C. S., Leon, D., Clarke, A. D., Zuidema, P., Allen, G., and Coe, H.: An aircraft case study of the spatial transition from closed to open mesoscale cellular convection over the Southeast Pacific, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 2341–2370, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2341-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-2341-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>Yoon, J., von Hoyningen-Huene, W., Kokhanovsky, A. A., Vountas, M., and Burrows, J. P.: Trend analysis of aerosol optical thickness and Ångström exponent derived from the global AERONET spectral observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 5, 1271–1299, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-1271-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-5-1271-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>Zarzycki, C. M. and Bond, T. C.: How much can the vertical distribution of
black carbon affect its global direct radiative forcing?, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 37, L20807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044555" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044555</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Z., Meyer, K., Platnick, S., Oreopoulos, L., Lee, D., and Yu, H.: A novel method for estimating shortwave direct radiative effect of above-cloud aerosols using CALIOP and MODIS data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 1777–1789, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1777-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-1777-2014</a>, 2014.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Z., Meyer, K., Yu, H., Platnick, S., Colarco, P., Liu, Z., and Oreopoulos, L.: Shortwave direct radiative effects of above-cloud aerosols over global oceans derived from 8 years of CALIOP and MODIS observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2877–2900, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Redemann, J., Haywood, J., Wood, R., Piketh, S., Hipondoka, M.,
and Formenti, P.: Smoke and clouds above the southeast Atlantic: Upcoming
field campaigns probe absorbing aerosol's impact on climate, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 97, 1131–1135, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Alvarado, M., Chiu, C., DeSzoeke, S., Fairall, C., Feingold,
G., Freedman, A., Ghan, S., Haywood, J., Kollias, P., Lewis, E., McFarquhar,
G., McComiskey, A., Mechem, D., Onasch, T., Redemann, J., Romps, D., Turner,
D., Wang, H., Wood, R., Yuter, S., and Zhu, P.: Layered Atlantic Smoke
Interactions with Clouds (LASIC) Field Campaign Report, DOE/ARM F. Campaign
Rep.,   37,  May 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
