<?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-20-4059-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Open cells exhibit weaker entrainment of free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol into the south-east Atlantic boundary layer</article-title><alt-title>Inefficient mixing of overlying biomass burning aerosol into POCs</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Inefficient mixing of overlying biomass burning aerosol into POCs}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{S.~J.~Abel et~al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Abel</surname><given-names>Steven J.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1330-4199</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Barrett</surname><given-names>Paul A.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3763-0909</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Zuidema</surname><given-names>Paquita</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4719-372X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Jianhao</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6988-2935</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Christensen</surname><given-names>Matt</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4273-6644</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Peers</surname><given-names>Fanny</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2796-8738</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Taylor</surname><given-names>Jonathan W.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2120-186X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Crawford</surname><given-names>Ian</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4433-7310</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Bower</surname><given-names>Keith N.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9802-3264</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Flynn</surname><given-names>Michael</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Met Office, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Atmospheric, Oceanic &amp; Planetary Physics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>College of Engineering, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Centre for Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Manchester, UK</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Steven Abel (steven.abel@metoffice.gov.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>6</day><month>April</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>20</volume>
      <issue>7</issue>
      <fpage>4059</fpage><lpage>4084</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>16</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>5</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21</day><month>December</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>13</day><month>September</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>
    <p id="d1e193">This work presents synergistic satellite, airborne and surface-based observations of a pocket of open cells (POC) in the remote south-east
Atlantic. The observations were obtained over and upwind of Ascension Island during the CLouds and Aerosol Radiative Impacts and Forcing (CLARIFY)
and the Layered Smoke Interacting with Clouds (LASIC) field experiments. A novel aspect of this case study is that an extensive free-tropospheric
biomass burning aerosol plume that had been transported from the African continent was observed to be in contact with the boundary layer inversion
over the POC and the surrounding closed cellular cloud regime. The in situ measurements show marked contrasts in the boundary layer thermodynamic
structure, cloud properties, precipitation and aerosol conditions between the open cells and surrounding overcast cloud field.</p>
    <p id="d1e196">The data demonstrate that the overlying biomass burning aerosol was mixing down into the boundary layer in the stratocumulus cloud downwind of the
POC, with elevated carbon monoxide, black carbon mass loadings and accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations measured beneath the trade-wind
inversion. The stratocumulus cloud in this region was moderately polluted and exhibited very little precipitation falling below cloud base. A rapid
transition to actively precipitating cumulus clouds and detrained stratiform remnants in the form of thin quiescent veil clouds was observed across
the boundary into and deep within the POC. The subcloud layer in the POC was much cleaner than that in the stratocumulus region. The clouds in the
POC formed within an ultra-clean layer (accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations of approximately a few <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the upper region of the boundary layer,
which was likely to have been formed via efficient collision–coalescence and sedimentation processes. Enhanced Aitken-mode aerosol concentrations
were also observed intermittently in this ultra-clean layer, suggesting that new particle formation was taking place. Across the boundary layer
inversion and immediately above the ultra-clean layer, accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Importantly, the
air mass in the POC showed no evidence of elevated carbon monoxide over and above typical background conditions at this location and time of year. As
carbon monoxide is a good tracer for biomass burning aerosol that is not readily removed by cloud processing and precipitation, it demonstrates that
the open cellular convection in the POC is not able to entrain large quantities of the free-tropospheric aerosol that was sitting directly on top of
the boundary layer inversion. This suggests that the structure of the mesoscale cellular convection may play an important role in regulating the
transport of aerosol from the free troposphere down into the marine boundary layer.</p>
    <?pagebreak page4060?><p id="d1e234">We then develop a climatology of open cellular cloud conditions in the south-east Atlantic from 19 years of September Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Terra imagery. This
shows that the maxima in open cell frequency (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25) occurs far offshore and in a region where subsiding biomass burning aerosol plumes may
often come into contact with the underlying boundary layer cloud. If the results from the observational case study applied more broadly, then the
apparent low susceptibility of open cells to free-tropospheric intrusions of additional cloud condensation nuclei could have some important
consequences for aerosol–cloud interactions in the region.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e253">Huge quantities of atmospheric aerosol particles are generated from biomass burning in the African subcontinent every year <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="paren.1"/>. Much
of this aerosol is transported westwards in the free troposphere over the south-east Atlantic Ocean between June and October, above one of the world's
largest semi-permanent stratocumulus cloud fields <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.2"/>. As the biomass burning aerosols can partially absorb sunlight, they can exert
a net warming of the atmospheric column and lead to a reduction in the outgoing shortwave flux at the top of atmosphere when overlaying these highly
reflective clouds (a positive direct effect), although the sign and magnitude of the direct effect is very sensitive to the underlying cloud fraction
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.3"/>. The warming of the free troposphere can also act to strengthen the boundary layer temperature inversion and therefore reduce the
entrainment of dry free-tropospheric air into the cloud layer below, especially when the vertical separation between the biomass burning aerosol and
cloud top is small <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.4"/>. The result is often to increase the amount of cloud condensate and brighten the stratocumulus, resulting in
a net cooling of the atmosphere (a negative semi-direct effect), e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="text.5"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="text.6"/>. However, model studies demonstrate that both the
sign and magnitude of this cloud response is highly sensitive to a multitude of factors, including the properties of the overlying aerosol layer and
the thermodynamic structure of the boundary layer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54 bib1.bibx20" id="paren.7"/>. As the base of the free-tropospheric aerosol gradually descends due
to large-scale subsidence in the region, it can begin to mix down into the marine boundary layer. Recent observational studies have shown evidence of
biomass burning aerosol in the boundary layer far offshore at Ascension Island <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.8"/> and in regions closer to the African coast
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.9"/>. Once these aerosols have been entrained into the boundary layer they can provide an additional source of cloud condensation nuclei
(CCN), which can then result in a modification of the cloud properties <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.10"/> and a brightening of the cloud field, increasing the shortwave
flux reflected back to space (a negative indirect effect), e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="text.11"/> and  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="text.12"/>. But, the aerosols can also then warm the layer in which the
clouds form and promote decoupling of the boundary layer, suppressing moisture transport from the sea-surface to the clouds and reduce the liquid
water path (a positive semi-direct effect) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22 bib1.bibx21 bib1.bibx56" id="paren.13"/>. This diverse and competing set of aerosol–cloud–radiation interactions
has resulted in potentially large but poorly constrained effects of how biomass burning aerosols impact the climate system in the south-east
Atlantic. For example, two of the most recent state-of-the-art modelling studies have both shown that the net effect of the aerosol perturbations is
to cool the region by modulating the large-scale cloud field <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17 bib1.bibx28" id="paren.14"/>. However, the largest contributors to this cooling differ between
models. In the study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="text.15"/>, cloud adjustments that increase liquid water path (LWP) and cloud fraction due to the stabilisation of the
boundary layer from aerosol induced free-tropospheric warming dominate, whereas the cloud microphysical effect from additional CCN entrained into the
boundary layer is the largest contributor in the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="text.16"/> simulations. One of the important controlling factors for both of these mechanisms
depends on how and when the free-tropospheric aerosol plumes mix down into the boundary layer.</p>
      <p id="d1e306">In this paper, we present an observational case study examining if the underlying cloud mesoscale structure changes the efficiency of this net
free-tropospheric to boundary layer flow of aerosols. We draw on a combination of synergistic measurements made during the CLouds and Aerosol
Radiative Impacts and Forcing (CLARIFY) experiment's deployment of the Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements (FAAM) BAe-146 research aircraft
to Ascension Island (7.9<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 14.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) in August to September 2017 and detailed ground-based observations from the Layered Smoke
Interacting with Clouds (LASIC) deployment of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility on Ascension Island in 2016–2017
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.17"/>. These experiments form part of a recent larger concerted international effort undertaken to obtain a set of comprehensive in situ
and remote sensing measurements in the south-east Atlantic that will further improve our understanding of the role that biomass burning aerosols play
in modulating the climate system in the region <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx57" id="paren.18"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e333">The case study examines a well-developed “pocket of open cells” (POC) that coincided with a large free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol plume
overlaying both the POC and surrounding stratocumulus cloud regimes. The term “pocket of open cells” refers to the occurrence of open cellular
convection embedded in broad regions of unbroken closed cell stratocumulus. They are readily observed in satellite imagery in the large subtropical
stratocumulus cloud decks and form within regions of initially unbroken cloud, e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.19"/> and Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> of this paper. There
is still a lot of uncertainty in what the key mechanisms are that drive POC formation events in nature, partly due to there being no in situ
measurements of these formation events to date. However, model studies do show that the initiation of<?pagebreak page4061?> precipitation and its evaporation below cloud
base can drive circulation changes that promote the transformation of an overcast cloud field into open cells, e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.20"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46 bib1.bibx47" id="text.21"/>. It
is therefore conceivable, although not the subject of this study, that the mixing of biomass burning aerosol into the boundary layer in the south-east
Atlantic could act to reduce the occurrence of POC formation by suppressing precipitation formation. Once formed, however, these mesoscale features are
typically sustained for several days as they persist along the boundary layer flow. There have been several in situ measurements of these mature POC
features in the south-east and north-east Pacific stratocumulus decks that document the contrasting conditions in fully developed POCs and the
surrounding cloud (e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40 bib1.bibx34 bib1.bibx51 bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx42" id="altparen.22"/>). These observations and the aforementioned model studies show that POCs
are maintained by aerosol–cloud–precipitation feedbacks, with stark differences in the mesoscale organisation, dynamics and microphysics within the
different cloud regimes. A common feature is that they all show that the mature POCs exhibit significant enhancements in subcloud precipitation and
much lower concentrations of boundary layer accumulation-mode aerosol particulates than in the surrounding stratocumulus. A question then arises as to
how the cloud in a well-developed POC may respond to a large CCN perturbation from entrained biomass burning aerosols. Visual evidence form satellite
imagery demonstrates that in nature, the transition from open cells to a more overcast state can occur when the boundary layer is exposed to large
injections of CCN from surface-based ship traffic, e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18" id="text.23"/>. The idealised model study of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="text.24"/> also shows that an abrupt change
in the CCN concentration in a mature POC can shut off precipitation and lead to cloud fraction increases, although this is not sufficient for the open
cells to fully transition to the closed cell state in that case. That said, even a moderate change in cloud fraction could have important consequences
for the direct and indirect effects in the region. However, the model studies of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8 bib1.bibx9" id="text.25"/> suggest that entrainment may be much weaker
in POCs, due to a reduction in the amount of turbulence generated at cloud top when compared to the surrounding overcast stratocumulus cloud field,
which could then limit how readily overlying biomass burning aerosol can be entrained into a POC. This reduced entrainment could therefore serve as an
effective barrier to large and rapid perturbations of CCN, limiting the ability of these open cell regions to transition to closed cells
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.26"/>. A key focus of this work therefore examines if there is observational evidence of differences between how subsiding biomass
burning aerosol plumes are mixed down into the measured POC and surrounding overcast cloud regimes.</p>
      <p id="d1e363">The paper is structured as follows. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> briefly describes the datasets used in this study and provides an overview of the flight
patterns performed. A description of the case study is then introduced in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/>. The in situ airborne observations of aerosol, cloud,
precipitation and boundary layer structure made both downwind of the POC and within the POC are then presented in Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/> to
<xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S7"/>. The view of these conditions from surface-based measurements on Ascension Island is then presented in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S8"/>. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S9"/> then takes a broader view of open cell conditions in the south-east Atlantic in order to put the
results of the case study into context. Finally, a summary and discussion is presented in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S10"/>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Datasets and flight patterns</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Aircraft instrumentation</title>
      <p id="d1e396">The Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements (FAAM) BAe-146 research aircraft was equipped with a comprehensive suite of instrumentation during
the CLARIFY campaign in order to make measurements suitable for studying aerosol–radiation and aerosol–cloud interactions. This included remote
sensing instrumentation and in situ measurements of the aerosol physical, chemical and optical properties, cloud microphysics, thermodynamics and
trace-gas chemistry. The instruments pertinent to this study include the following. Cloud and precipitation particle size distributions (PSDs) were
measured with a variety of wing-mounted cloud physics probes. These instruments measure the concentration of hydrometeors as a function of particle
size (in discrete size bins). In brief, cloud droplets (approximately 2 to 52 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" 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> diameter) were measured with a cloud droplet probe
(CDP). The CDP was calibrated using a 10-point bead calibration before each flight day. Precipitation-sized drops were measured with a 2-D stereo
(2DS) probe (10 to 1280 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" 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> diameter) and a cloud imaging probe (CIP-100) probe (100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" 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> to 6.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> diameter). Data from
these different instruments are combined to produce a 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Hz</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> composite PSD following the methodology of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1" id="text.27"/>. Rain rate is calculated
from integrating the composite PSD with the fall speed relation of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="text.28"/>. A bulk measure of the total condensed water content from a Nevzorov
total water content (TWC) sensor is also used. This measurement represents the combined liquid water content (LWC) of cloud drops and precipitation-sized particles. The Nevzorov data are baselined following the method of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="text.29"/>. The LWC from cloud drops only is estimated by integrating the
CDP PSD. The number concentrations of aerosol particles were measured with a passive cavity aerosol spectrometer probe (PCASP) for sizes between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 and 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> and with a TSI 3786 condensation particle counter (CPC) for all aerosols larger than about 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Both the
PCASP and CPC data are only examined out of clouds and precipitation. Refractory black carbon (BC) mass concentrations are derived from a SP2
instrument following the method described in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="text.30"/>. We also utilise carbon monoxide (CO)<?pagebreak page4062?> measurements from an AERO AL5002 instrument. Air
vertical velocity information is given by the aircraft turbulence probe, temperature from a loom sensor mounted in a non-deiced Rosemount housing and
humidity from a WVSS2 hygrometer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.31"/>. A downward-pointing Leosphere lidar was used to measure cloud top height when the aircraft was flying
above the boundary layer, following the method of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25" id="text.32"/>. The vertical integral of aerosol extinction measured with a cavity ringdown system
at 405 and 658 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> wavelengths <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.33"/> is also used to calculate above-cloud aerosol optical depth (AOD).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Surface-based observations</title>
      <p id="d1e509">We use a variety of surface-based measurements from the LASIC ARM site on Ascension Island <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.34"/>. This includes radiosonde profiles to
examine the boundary layer thermodynamic structure. Aerosols and chemistry data used include refractory BC mass concentrations measured with a SP2,
carbon monoxide and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) measurements. The CCN data presented are at a supersaturation of 0.46 % <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.005 %. The
majority of condensation particles with diameters larger than 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are activated at this supersaturation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.35"/>. Cloud base height
is examined from a ceilometer. Data from a vertically pointing cloud radar (Ka band) is used to give a more detailed picture of the cloud and
precipitation structure above the surface site. We also derive a boundary layer cloud top height product from the radar. This is calculated by looking
at the highest range gate in the boundary layer where the radar reflectivity exceeds a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dBZ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> threshold. In addition to the LASIC ARM data,
the version 3 level 1.5 total column AOD from the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) site at Ascension Island airport is also used <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx16" id="paren.36"/>. We also examine radiosonde
data from St. Helena, which is approximately 1300 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> upstream of Ascension Island given the mean boundary layer wind direction.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Satellite data</title>
      <p id="d1e568">A range of satellite imagery and data products are used to give some wider context to the in situ measurements. This includes infrared and true-colour
imagery from the Spinning Enhanced Visible and Infrared Imager (SEVIRI) and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). MODIS cloud top
effective radius (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) imagery derived from the 3.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" 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> wavelength channel (L2 data collection 6) is also used
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.37"/>. We choose to use the 3.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" 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> retrieval as it should be less susceptible to artefacts that can arise in conditions
where biomass burning aerosol overlays boundary layer clouds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.38"/>. We also examine data from a new algorithm that performs a joint
retrieval of cloud optical properties and aerosol optical depth overlying clouds from SEVIRI <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="paren.39"/>, which should not suffer from such
artefacts. To examine the vertical profiles of aerosol and clouds, we look at snapshots of the vertical feature mask from the CALIPSO (version 4.2) and
CATS (version 3.0) spaceborne lidars <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49 bib1.bibx55" id="paren.40"/>. The MODIS liquid cloud fraction and the fine-mode AOD from the monthly
averaged L3 atmosphere product data collection 6.1 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26 bib1.bibx36" id="paren.41"/> are also utilised. All MODIS imagery was obtained from NASA Worldview
and the SEVIRI imagery was generated from individual channel data obtained via EUMETSAT.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Trajectory data</title>
      <p id="d1e626">Backward and forward trajectories from measurement locations are calculated using the Met Office Numerical Atmospheric-dispersion Modelling
Environment (NAME) model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="paren.42"/>. The driving meteorological data are taken from the operational Met Office global NWP analysis (N1280
grid spacing, 70 vertical levels and the GA6.1 science configuration <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="paren.43"/>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Flight tracks</title>
      <p id="d1e644">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/> shows the horizontal and vertical flight patterns performed during flights C051 and C052 on 5 September 2017. Flight C051
performed measurements in the morning (08:58:55 to 12:13:01 UTC) in the overcast cloud field downwind of the POC feature studied in this work. The
cloud conditions were the same as those immediately to the east of Ascension Island that are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>d. The flight pattern
included deep profiles to measure the boundary layer and free-tropospheric aerosol and thermodynamic structure and straight and level runs at several
altitudes, including within the cloud layer. In addition, several shallow profiles were performed to measure the vertical cloud structure beneath the
trade-wind inversion. Flight C052 then transited to the south-east in order to perform measurements within the POC in the afternoon (14:09:02 to
17:38:13 UTC). Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>b includes the names of several profiles (P0 to P10) and a level run
(R1) that will be referred to throughout the manuscript. The flight pattern consisted of an initial deep profile to an altitude of 7150 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(profile P0), followed by a high-level run to about 8.8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. On this run, cloud top heights were measured with the lidar and a series of
dropsondes were released. This was followed by a profile descent into the POC (profile P1). A series of vertical profiles were then performed on the
return leg back towards Ascension Island (profiles P2 to P10). These spanned altitudes from 35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to about 2250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This enabled aerosol, cloud and thermodynamic measurements to be made throughout the depth of the boundary layer
and across the trade-wind inversion into the lower free troposphere. The series of vertical profiles on the return leg was interrupted for a level run
(R1) at about 1320 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude in order to make additional cloud measurements. The cloud conditions on flight C052 were similar to that shown
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>e.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e710">Flight track and altitude for flights C051 (black) and C052 (red). The locations of selected vertical profiles (P0 to P10) and run (R1) on flight C052 are indicated in panel <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e724">The 10.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" 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> brightness temperature imagery from SEVIRI showing the evolution of the POC feature as a function of time from 4 to 6 September 2017. The main POC (labelled A) and a secondary POC feature (labelled B) are indicated. Three trajectories are overlaid on the imagery. These are initialised at 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude from the position and time of measurements made (i) from the aircraft in the stratiform cloud region downwind of the POC (P0, red), (ii) from the aircraft within the POC (P6, blue) and (iii) from the LASIC site on Ascension Island within the POC (green). The stars on the trajectories show the position where each measurement was made and the open circles show the position along the trajectory at the time of each satellite image. The location of Ascension Island is shown with a green star.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page4063?><p id="d1e752">Whilst the majority of the aircraft observations in this study are from the two flights on 5 September 2017, we do also briefly examine data from
additional flights made on 6 September 2017. Data from these latter flights in the vicinity of Ascension Island (flight numbers C053 and C054) are
used for comparison with the LASIC surface measurements.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>The case study</title>
      <p id="d1e764">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> shows snapshots of SEVIRI 10.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" 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> brightness temperature imagery at selected times throughout 4 and
6 September 2017 to illustrate the temporal evolution of the POC feature. The main POC feature that was measured by the aircraft is labelled “A” and
a secondary POC feature is labelled “B”. The 04:00 UTC image on 4 September shows the emergence of the region of open cells in POC “A” surrounded
by overcast clouds. This feature rapidly grows in horizontal extent as it is advected with the boundary layer flow to the north-west in the next
24 h. At 04:00 UTC on 5 September, the secondary POC feature “B” forms to the south-east of POC “A”. Both POC features continue to advect along
the boundary layer flow towards Ascension Island in the north-west of the imagery. At 10:00 UTC on 5 September, POC “A” and “B” cover an area of
approximately 180 000 and 65 000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. POC “A” is still a well-defined feature that is surrounded by overcast stratiform cloud
on the morning of  5 September, but a large-scale cloud clearance on the POC's northern edge erodes the stratiform cloud layer into the afternoon
of 5 September as shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>e. At the same time, the satellite imagery shows that the south-eastern edge of POC “A” has
merged with the north-western edge of POC “B”. Flights C051 and C052 were flown on the morning of 5 September in the stratiform cloud to the
north-west of the POC and then on the afternoon of 5 September within the POC and across the POC boundary into the cloud-free conditions
associated with the large-scale cloud clearance. Given that the boundary layer flow is south-easterly, we will use the term “downwind” of the
POC throughout this work to refer to the air mass where the aircraft made in situ measurements to the north-west of POC “A”. By 00:00 UTC on 6 September, the southern edge of the remnants of POC “A” advected over Ascension Island and the associated thermodynamic, aerosol and cloud conditions
were measured at the LASIC ARM site. Also included in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> are three trajectories initialised in the boundary layer at
500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude from the position and time of aircraft measurements made in the stratiform cloud downwind of the POC (red), from the aircraft
measurements within the POC (blue) and as the POC edge moves over the LASIC site on Ascension Island (green). The stars are the start points of the
trajectories, and the positions along each trajectory at the times of the individual satellite images are indicated with an open circle. All three
trajectories originate towards the south-east and advect north-westwards with the typical boundary layer flow in the region.</p>
      <p id="d1e803">Satellite data are analysed to examine how the cloud fraction, cloud top effective radius and the above-cloud aerosol optical depth vary along the
boundary layer trajectories, in both the POC and downwind stratiform cloud regions. The satellite data are averaged over
a 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude–longitude box around each trajectory. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a shows the SEVIRI liquid cloud
fraction. Data along the downwind trajectory (red points) show overcast cloud conditions from 3 September to around midday on
5 September. The cloud fraction then drops off rapidly to about 10 %, due to the large-scale clearance in the stratiform cloud layer downwind of the
POC that is seen between the imagery in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>d and e. The two trajectories that follow the POC (blue and green) also initially
have 100 % cloud fraction on 3 September. The cloud fraction then begins to decrease in the early hours of 4 September, in accordance with
the timing of the POC formation shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>a. As the POC feature develops along the trajectory and grows in size, the cloud
fraction continues to decrease to about 50 % on the morning of 5 September.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e840">SEVIRI satellite data extracted from a 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude–longitude box around the three trajectories shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. These are initialised from the position and time of measurements made (i) from the aircraft in the stratiform cloud region downwind of the POC (red), (ii) from the aircraft within the POC (blue) and (iii) from the LASIC site on Ascension Island within the POC (green). Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows liquid cloud fraction, <bold>(b)</bold> shows cloud top effective radius, and <bold>(c)</bold> shows above-cloud aerosol optical depth. Aircraft data are overlaid in panels <bold>(b, c)</bold> from measurements made within (upward-pointing blue triangles) and downwind of (upward-pointing red triangles) the POC. Total column aerosol optical depth measurements made downwind of the POC from the AERONET site on Ascension Island are shown with a red downward-pointing triangle in panel <bold>(c)</bold>. Both the aircraft and AERONET AOD data are interpolated to a wavelength of 550 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">nm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from neighbouring channels in order to match that used in the SEVIRI retrieval.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f03.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e901">The daytime satellite cloud top effective radius from the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="text.44"/> SEVIRI retrieval is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b. Before the
formation of the POC on 3 September, the effective radius is approximately 8 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" 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> on all three trajectories. However, there are
marked differences in the microphysical characteristics of the stratiform and POC cloud regions when the POC forms and these differences then persist
along the trajectories towards Ascension Island. The trajectory that is representative of the downwind stratiform cloud layer (red) maintains
effective radius values of around 5 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" 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> throughout the period. This is contrasted with the data along the POC trajectories (blue and
green), which show<?pagebreak page4064?> a continual increase after the POC forms from 4 to 5 September. By 5 September, the SEVIRI retrieval has values in
excess of 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" 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> in the POC. The much larger cloud drop sizes in the POC are indicative of a cloud region that is more conducive to forming
precipitation than the overcast stratiform cloud downwind. Data from the aircraft measurements near cloud top (the upper 50/100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the cloud
in the stratiform/POC regions) are also included (upward-pointing triangles) and they are consistent with the large differences seen in the satellite
data. The purpose of this is not to provide a detailed evaluation of the satellite retrievals but to illustrate that the differences seen in the
satellite data between the POC and downwind cloud conditions are consistent with in situ observations. The in situ cloud microphysical data will be
examined in more detail in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S6"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e950">The daytime above-cloud AOD retrieval from SEVIRI along each trajectory is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c. The retrieval suggests that
absorbing biomass burning aerosols were present above the boundary layer throughout the period and across both cloud regimes, with AOD values that
typically ranged between 0.2 and 0.5. There is an indication that there is an increasing trend in above-cloud AOD along the trajectories as they move
northwards, although the variability is large, particularly on 5 September. Also included in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c are values calculated
from aircraft profiles of aerosol extinction above the boundary layer in both cloud regimes and total column AOD values from the AERONET site on
Ascension Island on the afternoon of 5 September. As with the effective radius data, the purpose is to illustrate that the in situ measurements
also show aerosol loadings that are broadly consistent with the satellite data. The in situ aerosol observations will be examined further in
Sects. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/> and <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e961">The satellite above-cloud AOD retrievals from SEVIRI are unable to determine if the free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol was in contact with the boundary layer cloud along the trajectories as the AOD is a basic integrated value of the aerosol extinction only. Spaceborne lidars such as CALIPSO and CATS are able to provide vertical information on the location of the aerosol and cloud, but the data are very limited both spatially and temporally. In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>, CALIPSO and CATS data that pass near back trajectories initialised at the location of aircraft measurements made in the POC are presented. The trajectories were started at altitudes of 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (black line) and 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (red line), which correspond to heights below cloud base and in the upper part of the boundary layer. The 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude trajectory is the same as the blue line in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>. Following this trajectory back to 3 September before the POC formed, there is a CALIPSO overpass that tracked very close by (point C in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>a and d). The CALIPSO data shows an elevated aerosol plume between about 3 and 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude at<?pagebreak page4065?> the corresponding latitude. There is however a clear slot beneath the base of this aerosol layer and above the boundary layer cloud, which is located at an altitude of 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This indicates that the overlying smoke was not mixing into the boundary layer on  3 September before the POC formed. Further north on the CALIPSO overpass early on 3 September (latitude <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 to 14<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S), there is evidence that the base of the smoke plume is in contact with the underlying cloud. Later, on 4 September there was a CATS overpass that crossed upstream of the 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> boundary layer trajectory. This also shows evidence of overlying biomass burning aerosol in contact with the underlying cloud to the north of about 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and a gap between the elevated aerosol plume and boundary layer cloud to the south of this (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>c). In addition, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>e shows a vertical profile of water vapour from a radiosonde released at St. Helena Island (16<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 6<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) at 11:15 UTC on 4 September. This is approximately 250 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the west of the 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trajectory shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> a and would have also been to the west of the POC feature at this time. The sounding shows structure in the water vapour mixing ratio in the free troposphere between the boundary layer top at 1.3 and 3.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with values in excess of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">kg</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is likely to be associated with the transport of air and biomass burning aerosol from the continent <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.45"/>. Whilst not definitive evidence, both the CALIPSO and CATS data suggest that aerosol–cloud contact was not prevalent south of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S along the POC trajectory, although the St. Helena sounding suggests that the aerosol base may have lowered to the west of the POC.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1133">Examination of the air  mass history of the POC. The black and red tracks in panel <bold>(a)</bold> are back trajectories initialised from the time and position of the aircraft observations in the POC (red star). The black trajectory was started at an altitude within the surface mixed layer (0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the red trajectory beneath the boundary layer inversion (1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Additional back trajectories initialised at an altitude beneath the inversion at 12-hourly positions along the black 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trajectory are also shown. The orange, dark blue, purple and light blue stars are the trajectory start points. Panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows the altitude above mean sea level of these trajectories as a function of time. The thick lines along each trajectory are where the model relative humidity is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 %, which is indicative of when the air mass was in the free troposphere. Panels <bold>(c, d)</bold> show the lidar feature mask from CATS and CALIPSO, respectively. Aerosol and clouds are shown with orange and cyan colours, respectively. The satellite tracks are overlaid with a dashed line in panel <bold>(a)</bold> and occasions where the lidar data are in the vicinity of the trajectories are labelled A to C. Panel <bold>(e)</bold> shows a radiosonde profile of specific humidity from St. Helena, launched at 11:15 UTC on 4 September 2017. The date labels in panels <bold>(a, b)</bold> are valid at 00:00 UTC on each day.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1192">To further examine when the POC air mass may have come into contact with overlying biomass burning aerosol, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>b shows the altitude of
the trajectories and the thicker lines show when the model relative humidity drops below 30 %, which is indicative of when a trajectory is in the
free troposphere. So for example, the back trajectory that ends at 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within the POC had remained in the boundary layer for the previous
four days and travelled from the south-east. This can be contrasted with the 1500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trajectory (red), which had mixed down into the boundary
layer earlier on 5 September. It can be seen that this trajectory had originated over the biomass burning source region in continental Africa and
crossed into the south-east Atlantic about 5 d earlier. Furthermore, this trajectory also tracked through the elevated plume of smoke observed by
CALIPSO on 3 September (point B in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>a and d). We also plot additional back trajectories that are started at 12-hourly intervals
back along the black 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trajectory, in order to examine the time history of where the free-tropospheric air that is entrained into the
boundary layer originates from. The orange (T-12), dark blue (T-24), purple (T-36) and light blue (T-48) stars are the additional trajectory start
points. The start height of each of these is adjusted to remain just beneath the boundary layer inversion, which lowers to the south. The trajectories
that begin after midday on 4 September (red, orange and dark blue) have all mixed down free-tropospheric air into the boundary layer that has been
transported from the north and east, where the CALIPSO lidar data indicates the presence of an extensive biomass burning aerosol plume. Prior to this
time, the trajectories (purple and light blue) switch to mixing in free-tropospheric air that has originated from the more pristine free troposphere
to the south-east. This dramatic change provides additional support to the idea that the boundary layer air mass in which the POC formed in the early
hours of 4 September would not have made contact with overlying biomass burning aerosol until it had moved further northwards towards Ascension
Island. A comparable analysis with trajectories initialised in the stratiform cloud layer sampled immediately downwind of the POC shows a very similar
air mass history (not shown).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1226">Vertical profiles of PCASP number concentration, CPC number concentration, BC mass concentration, carbon monoxide, water vapour mixing ratio and potential temperature within and downwind of the POC. The frequency of cloud top height as a function of altitude is shown in panel <bold>(g)</bold>. The cloud top height data are from measurements made from the aircraft lidar when flying above the boundary layer over the POC on flight C052 and over the closed cells downwind of the POC on flight C051.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page4066?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Aerosol and thermodynamic vertical structure</title>
      <p id="d1e1246">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> shows examples of the aerosol and thermodynamic vertical structure measured both downwind of and within the POC. These
include aerosol number concentration from the PCASP and CPC, black carbon mass concentration from the SP2, carbon monoxide, water vapour mixing ratio
and potential temperature. Data from the deep profiles immediately after take-off on flights C051 and C052 are included to illustrate the temporal
change between the morning and afternoon at Ascension Island. These profiles can be contrasted to measurements made on flight C052 within the middle
of the POC feature. Both of the downwind profiles of moisture and temperature show a decoupled boundary layer, with a fairly well-mixed layer between
the surface and the lifting condensation level (LCL), which is at an altitude of about 600 to 700 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Above the LCL, there is another
well-mixed layer that extends up to the trade-wind inversion at the top of the boundary layer, which is located at an altitude of about
1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. There are strong and vertically shallow gradients (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in both temperature and moisture at the top of the boundary
layer. The thermodynamic profiles suggest that the overcast cloud measured on the morning of 5 September on flight C051 downwind of the POC
consisted of a stratocumulus layer that was decoupled from the surface. The LASIC vertically pointing radar and radiosondes presented in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S8"/> do however suggest that coupling between the surface mixed layer and the stratiform cloud may have occurred intermittently via
shallow cumulus. In contrast, the POC moisture and temperature profile shows a well-mixed subcloud layer from the surface to the LCL, followed by
a conditionally unstable layer that extends to the base of the trade-wind inversion. This is more typical of a shallow cumulus boundary layer profile
as would be expected in the open cell region <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39 bib1.bibx27" id="paren.46"/>. The temperature beneath the LCL on the POC profile is notably cooler than<?pagebreak page4067?> the
profiles downwind, which could be indicative of cooling via rain evaporation. The height and strength of the trade-wind inversion in the POC is very
similar to the downwind profiles.</p>
      <p id="d1e1288">A more extensive survey of inversion heights can be inferred from the cloud top height distribution measured with the aircraft lidar in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>g. The plot shows the frequency of cloud top height over the POC and downwind stratiform cloud, using only those lidar
returns that detect cloud. This corresponds to 100 % of the lidar returns on flight C051 and 88 % of those on flight C052, with the lower
frequency of cloud detection on flight C052 reflecting the more broken cloud conditions in the POC. This is broadly comparable to the SEVIRI cloud
fractions shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a, which at the time of the aircraft measurements in the POC vary between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 75 % and 90 %. We
expect the lidar to be at the upper end of this range, given that it is likely to better detect optically thin stratiform clouds at the top of the
boundary layer that may be detrained remnants of the more active cumulus, such as the example photos shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. The measurements
show a fairly invariant cloud top height over the stratiform cloud measured on flight C051, with a mean and standard deviation of
1836 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In contrast, the data over the POC on flight C052 shows a bi-modal distribution, with a peak in the cloud top height
distribution in the 1.7 to 1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude bin that corresponds to the approximate height of the trade-wind inversion. Cloud top heights in
the POC do however continue to extend down towards the LCL at about 600 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which results in the mean being markedly lower and a larger
standard deviation in cloud top height over the POC (1599 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 287 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.) than that measured over the stratocumulus cloud. This bi-modal
distribution in cloud top height in the POC is typical of open cellular cloud conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.47"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1356">Photographs taken from the FAAM aircraft on flight C052. Photo <bold>(a)</bold> is from the aircraft rearward-facing camera on profile P1 at 15:44 UTC, as the aircraft headed westwards on the initial descent into the POC. This was just above the boundary layer at an altitude of 2286 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and at 8.3<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. Photos <bold>(b, c)</bold> are from the return low-level leg. Photo <bold>(b)</bold> was taken at 16:12 UTC, 10.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, at an altitude of 1847 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as the aircraft climbed above the boundary layer on profile P4. Photo <bold>(c)</bold> was taken at 16:25 UTC, 11.0<inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, within the ultra-clean layer on profile P6 at an altitude of 1240 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is where the enhanced aerosol concentration measured on the CPC was observed in the ultra-clean layer
(UCL) (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>b). Photographs <bold>(b, c)</bold> are courtesy of Ross Herbert.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page4068?><p id="d1e1436">The profiles of accumulation-mode aerosol number concentration measured with the PCASP in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>a show a large plume of aerosol
in the free troposphere that pervades across both the downwind and the POC cloud regimes. This is consistent with the satellite retrievals of above-cloud aerosol optical depth shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>. The in situ measurements show that the aerosol plume is in contact with the top of
the boundary layer and extends upwards to about 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude. The concentrations of aerosol directly above the trade-wind inversion are in
excess of 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the boundary layer, there is a marked contrast in the aerosol conditions between the downwind profiles and the
profile within the POC. Both profiles downwind of the POC show polluted conditions in the boundary layer, with mean PCASP concentrations beneath the
trade-wind inversion and above the LCL of 460 and 225 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on the morning and afternoon flights (C051 and C052). Between the surface and
LCL, the PCASP concentrations are lower at 275 and 110 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for C051 and C052. The vertical profile of the aerosol in the marine boundary
layer downwind of the POC is consistent with the decoupled boundary layer structure. The free-tropospheric aerosol is initially entrained downwards
across the trade-wind inversion and then mixes down across the LCL into the surface mixed layer. In the POC, the PCASP concentrations in the surface
mixed layer are much lower than in the downwind profiles and representative of unpolluted conditions, with a mean value of 28 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This
drops off to pristine values of 1 to 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between 1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the altitude of the trade-wind inversion. This ultra-clean layer
(UCL) and the low subcloud aerosol concentrations are typical of previous measurements made in POCs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="paren.48"/> and in open cells at the
stratocumulus to cumulus transition <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5 bib1.bibx53" id="paren.49"/> and result from efficient removal of aerosol via the collision coalescence process
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="paren.50"/>. It is remarkable that the PCASP concentration across the trade-wind inversion in the POC changes by over three orders of magnitude.</p>
      <p id="d1e1540">The contrast between the more polluted boundary layer conditions downwind of the POC and the much cleaner boundary layer in the POC are also
highlighted by the measured profiles of carbon monoxide, BC mass concentration and CPC number concentration shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>. All
of these measurements are significantly enhanced in the free troposphere across both cloud regimes, with the elevated CO and BC consistent with that
aerosol originating from biomass burning sources. Data from an Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (not shown) also confirms that this plume contains
significant organic aerosol loadings. In addition, these measurements all correlate with the PCASP concentrations in the boundary layer downwind of
the POC, indicating that biomass burning aerosol has been mixed across the trade-wind inversion. This is contrasted with the carbon-monoxide data
beneath the trade-wind inversion in the POC, which is invariant in altitude and typical of clean marine conditions measured at Ascension Island during
the LASIC deployment <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.51"/>. Carbon-monoxide is a relatively long-lived tracer of the biomass burning aerosol that is not significantly
affected by cloud processing and precipitation, in contrast with the aerosol particulates that can be removed efficiently via collision–coalescence
processes. The lack of elevated CO levels in the POC therefore suggests that the entrainment of the polluted free-tropospheric air into the POC is not
an efficient process and that the unpolluted aerosol conditions in the POC are not driven solely by precipitation washout. The BC<?pagebreak page4069?> mass concentrations
in the POC are also low, providing additional evidence of limited mixing of smoke into the POC. Finally, the peaks in the concentration of aerosol
particles measured with the CPC in the cloud-free UCL (see photograph in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>c) and the subcloud layer in the POC are indicative of
recent new particle formation. Episodic increases in Aitken-mode particles have often been observed in POCs from both aircraft and shipborne
measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34 bib1.bibx51 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.52"/>. The measurements from this case are consistent with cloud-resolving model simulations that include
a detailed aerosol and chemistry scheme of a different POC case <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.53"/>. In those simulations, the authors find that the observed dimethyl sulfide (DMS) flux
from the ocean can support a nucleation source of aerosol in open cells that exceeds sea salt emissions in terms of the number of particles
produced. It is important to note that the observed new particle formation in the UCL would not occur if significant mixing of the free-tropospheric
aerosol into the boundary layer was occurring as the precursor gases would preferentially condense onto those larger particles instead of forming new
aerosols. These measurements therefore all indicate that the entrainment of overlying biomass burning aerosol may be significantly more efficient in
the overcast cloud layer downwind of the POC, suggesting that the cloud regime may play an important role on controlling when free-tropospheric
aerosol can mix into the boundary layer. It also demonstrates that the model winds on which the trajectories in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> follow mix
free-tropospheric air into the boundary layer too readily in the location where the POC was observed. This is perhaps not surprising, given that the
meteorological data used to calculate the trajectories is based on a global NWP analysis, which will not be capable of simulating complex mesoscale
features such as POCs.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Locating the POC boundary at the time of the aircraft measurements</title>
      <p id="d1e1568">The satellite imagery showed that on the afternoon of 5 September, the overcast stratiform cloud downwind of the POC had cleared
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>e), making it difficult to identify the location of the boundary between the POC and downwind conditions using satellite
imagery at the time of the aircraft measurements. Here, we examine the aerosol and CO data along the return leg on flight C052 (15:42 to 17:26 UTC),
when the aircraft performed saw-tooth profiles that spanned the depth of the boundary layer, from deep within the POC back towards Ascension
Island. These in situ measurements are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> and will be used to identify where the marked change between a clean marine
and more polluted boundary layer occur, which are associated with the POC and downwind conditions. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>a plots the altitude of
the aircraft as a function of longitude. The red crosses indicate the altitude of the base of the trade-wind inversion from every profile that crossed
between the boundary layer and the free troposphere. The majority of the inversion crossings are in accordance with the cloud top height measured with
the lidar on the outbound high-level leg over the POC. The exception is the lowering of the inversion height on profiles P9 and P10 as the aircraft
travelled west towards Ascension Island. This is associated with a reduction in the relative humidity at the top of the boundary layer (below
saturation) and the large-scale cloud clearance in the afternoon downwind of the POC. The filled black circles in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>a indicate
where cloud or precipitation was measured. This shows that on take-off (profile P0), a single layer of clouds was measured just below the trade-wind
inversion. On the return leg later in the afternoon, cloud and/or precipitation was observed at all levels beneath the trade-wind inversion east of
13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. Given that the LCL was approximately 600 to 700 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, it is evident that precipitation was frequently observed below cloud base
down to the lowest altitude of the measurements (35 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">l</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). To the west of 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, the cloud had cleared on the return leg.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e1629">Aircraft data from flight C052 plotted as a function of longitude. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the aircraft altitude on the initial profile out of Ascension Island (dash line) and on the low-level return leg through the POC feature (solid line). The black filled circles overlaid on the flight track indicate where cloud or precipitation was sampled (Nevzorov TWC sensor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The red crosses show the altitude of the base of the trade-wind inversion, that was identified visually from the temperature and humidity measurements. The shaded regions indicate the altitude ranges used to calculate the data presented in panels <bold>(b–d)</bold>. These correspond to data from the surface mixed layer (red), the ultra-clean layer (green) and the free troposphere (blue). Panels <bold>(b–d)</bold> present along-track measurements of CO, PCASP number concentration and BC mass concentration as box and whisker plots in the three altitude segments. Note that BC mass concentrations in the UCL (green) were below the detectable limit east of 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and that the free-tropospheric CO data in panel <bold>(b)</bold> uses the right-hand <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis. Profile and run names are indicated at the top of the figure.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1691">The blue, green and red shaded altitude bands in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>a are used to composite the aircraft measurements in the lower panels of
the figure. They represent height ranges where all of the profiles were in the free troposphere (blue), in the height range of the ultra-clean layer
in the upper part of the decoupled boundary layer within the POC (green) and in the surface mixed layer beneath the LCL
(red). Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>b to d show how carbon monoxide, accumulation-mode aerosol number concentration and BC mass concentration varied as
a function of longitude in the three altitude bands. All of these measurements show enhanced levels in the free troposphere when compared to the
boundary layer data, indicating that the elevated free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol plume pervaded across the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 750 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
horizontal distance covered by the aircraft on flight C052. The free-tropospheric concentrations gradually increase eastwards from measurements
downwind of the POC to over the POC itself. Below the trade-wind inversion, the CO data show low clean background values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> throughout the
depth of the boundary layer to the east of 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. These values are in accordance with the background levels of CO measured from the LASIC
measurement site on days that exhibit very clean aerosol conditions between June 2016 and October 2017 (median CO concentration of 69 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with an
interquartile range of 62 to 74 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="altparen.54"/>). Further west, there is a gradual increase in CO concentrations towards Ascension Island,
indicating that the air mass containing biomass burning aerosol has mixed into the boundary layer. It can also be seen that in the upper part of the
boundary layer to the west of 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, the CO concentration is higher than at lower levels, in accordance with the example downwind profiles
that were shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4071?><p id="d1e1770">The PCASP number concentration in the upper part of the boundary layer (green) shows the ultra-clean layer (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>PCASP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
a few <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the POC between 12 and 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. This region also shows the lowest PCASP concentrations at lower levels
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>PCASP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 15 and 29 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between profiles P5 and the ascent up to R1). These low aerosol concentrations are
indicative of the removal of aerosol by active collision–coalescence processes. Interestingly, the eastern-most profiles (P1 to P3) show more elevated
aerosol concentrations, with median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>PCASP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations ranging from 75 to 90 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 40 to 72 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
surface and elevated boundary layer height ranges. This is in spite of the low CO values, suggesting that the enhanced aerosol loadings to the east
measured on profiles P1 to P3 as compared to the lower values on profiles P4 to P7 are not due to significant mixing of elevated biomass burning
aerosol into the POC and are more likely due to enhanced aerosol loadings from the Ocean surface. This is further backed up by the fairly low BC mass
concentration values measured by the SP2 that are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>d. They show that in the surface mixed layer, the BC mass is
typically a few tens <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ng</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the east of 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and that the BC mass loadings only increase significantly when the aircraft
travelled west of 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. In addition, in the upper part of the boundary layer, BC mass loadings were below the detectable limit of the SP2 to
the east of 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W.</p>
      <p id="d1e1919">The correlation between increasing CO, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mtext>PCASP</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and BC mass to the west of 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W indicates that mixing of elevated biomass burning
aerosol into the boundary layer had been more prevalent at the westward end of the aircraft measurements. To understand if this westward increase
occurs across the POC boundary and to explore possible reasons for the slight enhancement in the boundary layer aerosol loadings on the eastern-most
profiles, we examine satellite imagery in combination with model trajectories. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>a and b show SEVIRI true-colour imagery at
10:00 and 16:00 UTC on 5 September. These times are broadly representative of the cloud conditions observed during the morning and afternoon
flights C051 and C052. The location of each of the profiles and the level run on the return low-level leg on flight C052 are shown with coloured
stars. From each of these positions, we calculate backwards and forward trajectories to determine the relative position of the profiles and run at the
time of the satellite images, which are marked with open circles on the figure. As already discussed, the overcast cloud downwind of the POC cleared
in the afternoon of 5 September, making it difficult to define the POC boundary on the flight track of C052
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>b). However, in the morning satellite image (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>a), the main POC feature is well defined and
a secondary feature can also be seen in the south-east of the image. These two POC features were labelled “A” and “B” in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. The open circles show that the air masses in which profiles P0, P8, P9 and P10 were made are in the overcast cloud downwind
of the POC in the morning. Similarly, run R1 was close to the western POC boundary, profiles P5, P6 and P7 were deep within POC “A”, profiles P4 and
P3 were close to or on the eastern boundary of POC “A”, and profiles P2 and P1 were in a region of overcast cloud that was situated between the two POC
features “A” and “B”. By the afternoon image and the time of the aircraft measurements on flight C052, this region of overcast cloud that had
separated POC “A” and “B” had turned into open cells; i.e. the two individual POCs had merged. We note that the operational MODIS cloud top effective
radius product shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>c and d shows that this region had values approaching 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" 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> in the morning and was
therefore more likely to contain drizzle-sized drops than the overcast cloud downwind of the POC, that had much smaller values
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" 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>. We also note that the lower effective radius values to the north-west of the POC are where biomass burning aerosol had
mixed down into the boundary layer.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e1982">Panels <bold>(a, b)</bold> show SEVIRI RGB imagery at 10:00 and 16:00 UTC on 5 September 2017. Aircraft tracks are shown with a thin white line from flight C051 (10:00 UTC image) and flight C052 (16:00 UTC image). The positions where aircraft profiles (P0 to P10) and run (R1) from flight C052 were made are shown with a star on both images. The positions of these points at the time of each satellite image as calculated from trajectories initialised at each measurement location are shown with open circles. The trajectories begin at 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude and follow the boundary layer air mass. Panels <bold>(c, d)</bold> show MODIS true-colour imagery with the 3.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" 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> effective radius retrieval overlaid. The imagery in panels <bold>(c, d)</bold> was obtained from NASA Worldview. The overpass times are indicated at the top of each figure.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=441.017717pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f08.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2018">This analysis is consistent with the longitudinal variation we see in the aircraft measurements in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>. The increase in
boundary layer aerosol to the west of run R1 is consistent with there being more efficient entrainment of free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol
into the region containing overcast cloud conditions downwind of the POC in the morning than within the POC itself. Similarly, the increase in marine
aerosol on the eastern-most profiles matches the location of the cloud that separated the two POC features in the morning, but that then fully
developed in to open cells in the afternoon. We hypothesise that the time for enhanced removal of boundary layer aerosol by collision–coalescence and
sedimentation processes was less in the area of developing open cells than deep within the POC; i.e. the air mass at the eastern extent of the
measurements had experienced heavy precipitation for less time.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Compositing aerosol, cloud and thermodynamic data downwind of and within the POC</title>
      <p id="d1e2031">Based on this analysis, we now compose the vertical profiles from the aircraft data from both flights into conditions representative of the air mass
downwind of the POC and conditions within the POC itself. The morning flight, C051, is representative of the downwind conditions only. For the
afternoon flight, C052, we define measurements made to the west of 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W as being representative of the downwind conditions and to the east
of 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W as being representative of the POC. This is essentially separating the data on the return low-level leg either side of run R1, which
was roughly at the transition between the two cloud regimes. Run R1 is examined further in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S7"/>. We compose the data into
200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude bins and calculate the median and interquartile range from a variety of parameters.</p>
      <p id="d1e2062">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/> shows the composite vertical profiles of aerosol number concentration measured with the PCASP and CPC, carbon monoxide,
potential temperature, water vapour mixing ratio and relative humidity. These profiles show the same broad features that were presented in the
individual profiles in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>. There is a free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol plume that is prevalent in both regimes, with
evidence that the smoke has mixed down into the boundary layer downwind of the POC. The POC measurements show a very clean boundary layer, including
the presence of an UCL between about 700 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. There is significant variability in the CPC data in the UCL, which indicates
that regions of elevated Aitken-mode aerosol concentrations are rather heterogeneous. This could be due to enhanced droplet scattering close to the
intermittent clouds in the POC leading to localised areas of increased actinic flux that can promote new particle formation, although this cannot be
concluded from these measurements. There is a sharp temperature inversion and moisture gradient at the top of the boundary layer, with the base of the
inversion in the POC and downwind profile from the morning flight C051 located at 1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The downwind profiles from flight C052 clearly show
a lowering of the inversion base to about 1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that is associated with the afternoon cloud clearance. The thermodynamic profiles show
a decoupled boundary layer in both downwind profiles. However, the RH in the upper part of the<?pagebreak page4072?> boundary layer remains subsaturated at all levels in
the C052 downwind profile, suppressing cloud formation. This can be contrasted to the conditions in the morning C051 downwind profile, where the
deeper boundary layer is saturated in the uppermost 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the POC, the thermodynamic profile is more typical of a shallow cumulus boundary
layer. The relative humidity shows saturated conditions at all levels above the LCL, highlighting that the vertical extent of the clouds in the POC
spans a much larger depth than in the downwind profiles.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e2112">Composite vertical profiles of <bold>(a)</bold> PCASP number concentration <bold>(b)</bold> CPC number concentration <bold>(c)</bold> carbon monoxide <bold>(d)</bold> potential temperature <bold>(e)</bold> specific humidity and <bold>(f)</bold> relative humidity. The filled symbols are the median and the horizontal bars the interquartile range of the data. For flight C052, the data points are from the return low-level leg. The POC is defined as points east of 12<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and the downwind air mass data to the west of 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?pagebreak page4073?><p id="d1e2159">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>a–c shows composite vertical profiles of a selection of in-cloud parameters for the periods where clouds were observed, namely
the measurements made within the POC on flight C052 and the downwind stratiform cloud measured on flight C051. The data in each altitude bin are
calculated from in-cloud points only using a threshold liquid water content of 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the CDP to define clouds. There are striking
microphysical differences between the two cloud regimes. The cloud drop number concentration, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in the stratiform region downwind of
the POC had values of 150 to 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Significantly lower values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were measured in the POC itself. These peaked at
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 750 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude and then dropped off to less than 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> higher up in the boundary layer. This
contrast between the two cloud regimes broadly mirrors the change in accumulation-mode aerosol concentration measured with the PCASP shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a, which can be used as a rough proxy for the CCN concentration. The change can be attributed to both mixing of biomass burning
aerosol into the boundary layer downwind of the POC acting to increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and active collision–coalescence processes in the POC acting
to reduce <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The volume mean radius of cloud drops calculated from the CDP size distribution, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, shows similar large
differences, with values of 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" 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> typical in the downwind stratiform cloud and 10 to 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" 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> in the POC. It is notable that the
size of the cloud drops tends to increase with altitude in the POC. The in-cloud liquid water content profiles, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, show an adiabatic looking
increase in cloud water in the stratiform region and more variability in the POC. However, the in-cloud <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the POC is higher than in the
downwind stratiform cloud field, as might be expected from the increased depth of the clouds in the POC.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e2346">Composite vertical profiles of <bold>(a)</bold> cloud drop number concentration, <bold>(b)</bold> volume mean radius of cloud drops and <bold>(c)</bold> cloud liquid water content. The filled symbols are the median and the horizontal bars the interquartile range of the in-cloud data. Panel <bold>(d)</bold> shows vertical profiles of the cloud (filled symbols) and rain (open symbols) fraction from the measurements along the flight track. Cloudy points are defined when the CDP LWC <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and rain points when the concentration of drops larger than 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" 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> exceeds 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2416">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>d shows how the cloud fraction varies with altitude from the composite profiles. The cloud fraction is calculated from the ratio
of the number of in-cloud data points divided by the total number of data points in each altitude bin. For the downwind stratiform cloud region, the
cloud fraction peaks at 0.8 at the top of the boundary layer. The profile in the POC shows lower values as expected given the more cumuliform nature
of the clouds, with values of about 0.2 between 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitudes. The cloud fraction does however tend to increase with height
up to 0.6 at an altitude of 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the POC. This may reflect the increased amount of detrained cloud layers that surround the individual
cumulus clouds that are present in the UCL, examples of which can be seen in the photographs shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. Also included in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>d are the profiles of rain fraction. Rain points are defined as those points where the concentration of drops larger than
60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" 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> diameter as calculated from the 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Hz</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> composite PSD exceeds 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The rain fraction profiles show that large
drizzle or precipitation particles were not observed below cloud base in the downwind stratiform cloud region. In the POC, precipitation-sized
particles were prevalent throughout the depth of the cloud layer and also were observed down to the surface.</p>
      <p id="d1e2482">Composite profiles of various precipitation averaged parameters are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/> using the same 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> threshold on large
drops to define in-rain data points. Each of the parameters are calculated from the composite PSD using data for particles larger than
60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" 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>. They include the rain drop number concentration, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the raindrop volume mean radius, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
the rain water content, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the rain rate. It is immediately apparent that the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the upper part of the
boundary layer are an order of magnitude higher in the POC than in the downwind stratiform cloud region and that only in the POC does the
precipitation fall to the surface. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">V</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">D</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the POC gradually increases, and the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases from the top of
the boundary layer down to the LCL, even though the rain fraction remains fairly constant (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>d). This is consistent with the largest
rain drops falling to lower levels in the cumulus clouds as their fall speed is more likely to exceed the cloud updraft speed than that of smaller
drizzle-sized drops. As they fall through the cloud they will also continue to grow via the accretion of cloud drops. The largest rain drops and
precipitation rate are found below cloud base, with median peak values reaching several tens of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The profiles clearly demonstrate
that precipitation is prevalent within the POC. Although low concentrations of drizzle-sized drops were observed in the stratiform cloud downwind of
the POC, the rain rate calculated from integrating the size distributions is negligible (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and confined to the cloud
layer.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e2634">Composite vertical profiles of <bold>(a)</bold> rain drop number concentration, <bold>(b)</bold> volume mean radius of rain drops, <bold>(c)</bold> rain water content and <bold>(d)</bold> rain rate. The filled symbols are the median and the horizontal bars the interquartile range of the in-rain data. Data points containing rain are defined when the concentration of drops larger than 60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" 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> exceeds 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f11.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page4074?><sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <label>7</label><title>UCL clouds and the transition region</title>
      <p id="d1e2688">There has been a growing interest in clouds that form in the low aerosol environment found in UCLs, especially with regards to the quasi-laminar
stratiform cloud layers that are likely to be detrained remnants of more active shallow cumulus <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53 bib1.bibx30" id="paren.55"/>. These more stratiform layers,
also termed veil clouds, have been characterised in the stratocumulus to cumulus transition in the north-east Pacific <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.56"/> and are frequently
observed in POCs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.57"/>. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.58"/> show that these clouds tend to exhibit low levels of turbulence, are often both vertically
and optically thin and exhibit low concentrations of large liquid drops. They were also a common occurrence in the POC case study presented here, as
illustrated by the example photographs in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. The photographs show vertically thin stratiform layers that had formed in the upper
part of the decoupled boundary layer and are distinct from the cumulus clouds. Whilst it is not possible to determine what contribution these thin
stratiform clouds have for the composite cloud and precipitation vertical profiles shown in Figs. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F11"/>, data from the
straight and level run R1 that was located close to the POC boundary nicely illustrate the contrasting microphysical conditions between a quiescent
cloud and a more active cumulus cloud in the UCL.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4075?><p id="d1e2710">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/> shows selected aircraft data on level run R1, which was flown at an altitude of 1320 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This altitude is in
the middle of the UCL and the run was located close to the boundary between the POC and downwind air mass, with the data on the right of the plot being
farther east and therefore deeper into the POC. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>a plots the air vertical velocity along the run. The two grey shaded bands
are selected to illustrate contrasting cloud dynamical environments. At about 12.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W the aircraft flew through some active cumulus clouds
with peaks updrafts approaching 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, downdrafts of 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a vertical velocity variance calculated from 32 Hz wind
measurements <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 1.10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The other segment of the run centred at 12.15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W shows a contrasting cloud environment
that is much more quiescent (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.03 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), in accordance with the low turbulent conditions that are common in UCL veil
clouds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.59"/>. The out-of-cloud PCASP values plotted in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>c demonstrate that to the east, the environment that the quiescent cloud
formed was in the UCL with low accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 to 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. On the western edge of the more active
cumulus, this increases to 40 to 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This could be indicative of mixing of the clean UCL air with the more polluted boundary layer air
across the POC edge due to local circulations induced from precipitation and dynamical feedbacks at the open cell boundary <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51 bib1.bibx47" id="paren.60"/>. Another hypothesis could be that the active cumulus can penetrate across the trade-wind inversion and locally mix down some
free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol into the boundary layer. Even if this mechanism did occur, the prevalence of low CO values in the UCL in the
POC shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/> suggests that it does not dominate the aerosol budget within the POC.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e2893">Aircraft observations from run R1 on flight C052 at 1320 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude covering a distance of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The panels show <bold>(a)</bold> vertical velocity; <bold>(b)</bold> liquid water content calculated from the CDP, Nevzorov TWC sensor and integrating the composite particle size distribution; <bold>(c)</bold> number concentration of cloud drops (CDP), rain drops (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">R</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and out-of-cloud accumulation-mode aerosol number concentration (PCASP); <bold>(d)</bold> the effective radius calculated from the CDP and the composite PSD; <bold>(e)</bold> precipitation rate from the composite PSD. Panels <bold>(f, g)</bold> contrast the mean size distributions averaged over an active Cu cell and a more quiescent cloud at the times indicated by the grey shading. The mean in-cloud size distribution from flight C051 is shown with a dashed line for comparison.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f12.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2956">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>b shows the liquid water content along the run calculated from the CDP which measures drops <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" 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>. Also
included is data from the Nevzorov TWC sensor and from integrating the composite particle size distribution, both of which measure the cloud drops and
precipitation-sized particles. In the active cumulus clouds, the three measurements are in broad agreement, indicating that a large fraction of the
LWC is contained in the cloud drops. This can be contrasted to the more quiescent cloud measured between 12.1 and 12.2<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. Here, the
precipitation-sized particles dominate the condensate as the CDP measurements are significantly lower than the Nevzorov and composite PSD data. This
contrast is also highlighted in the mean size distributions for these regions shown at the bottom of the figure. In the cumulus cloud, there is
a pronounced cloud droplet mode that peaks between 14 and 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" 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> diameter and a shoulder to higher sizes that contains the precipitation-sized particles. In the more quiescent cloud, the cloud droplet mode in the size distribution is not evident. We also overlay the mean in-cloud PSD values
measured in the stratocumulus clouds that were sampled within the more polluted boundary layer downwind of the POC on flight C051 in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>f and g. As expected from the composite analysis shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>, this shows a propensity for much higher
concentrations of small cloud drops and an almost complete absence of large drizzle or rain drops when compared to the cumulus and quiescent cloud
PSDs measured on run R1.</p>
      <p id="d1e3002">The cloud drop number concentration along run R1 is plotted in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>c and shows that the quiescent cloud region has very low
values of a few <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that are in accordance with the low aerosol concentrations in the UCL, whereas the more active cumulus clouds sampled
have values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. It is also evident that the concentration of precipitation-sized drops increases from about
0.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the cumulus to almost 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the quiescent cloud region. These cloud microphysical contrasts are very similar to
the data shown in veil clouds by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.61"/>. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.62"/> perform idealised parcel model simulations to demonstrate that cloud drops in the active
cumulus are efficiently removed via collision–coalescence processes, such that any detrained moist air would likely be devoid of cloud drops and also
exhibit the very low CCN concentrations typical of the UCL. The effective radius calculated using only cloud drops measured by the CDP and using the
cloud plus precipitation-sized particles in the composite PSD is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>d. Rainfall rates calculated from integrating the composites PSD are
included in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F12"/>e. It is clear that both cloud regions exhibit large rain rates in excess of 10 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" 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> and that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mtext>eff</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can exceed
50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" 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> when the precipitation-sized drops are included. The significant rain rate in the quiescent cloud region suggests that this cloud
would decay rather rapidly without further replenishment of liquid water. For example, taking a LWC of 0.25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">g</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the observations in
the quiescent cloud region, the majority of which is contained within drizzle- and rain-sized drops and an assumed cloud thickness of 200 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which is typical of the veil clouds studied in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.63"/>, then a precipitation rate of 10 mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" 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> would sediment out the condensate in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">min</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. As discussed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="text.64"/>, mechanisms that could contribute additional condensate into the quiescent cloud such as outflow
from new active cumulus cells or from mesoscale ascent, or that the smaller drops persist in the thin cloud layer once the largest drizzle particles
have fallen out below cloud base, would likely be required to explain the several-hour longevity that is often observed in UCL veil clouds.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8">
  <label>8</label><title>The view from the LASIC ARM site</title>
      <p id="d1e3182">In this section, we shift the focus to looking at the downwind and POC conditions from the surface-based ARM site on Ascension
Island. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>a plots a time series of radar reflectivity measurements from the vertically
pointing Ka-band radar, with cloud base height measurements from the ceilometer overlaid. The data span 5 and 6 September. On the morning of 5 September, the radar shows a thin layer of cloud sitting at the top of the boundary layer, with evidence of shallow cumulus clouds at lower levels
that have a base at the LCL. Occasionally, enhanced radar reflectivities couple the lower cloud base with the upper stratiform cloud layer. This could
be a sign of the cumulus rising into the more stratiform cloud above, or drizzle falling from the upper layer. The two cloud layer structure is
supported by the double peak in relative humidity that is shown in both radiosonde and aircraft vertical profiles presented in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>c. It is also consistent with the cloud top height derived from the cloud radar at the
time of the soundings, that is also overlaid on that panel. A MODIS true-colour image at 10:44 UTC indicates that the cloud in the morning of 5 September was stratiform in appearance and this time corresponds to the downwind measurements made by the aircraft on flight C051. On the afternoon
of 5 September, there is a large-scale cloud clearance that can be seen in the radar and satellite imagery. The radiosonde relative humidity
sounding also shows a lowering of the boundary layer depth and drying of the upper boundary layer that was observed on the aircraft measurements made
downwind of the POC on flight C052. At about 23:00 UTC on 5 September, the radar measures a rapid change from predominantly cloud-free conditions
to clouds that exhibit significant radar returns. Some of these structures are vertically coherent and extend down to the minimum height detectable by
the radar. It is likely that this is precipitation that is falling<?pagebreak page4076?> down to or close to the surface. This rapid change in cloud conditions late on 5 September is consistent with the POC feature advecting over Ascension Island as determined from the trajectory analysis that was presented in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. The green trajectory in that figure was in the POC and was initialised at 00:00 UTC on 6 September at Ascension
Island. The radar data show that similar conditions were then measured at Ascension Island until late on 6 September and the radiosonde and
aircraft soundings show that the boundary layer structure was more typical of a shallow cumulus boundary layer. The associated cloud conditions can
also be seen on the MODIS imagery from 6 September in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>. The images suggest that the southern boundary of the remnants of the
POC feature was roughly aligned west–east and located just to the south of Ascension Island.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e3195">Observations from Ascension Island on 5 and 6 September 2017. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows radar reflectivity from the Ka-band zenith radar. Cloud base height measurements from the ceilometer are overlaid in black. Panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows measurements of the BC mass concentration, carbon monoxide and CCN concentration, made at the LASIC ARM site. Overlaid with filled circles are measurements from the FAAM aircraft made below 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude during profiles in and out of Ascension Island. The aircraft PCASP concentration is used as a proxy for the CCN concentration. Panel <bold>(c)</bold> shows 3-hourly snapshots through the period. The black points are cloud top height estimates from the Ka-band radar taken from a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 h window around each 3 h point. Overlaid are radiosonde (red) and aircraft profiles (orange) of relative humidity. MODIS true-colour satellite imagery around Ascension Island (red star) is also shown when available. The MODIS imagery was obtained from NASA Worldview.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f13.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3228">Finally, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F13"/>b shows a time series of BC mass concentration, carbon monoxide and CCN concentration measured at the
surface. Overlaid are measurements made from take-off or landing at Ascension Island from the aircraft averaged over the lowest 500 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
boundary layer. This is generally in the surface mixed layer and thus is broadly comparable to the air mass at the ARM site. Note that the aircraft PCASP
concentration is included rather than CCN concentration. The ARM data are consistent with the aircraft measurements presented previously, showing that
downwind of the POC (before 23:00 UTC on 5 September) there were elevated levels of aerosol, BC and CO at the surface, indicating that biomass
burning aerosol had been mixed from the free troposphere down into the boundary layer. As the POC reached Ascension Island, there was a rapid reduction
in all of these measurements. The mean CO and BC values measured at the LASIC site between 23:00 UTC on 5 September and 15:00 UTC on 6 September
were 70 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 44 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ng</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These are in accordance with values reported from the longer-term LASIC measurements on days that
exhibit very clean aerosol conditions during the biomass burning season, where the median (interquartile range) of CO was 69 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(62–74 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ppb</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and BC was 51 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ng</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (23–120 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ng</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.65"/>. In particular, the low carbon monoxide
measurements in the POC that serve as a good tracer for the continental air mass that transports the smoke over the Ocean, again suggest that the POC
must be less efficient at mixing the overlaying aerosol across the boundary layer inversion. Examination of the aircraft measurements in the free
troposphere confirms that the base of the biomass burning aerosol layer remained in contact with the boundary layer inversion throughout the period
(not shown).  It is apparent that later in the day (18:00 UTC 6 September), there are small increases in the LASIC measurements of CO, BC and CCN
concentration that indicate the presence of biomass burning aerosol at the surface whilst the cloud is still actively producing precipitation. We
hypothesise that this  shows evidence of the flow of boundary layer aerosol northwards from the more polluted stratiform region immediately to the
south of Ascension Island into the southern edge of the open cells and that this exceeds the removal rate of aerosol from<?pagebreak page4078?> collision–coalescence and
sedimentation processes. Aircraft data from a low-level flight leg to the west of Ascension Island on the morning of 6 September confirm that
there is a north–south horizontal gradient in boundary layer aerosol and CO across the transition in cloud regime, with the cleanest air mass deeper
within the open cell region to the north (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F14"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e3325">PCASP number concentration and carbon monoxide data on 6 September 2017 (10:06 to 10:34 UTC) measured on flight C053. The data are to the west of Ascension Island and in the surface mixed layer (314 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> altitude). The run crossed the boundary between open cells to the north and more stratiform cloud to the south. The flight track and measured wind vectors are overlaid on a MODIS Terra image valid at 11:27 UTC. The MODIS image was obtained from NASA Worldview.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f14.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S9">
  <label>9</label><title>Open cell frequency of occurrence</title>
      <p id="d1e3350">The airborne and ground-based observations have shown a striking contrast between the polluted boundary layer in the closed cell region downwind of
the POC and the much cleaner conditions in the open cell conditions within the POC, despite the fact that an extensive free-tropospheric biomass
burning aerosol plume was in contact with the trade-wind inversion in both cloud regimes. Importantly, the low background CO values in the POC suggest
that the open cells are not efficient at entraining large amounts of free-tropospheric aerosol into the boundary layer. If this was typical of
boundary layers containing organised open cells in general, then it is of interest to consider how frequent these conditions occur in the south-east
Atlantic. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.66"/> use an artificial neural network cloud classification scheme to identify open and closed cells from 1 year of MODIS
Aqua data. They find that over an area containing the semi-permanent stratocumulus cloud deck in the south-east Atlantic, the monthly mean frequency
of occurrence of open and closed cell conditions changes from about 20 % to 12 % and 32 % to 50 %, respectively, for August to October 2008
(estimated from their Fig. 6). This suggests that open cell conditions form a non-negligible fraction of the boundary layer cloud morphology during
the months when both large boundary layer cloud fractions and the episodic transport of biomass burning aerosol over the south-east Atlantic are most
prevalent <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.67"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3359">Here, we extend the work of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.68"/> to cover a 19-year period between 2000 and 2018, by examining the areal coverage of organised open
cells in the south-east Atlantic during September, when the horizontal extent of elevated aerosol optical depths from biomass burning are most
extensive <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.69"/> and the cloud LWP reaches a maxima <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58" id="paren.70"/>. To do so, we manually locate mesoscale open cellular regions from
MODIS Terra daytime (10:30 local Equator crossing time) true-colour imagery obtained from NASA Worldview. The images cover a longitude range of
15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–14<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E and a latitude range of 1–25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S. For each of the 570 individual daily images in this period, areas that
exhibit open cell characteristics (dark cloud-free cellular regions surrounded by bright narrow cloud edges) are identified. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>a
and b show two examples, with the hand-drawn red lines outlining regions of open cells. The 18 September 2015 case shows an extensive area of open
cells to the west of 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, which covers a large fraction of the south-east Atlantic. In contrast, we identify four distinct but smaller
regions of open cells in the 5 September 2017 case. The northern two regions in the image correspond to the POC features studied in this
paper. Further south, there are two more linear features that are roughly aligned west–east. These types of features typically originate in the
midlatitudes and often move northwards through the stratocumulus cloud deck and are then more similar to the “rift” features shown in
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="text.71"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="text.72"/>. A larger set of illustrative examples for all of September 2010 are shown in Fig. S1 in the Supplement, which
includes both a variety of POCs and more extensive regions of open cells. The open cell fraction for each of the daily images is then determined as
follows. The manually identified open cell regions are filled with a known colour (red) that is not present in the original image. We can then
calculate the open cell fraction from the image as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>RED</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ALL</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>BLACK</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>RED</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of red
pixels in the modified image, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ALL</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the total number of pixels in the image, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mtext>BLACK</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of black pixels in the
image. The black pixels in the image correspond to missing data, e.g. due to the gaps that occur between adjacent satellite swaths in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/> a and b. The open cell fraction can also be calculated for any subregion of the image that is given by a set of latitude and
longitude points. Whilst our analysis of open cell conditions from the satellite imagery is subjective, it is instructive to make a basic comparison
to the results of <?pagebreak page4079?><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.73"/> in order to check for consistency. When looking at similar regions for September 2008, the method used in this
study calculates a mean open cell fraction of 0.13 (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, 10–25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S), which can be broadly compared to the
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.74"/> value of 0.15 (estimated from their Fig. 6) (10–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E). Given that there is
a false detection rate of approximately 10 %–15 % in the neural network algorithm employed by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="text.75"/> and that we expect that our method
could miss some smaller regions of open cells, we consider this agreement to be satisfactory. That said, we expect the open cell fraction calculated
in this study to be a lower bound.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e3548">Evaluation of the open cell fraction from 19 years of MODIS Terra imagery. Panels <bold>(a, b)</bold> are illustrative examples that show the manual identification of open cell features in red. The MODIS imagery was obtained from NASA Worldview. Panel <bold>(c)</bold> shows a spatial map of the September 2000–2018 mean open cell fraction (0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2 and 0.25 contours). The grey shaded region represents the area where the MODIS Terra level 3 product's September 2000–2018 mean fine-mode aerosol optical depth exceeds 0.2, and the black dashed line indicates the 0.6 total liquid cloud fraction contour. We approximate the area where both the fine-mode AOD is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 and the cloud fraction is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6 with the light blue shaded region. The blue line in panel <bold>(d)</bold> shows the daily open cell fraction and the corresponding open cell area calculated in this blue shaded region for September 2000–2018. The box and whiskers summarise the individual monthly data. The open cell fraction for the example cases in panels <bold>(a, b)</bold> in the blue shaded region is 0.43 and 0.10.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/4059/2020/acp-20-4059-2020-f15.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3585">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>c shows a map of the mean September 2000–2018 open cell fraction, calculated from all of the individual daily images. It is
evident that open cells are not common in the near coastal region and that their prevalence increases offshore, coinciding with less-stable and
deeper marine boundary layers. This is similar to an analysis of open cell locations in the south-east Pacific <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="paren.76"/>. Peak open cell
fractions in excess of 0.25 are found in an area to the south of Ascension Island (centred at 13<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W). Also shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>c with grey shading is the area where the mean September 2000–2018 fine-mode aerosol optical depth exceeds 0.2, which we take
as a proxy for the location of where extensive biomass burning aerosols are often present at this time of year. The mean September 2000–2018 0.6
total cloud fraction contour for liquid-phase clouds is also included (dashed black line) and corresponds to the region of the south-east Atlantic
that typically exhibits extensive stratocumulus cloud cover. Although the aerosol optical depth product gives no information on where the biomass
burning aerosol is located in the vertical, it is evident that the maxima in open cell fraction does coincide with areas of high boundary layer cloud
coverage and elevated biomass burning aerosol loadings. It is therefore plausible that subsiding free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol layers
transported from the continent may often come into contact with regions exhibiting open cellular cloud morphologies.</p>
      <p id="d1e3613">We approximate the area of high boundary layer cloud coverage and elevated biomass burning aerosol loadings with the blue shaded area in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>c. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F15"/>d then shows the daily open cell fraction and the corresponding open cell area calculated in this
region of the south-east Atlantic for September 2000–2018. The box and whiskers summarise the individual monthly data (the median, interquartile
range and extremes). The mean September open cell fraction is 0.10, which corresponds to an area covered by open cells of approximately
400 000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, there is significant variability between different years and on submonthly timescales. For example, September 2002
had extensive periods devoid of open cells, whereas organised open cell convective structures were apparent every day in September 2010 (see Fig. S1). Open cell fractions in excess of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4 occurred 41 %, 16 %, 4 % and 1 %, respectively, during the 19-year period.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S10" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>10</label><title>Conclusions and discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e3639">This work describes a case study of a POC in the south-east Atlantic that was measured during the CLARIFY and LASIC field experiments. A combination
of satellite data, model trajectories and in situ measurements is used to describe the evolution of the POC feature. These suggest that the POC
likely formed in a clean marine air mass, with an elevated free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol plume above that was not in contact with the
boundary layer. After formation, the marine boundary layer (MBL) winds advected the POC into a region where the base of the biomass burning aerosol
had lowered. The in situ observations show that this aerosol was in contact with the trade-wind inversion in both the surrounding overcast cloud field
downwind of the POC and within the POC itself. The aircraft and surface-based observations then demonstrate that the air mass downwind of the POC had
entrained this overlying biomass burning aerosol, with enhanced accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations, black carbon mass loadings and carbon
monoxide present in the boundary layer. There was a marked contrast across the transition into the POC itself. Data within the POC showed that the
boundary layer was very clean, with low carbon monoxide and BC mass loadings and the presence of an ultra-clean layer immediately beneath the
trade-wind inversion, in which evidence of new particle formation was observed. It is striking that within the middle of the POC, the accumulation-mode aerosol concentration increased from a few <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> directly beneath the trade-wind inversion to in excess of 1000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> directly
above. The cloud observations presented show that the open cells and more quiescent layer clouds within the POC are very clean and exhibit significant
precipitation, whereas the more polluted closed cells downwind have higher cloud drop concentrations and consequently very few drizzle-sized drops. As
carbon monoxide is a fairly long-lived tracer of the biomass burning aerosol air mass that is not readily removed via cloud processing or
precipitation, the low values in the POC that are typical of background values measured at Ascension Island at this time of year <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="paren.77"/>
indicate that it is not simply the enhanced rainfall in the POC that results in a cleaner boundary layer.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4080?><p id="d1e3673">All of these features therefore suggest that the organised open cellular convection in the POC is very inefficient at entraining the overlying smoke
into the marine boundary layer. The reduced efficiency in the mixing of free-tropospheric aerosols down into open cell boundary layers is consistent
with previous inferences made from measurements of POCs in the south-east Atlantic <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52 bib1.bibx42" id="paren.78"/> and from observations of the stratocumulus
to cumulus transition in cold-air outbreaks <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.79"/>. We note however that these former studies have exhibited significantly lower
free-tropospheric accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations in contact with the inversion above the UCL (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 to 100 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) than were
observed from the measurements on this case study. A weaker entrainment rate across the boundary layer inversion into the POC is also consistent with
previous cloud-resolving model studies. For example, simulations of trade-wind cumulus capped by a strong inversion have demonstrated that entrainment
rates and cloud fraction are tightly coupled, with increased stratiform cloud cover promoting more mixing across the inversion through enhancements in
turbulence generated from cloud top radiative cooling <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39 bib1.bibx27" id="paren.80"/>. This is also consistent with arguments made by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="text.81"/>
and latter cloud-resolving model studies that demonstrate a much weaker entrainment rate within POCs compared to the modelled surrounding overcast
cloud field <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8 bib1.bibx9" id="paren.82"/>. Although the observations in this case study show the presence of thin stratiform veil clouds within the POC,
these are shown to exhibit low levels of turbulence, in accordance with previous measurements of these cloud features in open cell regions
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.83"/> and so would be expected to contribute weakly to entrainment. Whilst the intermittent active cumulus turrets in the POC could penetrate
across the strong trade-wind inversion and locally mix down free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol into the boundary layer, the prevalence of low
CO values in the UCL suggests that this mixing does not dominate the aerosol budget of the POC. In contrast, the measurements of a more polluted
boundary layer in the overcast stratiform region surrounding the POC are consistent with that cloud generating stronger and more widespread mixing
across the inversion.</p>
      <?pagebreak page4081?><p id="d1e3716">This possible cloud regime dependence in entrainment has some important consequences for aerosol–cloud interactions in the south-east Atlantic. For
example, large eddy simulation (LES) studies of open cells that increase the MBL CCN concentration show microphysical and dynamical responses that can
ultimately manifest in an increase in the scene albedo <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47 bib1.bibx15" id="paren.84"/>. The apparent low susceptibility of the open cells in this case to
free-tropospheric aerosol intrusions prohibits the biomass burning aerosol acting as a significant source of additional CCN. More broadly, the
extensive reservoir of free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosols that are transported over the ocean during the biomass burning season
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.85"/> are frequently observed to be in contact with the marine boundary layer <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.86"/>. Where they mix into the boundary layer will
ultimately control when they can modulate the cloud evolution via microphysical perturbations. Our classification of open cellular convection in the
region from 19 years of September MODIS imagery shows that the maxima in the open cell frequency of occurrence (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25) occurs far
offshore. Although there is significant daily and interannual variability, the mean areal coverage of open cells is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 400 000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
an area of high mean liquid cloud fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6) and fine-mode aerosol optical depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2). It is therefore plausible that subsiding
free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol layers transported from the continent may often come into contact with regions exhibiting open cellular
cloud morphologies. This aerosol–cloud “contact” has often been used as a proxy for investigating the cloud response to mixing of smoke into the
boundary layer from spaceborne measurements, with the assumption that these overlying aerosols are modulating the cloud microphysics
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12 bib1.bibx31" id="paren.87"/>. Yet, even in closed cell conditions, the timescale for mixing of elevated smoke into the MBL can be approximately days, and so
instantaneous observations of aerosol–cloud “contact” are not the complete picture <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14" id="paren.88"/>. The results presented here further demonstrate
that additional care needs to be taken when interpreting indirect aerosol effects from observations of above-cloud aerosols in open cell regions.</p>
      <p id="d1e3774">In addition, global weather and climate models are generally not capable of adequately simulating mesoscale open cell features such as POCs, due to
both their coarse horizontal grid spacing and often relatively simplistic representation of entrainment and aerosol–cloud–precipitation interactions,
e.g. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="text.89"/>. For example, it is clear that the trajectory model used for this study continued to readily mix free-tropospheric air down into
the boundary layer air mass that contained the POC, in spite of it using meteorological data from a model analysis that had a much finer grid spacing
than is typically employed in current climate models. These larger-scale models may therefore have significant errors in both the timing and the
location of biomass-burning-aerosol-induced cloud microphysical perturbations, with direct implications for estimates of the aerosol indirect effect
in the south-east Atlantic. The ability of models to simulate open cells is also important for determining the sign and magnitude of the direct effect
of biomass burning aerosols, which is highly sensitive to the underlying reflectance <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx11" id="paren.90"/> and therefore largely determined by the
aerosol vertical distribution and cloud fraction. Evaluation of the spatial and temporal frequency of open cells and an assessment of when smoke is
mixed into the MBL in global climate models would therefore be worthwhile for future study.</p>
      <p id="d1e3784">It is however important to bear in mind that the measurements presented in this study are from a single case and additional observations of open cell
conditions with free-tropospheric aerosol plumes in contact with the boundary layer are needed to confirm if these findings are typical. It would also
be worthwhile to employ large eddy simulation models to provide a more mechanistic view of how the entrainment of overlying aerosols into POCs and the
surrounding overcast cloud field differ.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e3792">The FAAM aircraft data are archived at the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA). The LASIC data were obtained from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility, a US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science user facility managed by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research. ARM. The Terra MODIS L3 dataset was acquired from the LAADS Distributed Active Archive Center. The CATS and CALIPSO data were acquired from the NASA Langley Research Center Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC). AERONET AOD data are available from the AERONET web site (<uri>https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov</uri>, last access: 31 March 2020; AERONET, 2019). The Met Office St. Helena radiosonde data and the NAME trajectory data are available from the lead author upon request. Data from the SEVIRI cloud property and above-cloud AOD retrievals are available from Fanny Peers upon request.</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e3798">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-4059-2020-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-4059-2020-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e3807">SJA conceived the study and analysed the data with help from PAB, PZ, JZ and MC. FP generated the SEVIRI above-cloud AOD and cloud property dataset. JWT provided the calibrated FAAM SP2 data. MF operated the FAAM SP2 instrument. IC and KNB operated the FAAM 2DS and provided the data. SJA wrote the paper and all authors provided revisions and commentary on the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e3813">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3819">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="d1e3825">The CLARIFY deployment was jointly funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through grant no. NE/L013479/1 and the Met Office. The LASIC field campaign was funded by the US Department of Energy's Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, as part of the Atmospheric Science Research Program. We thank the whole CLARIFY and LASIC operations and science teams for their efforts on deploying and maintaining the instruments and for<?pagebreak page4082?> processing and calibrating the campaign datasets. We acknowledge the use of imagery from the NASA Worldview application (<uri>https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/</uri>, last access: 31 March 2020), part of the NASA Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS). The SEVIRI individual channel data used to generate infrared and RGB imagery was obtained from EUMETSAT. We thank Brent Holben for his effort in establishing and maintaining the Ascension Island AERONET site.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e3833">Fanny Peers was partly funded by the Research Council of Norway via the projects AC/BC (grant no. 240372) and NetBC (grant no. 244141). Paquita Zuidema and Jianhao Zhang were supported by funding from DOE ASR grant no. DE-SC0018272.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e3839">This paper was edited by Paola Formenti and reviewed by three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Abel and Boutle(2012)</label><?label Abel12?><mixed-citation>Abel, S. J. and Boutle, I. A.:
An improved representation of the raindrop size distribution for single-moment microphysics schemes,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
138, 2151–2162, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1949" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.1949</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Abel et al.(2005)</label><?label Abel05?><mixed-citation>Abel, S. J., Highwood, E. J., Haywood, J. M., and Stringer, M. A.: The direct radiative effect of biomass burning aerosols over southern Africa, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1999–2018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1999-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-1999-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Abel et al.(2010)</label><?label Abel10?><mixed-citation>Abel, S. J., Walters, D. N., and Allen, G.: Evaluation of stratocumulus cloud prediction in the Met Office forecast model during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10541–10559, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10541-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10541-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Abel et al.(2014)</label><?label Abel14?><mixed-citation>Abel, S. J., Cotton, R. J., Barrett, P. A., and Vance, A. K.: A comparison of ice water content measurement techniques on the FAAM BAe-146 aircraft, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3007–3022, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3007-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-7-3007-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Abel et al.(2017)</label><?label Abel17?><mixed-citation>Abel, S. J., Boutle, I. A., Waite, K., Fox, S., Brown, P. R. A., Lloyd, G., Choularton, T. W., Cotton, R., and Bower, K. N.:
The role of precipitation in controlling the transition from stratocumulus to cumulus clouds in a Northern Hemisphere cold-air outbreak,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
74, 2293–2314, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0362.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-16-0362.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Adebiyi et al.(2015)</label><?label Adebiyi15?><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/JCLID-14-00352.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLID-14-00352.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>AERONET: Aerosol Robotic Network,  available at: <uri>https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/</uri> (last access: 31 March 2020), 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>Beard(1976)</label><?label Beard76?><mixed-citation>Beard, K. V.:
Terminal velocity and shape of cloud and precipitation drops aloft,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
3, 851–864, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033&lt;0851:TVASOC&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033&lt;0851:TVASOC&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1976.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>Berner et al.(2011)</label><?label Berner11?><mixed-citation>Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., and Wood, R.: Large-eddy simulation of mesoscale dynamics and entrainment around a pocket of open cells observed in VOCALS-REx RF06, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10525–10540, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10525-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10525-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>Berner et al.(2013)</label><?label Berner13?><mixed-citation>Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., and Muhlbauer, A.: Marine boundary layer cloud regimes and POC formation in a CRM coupled to a bulk aerosol scheme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12549–12572, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12549-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-12549-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>Bretherton et al.(2010)</label><?label Bretherton10?><mixed-citation>Bretherton, C. S., Uchida, J., and Blossey, P. N.:
Slow manifolds and multiple equilibria in stratocumulus-capped boundary layers,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
2, 14, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.14" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.14</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>Chand et al.(2009)</label><?label Chand09?><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.bibx12"><label>Costantino and Breon(2013)</label><?label Constatino13?><mixed-citation>Costantino, L. and Bréon, F.-M.: Aerosol indirect effect on warm clouds over South-East Atlantic, from co-located MODIS and CALIPSO observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 69–88, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-69-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-69-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>Davies et al.(2019)</label><?label Davies19?><mixed-citation>Davies, N. W., Fox, C., Szpek, K., Cotterell, M. I., Taylor, J. W., Allan, J. D., Williams, P. I., Trembath, J., Haywood, J. M., and Langridge, J. M.: Evaluating biases in filter-based aerosol absorption measurements using photoacoustic spectroscopy, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3417–3434, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3417-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-3417-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Diamond et al.(2018)</label><?label Diamond18?><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.bibx15"><label>Feingold et al.(2015)</label><?label Feingold15?><mixed-citation>Feingold, G., Koren, I., Yamaguchi, T., and Kazil, J.: On the reversibility of transitions between closed and open cellular convection, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 7351–7367, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7351-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-7351-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Giles et al.(2019)</label><?label Giles19?><mixed-citation>Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Gordon et al.(2018)</label><?label Gordon18?><mixed-citation>Gordon, H., Field, P. R., Abel, S. J., Dalvi, M., Grosvenor, D. P., Hill, A. A., Johnson, B. T., Miltenberger, A. K., Yoshioka, M., and Carslaw, K. S.: Large simulated radiative effects of smoke in the south-east Atlantic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 15261–15289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15261-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-15261-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Goren and Rosenfeld(2012)</label><?label Goren12?><mixed-citation>Goren, T. and Rosenfeld, D.:
Satellite observations of ship emission induced transitions from broken to closed cell marine stratocumulus over large areas,
J. Geophys. Res.,
117, D17206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017981" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD017981</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Haywood et al.(2004)</label><?label Haywood04?><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M., Osborne, S. R., and Abel, S. J.:
The effect of overlying absorbing aerosol layers on remote sensing retrievals of cloud effective radius and cloud optical depth,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
130, 779–800, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.100" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/qj.03.100</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Herbert et al.(2020)</label><?label Herbert19?><mixed-citation>Herbert, R. J., Bellouin, N., Highwood, E. J., and Hill, A. A.: Diurnal cycle of the semi-direct effe<?pagebreak page4083?>ct from a persistent absorbing aerosol layer over marine stratocumulus in large-eddy simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 1317–1340, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1317-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-1317-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Hill and Dobbie(2008)</label><?label Hill08?><mixed-citation>Hill, A. A. and Dobbie, S.:
The impact of aerosols on non-precipitating marine stratocumulus. II: The semi-direct effect,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
134, 1155–1165, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.277" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.277</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Johnson et al.(2004)</label><?label Johnson04?><mixed-citation>Johnson, B. T., Shine, K. P., and Forster, P. M.:
The semi-direct aerosol effect: Impact of absorbing aerosols on marine stratocumulus,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
130, 1407–1422, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.61" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/qj.03.61</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Jones et al.(2007)</label><?label Jones07?><mixed-citation>Jones, A. R., Thomson, D. J., Hort, M., and Devenish, B.:
The U.K. Met Office's next-generation atmospheric dispersion model, NAME III,
in:
Air Pollution Modeling and its Application XVII (Proceedings of the 27th NATO/CCMS International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and its Application),
edited by:
Borrego C. and Norman A.-L.,
Springer, 580–589, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68854-1_62" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-0-387-68854-1_62</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Kazil et al.(2011)</label><?label Kazil11?><mixed-citation>Kazil, J., Wang, H., Feingold, G., Clarke, A. D., Snider, J. R., and Bandy, A. R.: Modeling chemical and aerosol processes in the transition from closed to open cells during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7491–7514, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7491-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-7491-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Kealy et al.(2017)</label><?label Kealy17?><mixed-citation>Kealy, J. C., Marenco, F., Marsham, J. H., Garcia-Carreras, L., Francis, P. N., Cooke, M. C., and Hocking, J.: Clouds over the summertime Sahara: an evaluation of Met Office retrievals from Meteosat Second Generation using airborne remote sensing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5789–5807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5789-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-5789-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Levy et al.(2013)</label><?label Levy13?><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.bibx27"><label>Lock(2009)</label><?label Lock09?><mixed-citation>Lock, A.:
Factors influencing cloud area at the capping inversion for shallow cumulus clouds,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
135, 941–952, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.424" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.424</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Lu et al.(2018)</label><?label Lu18?><mixed-citation>Lu, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, Z., Zhao, C., Meyer, K., Rajapakshe, C., Wu, C., Yang, Z., and Penner, J.:
Biomass smoke from southern Africa can significantly enhance the brightness of stratocumulus over the southeastern Atlantic Ocean,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
115, 2924–2929, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713703115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.1713703115</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Muhlbauer et al.(2014)</label><?label Muhlbauer14?><mixed-citation>Muhlbauer, A., McCoy, I. L., and Wood, R.: Climatology of stratocumulus cloud morphologies: microphysical properties and radiative effects, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 6695–6716, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6695-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-6695-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>O et al.(2018)</label><?label O18?><mixed-citation>O, K.-T., Wood, R., and Bretherton, C.:
Ultraclean layers and optically thin clouds in the stratocumulus to cumulus transition: Part II. Depletion of cloud droplets and cloud condensation nuclei through collision-coalescence,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
75, 1653–1673, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0218.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-17-0218.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Painemal et al.(2014)</label><?label Painemal14?><mixed-citation>Painemal, D., Kato, S., and Minnis, P.:
Boundary layer regulation in the southeast Atlantic cloud microphysics during the biomass burning season as seen by the A-train satellite constellation,
J. Geophys. Res.,
119, 11288–11302, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022182" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD022182</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Peers et al.(2019)</label><?label Peers19?><mixed-citation>Peers, F., Francis, P., Fox, C., Abel, S. J., Szpek, K., Cotterell, M. I., Davies, N. W., Langridge, J. M., Meyer, K. G., Platnick, S. E., and Haywood, J. M.: Observation of absorbing aerosols above clouds over the south-east Atlantic Ocean from the geostationary satellite SEVIRI – Part 1: Method description and sensitivity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9595–9611, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9595-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-9595-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Pennypacker et al.(2020)</label><?label Pennypacker19?><mixed-citation>Pennypacker, S., Diamond, M., and Wood, R.: Ultra-clean and smoky marine boundary layers frequently occur in the same season over the southeast Atlantic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2341–2351, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2341-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-2341-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Petters et al.(2008)</label><?label Petters06?><mixed-citation>Petters, M. D., Snider, J. R., Stevens, B., Vali, G., Faloona, I., and Russell, L.:
Accumulation mode aerosol, pockets of open cells, and particle nucleation in the remote subtropical Pacific marine boundary layer,
J. Geophys. Res.,
111, D02206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005694" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005694</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Platnick et al.(2017a)</label><?label Platnick17a?><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., Meyer, K., 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>, 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Platnick et al.(2017b)</label><?label Platnick17b?><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., King, M., and Hubanks, P.:
MODIS Atmosphere L3 Monthly Product. NASA MODIS Adaptive Processing System,
Goddard Space Flight Center,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD08_M3.061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/MODIS/MOD08_M3.061</ext-link>, 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Savic-Jovcic and Stevens(2008)</label><?label Savic08?><mixed-citation>Savic-Jovcic, V. and Stevens, B.:
The structure and mesoscale organization of precipitating stratocumulus,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
65, 1587–1605, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2456.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JAS2456.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Sharon et al.(2006)</label><?label Sharon06?><mixed-citation>Sharon, T. M., Albrecht, B. A., Jonsson, H., Minnis, P., Khaiyer, M. M., VanReken, T. M., Seinfeld, J., and Flagan, R.:
Aerosol and cloud micro-physical characteristics of rifts and gradients in maritime stratocumulus clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
63, 983–997, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3667.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS3667.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Stevens et al.(2001)</label><?label Stevens01?><mixed-citation>Stevens, B., Ackerman, A. S., Albrecht, B. A., Brown, A. R., Chlond, A., Cuxart, J., Duynkerke, P. G., Lewellen, D. C., MacVean, M. K., Neggers, R. J. A., Sanchez, E., Siebesma, A. P., and Stevens, D. E.:
Simulations of trade wind cumulus under a strong inversion,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
58, 1870–1891, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;1870:SOTWCU&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;1870:SOTWCU&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Stevens et al.(2005)</label><?label Stevens05?><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, 51–57, <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.bibx41"><label>Taylor et al.(2014)</label><?label Taylor14?><mixed-citation>Taylor, J. W., Allan, J. D., Allen, G., Coe, H., Williams, P. I., Flynn, M. J., Le Breton, M., Muller, J. B. A., Percival, C. J., Oram, D., Forster, G., Lee, J. D., Rickard, A. R., Parrington, M., and Palmer, P. I.: Size-dependent wet removal of black carbon in Canadian biomass burning plumes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13755–13771, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13755-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-13755-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Terai et al.(2014)</label><?label Terai14?><mixed-citation>Terai, C. R., Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., and Painter, G.: Aircraft observations of aerosol, cloud, precipitation, and boundary layer properties in pockets of open cells over the southeast Pacific, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8071–8088, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8071-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-8071-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Vance et al.(2015)</label><?label Vance15?><mixed-citation>Vance, A. K., Abel, S. J., Cotton, R. J., and Woolley, A. M.: Performance of WVSS-II hygrometers on the FAAM research aircraft, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1617–1625, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1617-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-1617-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page4084?><ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>van der Werf et al.(2010)</label><?label vanderwerf10?><mixed-citation>van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., Mu, M., Kasibhatla, P. S., Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Jin, Y., and van Leeuwen, T. T.: Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11707–11735, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Walters et al.(2017)</label><?label Walters17?><mixed-citation>Walters, D., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Melvin, T., Stratton, R., Vosper, S., Wells, H., Williams, K., Wood, N., Allen, T., Bushell, A., Copsey, D., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Gross, M., Hardiman, S., Harris, C., Heming, J., Klingaman, N., Levine, R., Manners, J., Martin, G., Milton, S., Mittermaier, M., Morcrette, C., Riddick, T., Roberts, M., Sanchez, C., Selwood, P., Stirling, A., Smith, C., Suri, D., Tennant, W., Vidale, P. L., Wilkinson, J., Willett, M., Woolnough, S., and Xavier, P.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 6.0/6.1 and JULES Global Land 6.0/6.1 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1487–1520, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Wang and Feingold(2009a)</label><?label Wang09a?><mixed-citation>Wang, H. and Feingold, G:
Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle in marine stratocumulus. Part I: Impact of drizzle on the formation and evolution of open cells,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
66, 3237–3256, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3022.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JAS3022.1</ext-link>, 2009a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Wang and Feingold(2009b)</label><?label Wang09?><mixed-citation>Wang, H. and Feingold, G:
Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle in marine stratocumulus. Part II: The microphysics and dynamics of the boundary region between open and closed cells,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
66, 3257–3275, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3120.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JAS3120.1</ext-link>, 2009b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Wilcox(2010)</label><?label Wilcox10?><mixed-citation>Wilcox, E. M.: Stratocumulus cloud thickening beneath layers of absorbing smoke aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11769–11777, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11769-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-11769-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Winker et al.(2009)</label><?label Winker09?><mixed-citation>Winker, D. M., Vaughan, M. A., Omar, A., Hu, Y., Powell, K. A., Liu, Z., Hunt, W. H., and Young, S. A.:
Overview of the CALIPSO mission and CALIOP data processing algorithms,
J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech.,
26, 2310–2323, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1281.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JTECHA1281.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Wood and Hartmann(2006)</label><?label Wood06?><mixed-citation>Wood, R. and Hartmann, D. L.:
Spatial variability of liquid water path in marine low cloud: The importance of mesoscale cellular convection,
J. Climate,
19, 1748–1764, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3702.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3702.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Wood et al.(2008)</label><?label Wood08?><mixed-citation>Wood, R., Comstock, K. K., Bretherton, C. S., Cornish, C., Tomlinson, J., Collins, D. R., and Fairall, C.:
Open cellular structure in marine stratocumulus sheets,
J. Geophys. Res.,
113, D12207, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009371" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009371</ext-link>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><label>Wood et al.(2011)</label><?label Wood11?><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.bibx53"><label>Wood et al.(2018)</label><?label Wood18?><mixed-citation>Wood, R., Kuan-Ting, O., Bretherton, C. S., Mohrmann, J., Albrecht, B. A., Zuidema, P., Ghate, V., Schwartz, C., Eloranta, E., Glienke, S., Shaw, R. A., Fugal, J., and Minnis, P.:
Ultraclean Layers and Optically Thin Clouds in the Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition. Part I: Observations,
J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 1631–1652,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0213.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-17-0213.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><label>Yamaguchi et al.(2015)</label><?label Yamaguchi15?><mixed-citation>Yamaguchi, T., Feingold, G., Kazil, J., and McComiskey, A.:
Stratocumulus to cumulus transition in the presence of elevated smoke layers,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
42, 10478–10485, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066544" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL066544</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><label>Yorks et al.(2016)</label><?label Yorks16?><mixed-citation>
Yorks, J. E., Palm, S. P., Hlavka, D. L., McGill, M. J., Nowottnick, E., Selmer, P., and Hart, W. D:
The Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS) algorithm theoretical basis document, release 1.2.,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><label>Zhang and Zuidema(2019)</label><?label Zhang19?><mixed-citation>Zhang, J. and Zuidema, P.: The diurnal cycle of the smoky marine boundary layer observed during August in the remote southeast Atlantic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14493–14516, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14493-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-14493-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><label>Zuidema et al.(2016a)</label><?label Zuidema16?><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>, 2016a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><label>Zuidema et al.(2016b)</label><?label Zuidema16b?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Chang, P., Medeiros, B., Kirtman, B. P., Mechoso, R., Schneider, E. K., Toniazzo, T., Richter, I., Small, R. J., Bellomo, K., Brandt, P., de Szoeke, S., Farrar, J. T., Jung, E., Kato, S., Li, M., Patricola, C., Wang, Z., Wood, R., and Xu, Z.:
Challenges and Prospects for Reducing Coupled Climate Model SST Biases in the Eastern Tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: The U.S. CLIVAR Eastern Tropical Oceans Synthesis Working Group,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
97, 2305–2328, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00274.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00274.1</ext-link>, 2016b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><label>Zuidema et al.(2018)</label><?label Zuidema18?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Sedlacek III, A. J., Flynn, C., Springston, S., Delgadillo, R., Zhang, J., Aiken, A. C., Koontz, A., and Muradyan, P.:
The Ascension Island boundary layer in the remote southeast Atlantic is often smoky,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
45, 4456–4465, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076926" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL076926</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Open cells exhibit weaker entrainment of free-tropospheric biomass burning aerosol into the south-east Atlantic boundary layer</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>This work presents synergistic satellite, airborne and surface-based observations of a pocket of open cells (POC) in the remote south-east
Atlantic. The observations were obtained over and upwind of Ascension Island during the CLouds and Aerosol Radiative Impacts and Forcing (CLARIFY)
and the Layered Smoke Interacting with Clouds (LASIC) field experiments. A novel aspect of this case study is that an extensive free-tropospheric
biomass burning aerosol plume that had been transported from the African continent was observed to be in contact with the boundary layer inversion
over the POC and the surrounding closed cellular cloud regime. The in situ measurements show marked contrasts in the boundary layer thermodynamic
structure, cloud properties, precipitation and aerosol conditions between the open cells and surrounding overcast cloud field.</p><p>The data demonstrate that the overlying biomass burning aerosol was mixing down into the boundary layer in the stratocumulus cloud downwind of the
POC, with elevated carbon monoxide, black carbon mass loadings and accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations measured beneath the trade-wind
inversion. The stratocumulus cloud in this region was moderately polluted and exhibited very little precipitation falling below cloud base. A rapid
transition to actively precipitating cumulus clouds and detrained stratiform remnants in the form of thin quiescent veil clouds was observed across
the boundary into and deep within the POC. The subcloud layer in the POC was much cleaner than that in the stratocumulus region. The clouds in the
POC formed within an ultra-clean layer (accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations of approximately a few cm<sup>−3</sup>) in the upper region of the boundary layer,
which was likely to have been formed via efficient collision–coalescence and sedimentation processes. Enhanced Aitken-mode aerosol concentrations
were also observed intermittently in this ultra-clean layer, suggesting that new particle formation was taking place. Across the boundary layer
inversion and immediately above the ultra-clean layer, accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations were  ∼ &thinsp;1000&thinsp;cm<sup>−3</sup>. Importantly, the
air mass in the POC showed no evidence of elevated carbon monoxide over and above typical background conditions at this location and time of year. As
carbon monoxide is a good tracer for biomass burning aerosol that is not readily removed by cloud processing and precipitation, it demonstrates that
the open cellular convection in the POC is not able to entrain large quantities of the free-tropospheric aerosol that was sitting directly on top of
the boundary layer inversion. This suggests that the structure of the mesoscale cellular convection may play an important role in regulating the
transport of aerosol from the free troposphere down into the marine boundary layer.</p><p>We then develop a climatology of open cellular cloud conditions in the south-east Atlantic from 19 years of September Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Terra imagery. This
shows that the maxima in open cell frequency ( &gt; &thinsp;0.25) occurs far offshore and in a region where subsiding biomass burning aerosol plumes may
often come into contact with the underlying boundary layer cloud. If the results from the observational case study applied more broadly, then the
apparent low susceptibility of open cells to free-tropospheric intrusions of additional cloud condensation nuclei could have some important
consequences for aerosol–cloud interactions in the region.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Abel and Boutle(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Abel, S. J. and Boutle, I. A.:
An improved representation of the raindrop size distribution for single-moment microphysics schemes,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
138, 2151–2162, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1949" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.1949</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Abel et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Abel, S. J., Highwood, E. J., Haywood, J. M., and Stringer, M. A.: The direct radiative effect of biomass burning aerosols over southern Africa, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1999–2018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1999-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1999-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Abel et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Abel, S. J., Walters, D. N., and Allen, G.: Evaluation of stratocumulus cloud prediction in the Met Office forecast model during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10541–10559, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10541-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10541-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Abel et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Abel, S. J., Cotton, R. J., Barrett, P. A., and Vance, A. K.: A comparison of ice water content measurement techniques on the FAAM BAe-146 aircraft, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 7, 3007–3022, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3007-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-7-3007-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Abel et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Abel, S. J., Boutle, I. A., Waite, K., Fox, S., Brown, P. R. A., Lloyd, G., Choularton, T. W., Cotton, R., and Bower, K. N.:
The role of precipitation in controlling the transition from stratocumulus to cumulus clouds in a Northern Hemisphere cold-air outbreak,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
74, 2293–2314, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0362.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-16-0362.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Adebiyi et al.(2015)</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/JCLID-14-00352.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLID-14-00352.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
AERONET: Aerosol Robotic Network,  available at: <a href="https://aeronet.gsfc.nasa.gov/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 31 March 2020), 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Beard(1976)</label><mixed-citation>
Beard, K. V.:
Terminal velocity and shape of cloud and precipitation drops aloft,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
3, 851–864, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033&lt;0851:TVASOC&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033&lt;0851:TVASOC&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1976.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>Berner et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., and Wood, R.: Large-eddy simulation of mesoscale dynamics and entrainment around a pocket of open cells observed in VOCALS-REx RF06, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10525–10540, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10525-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10525-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Berner et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., and Muhlbauer, A.: Marine boundary layer cloud regimes and POC formation in a CRM coupled to a bulk aerosol scheme, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12549–12572, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12549-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12549-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Bretherton et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Bretherton, C. S., Uchida, J., and Blossey, P. N.:
Slow manifolds and multiple equilibria in stratocumulus-capped boundary layers,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
2, 14, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.14" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3894/JAMES.2010.2.14</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Chand et al.(2009)</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.bib13"><label>Costantino and Breon(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Costantino, L. and Bréon, F.-M.: Aerosol indirect effect on warm clouds over South-East Atlantic, from co-located MODIS and CALIPSO observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 69–88, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-69-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-69-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Davies et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Davies, N. W., Fox, C., Szpek, K., Cotterell, M. I., Taylor, J. W., Allan, J. D., Williams, P. I., Trembath, J., Haywood, J. M., and Langridge, J. M.: Evaluating biases in filter-based aerosol absorption measurements using photoacoustic spectroscopy, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 3417–3434, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3417-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-3417-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Diamond et al.(2018)</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.bib16"><label>Feingold et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Feingold, G., Koren, I., Yamaguchi, T., and Kazil, J.: On the reversibility of transitions between closed and open cellular convection, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 7351–7367, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7351-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-7351-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Giles et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Gordon et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Gordon, H., Field, P. R., Abel, S. J., Dalvi, M., Grosvenor, D. P., Hill, A. A., Johnson, B. T., Miltenberger, A. K., Yoshioka, M., and Carslaw, K. S.: Large simulated radiative effects of smoke in the south-east Atlantic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 15261–15289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15261-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-15261-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Goren and Rosenfeld(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Goren, T. and Rosenfeld, D.:
Satellite observations of ship emission induced transitions from broken to closed cell marine stratocumulus over large areas,
J. Geophys. Res.,
117, D17206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017981" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017981</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Haywood et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. M., Osborne, S. R., and Abel, S. J.:
The effect of overlying absorbing aerosol layers on remote sensing retrievals of cloud effective radius and cloud optical depth,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
130, 779–800, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.100" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.100</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Herbert et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Herbert, R. J., Bellouin, N., Highwood, E. J., and Hill, A. A.: Diurnal cycle of the semi-direct effect from a persistent absorbing aerosol layer over marine stratocumulus in large-eddy simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 1317–1340, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1317-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1317-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Hill and Dobbie(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Hill, A. A. and Dobbie, S.:
The impact of aerosols on non-precipitating marine stratocumulus. II: The semi-direct effect,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
134, 1155–1165, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.277" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.277</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Johnson et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, B. T., Shine, K. P., and Forster, P. M.:
The semi-direct aerosol effect: Impact of absorbing aerosols on marine stratocumulus,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
130, 1407–1422, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.61" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.61</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Jones et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, A. R., Thomson, D. J., Hort, M., and Devenish, B.:
The U.K. Met Office's next-generation atmospheric dispersion model, NAME III,
in:
Air Pollution Modeling and its Application XVII (Proceedings of the 27th NATO/CCMS International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and its Application),
edited by:
Borrego C. and Norman A.-L.,
Springer, 580–589, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68854-1_62" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68854-1_62</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Kazil et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Kazil, J., Wang, H., Feingold, G., Clarke, A. D., Snider, J. R., and Bandy, A. R.: Modeling chemical and aerosol processes in the transition from closed to open cells during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7491–7514, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7491-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-7491-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Kealy et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Kealy, J. C., Marenco, F., Marsham, J. H., Garcia-Carreras, L., Francis, P. N., Cooke, M. C., and Hocking, J.: Clouds over the summertime Sahara: an evaluation of Met Office retrievals from Meteosat Second Generation using airborne remote sensing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 5789–5807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5789-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-5789-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Levy et al.(2013)</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.bib28"><label>Lock(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Lock, A.:
Factors influencing cloud area at the capping inversion for shallow cumulus clouds,
Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc.,
135, 941–952, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.424" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.424</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Lu et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Lu, Z., Liu, X., Zhang, Z., Zhao, C., Meyer, K., Rajapakshe, C., Wu, C., Yang, Z., and Penner, J.:
Biomass smoke from southern Africa can significantly enhance the brightness of stratocumulus over the southeastern Atlantic Ocean,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
115, 2924–2929, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713703115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713703115</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Muhlbauer et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Muhlbauer, A., McCoy, I. L., and Wood, R.: Climatology of stratocumulus cloud morphologies: microphysical properties and radiative effects, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 6695–6716, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6695-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6695-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>O et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
O, K.-T., Wood, R., and Bretherton, C.:
Ultraclean layers and optically thin clouds in the stratocumulus to cumulus transition: Part II. Depletion of cloud droplets and cloud condensation nuclei through collision-coalescence,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
75, 1653–1673, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0218.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0218.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Painemal et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Painemal, D., Kato, S., and Minnis, P.:
Boundary layer regulation in the southeast Atlantic cloud microphysics during the biomass burning season as seen by the A-train satellite constellation,
J. Geophys. Res.,
119, 11288–11302, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022182" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022182</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Peers et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Peers, F., Francis, P., Fox, C., Abel, S. J., Szpek, K., Cotterell, M. I., Davies, N. W., Langridge, J. M., Meyer, K. G., Platnick, S. E., and Haywood, J. M.: Observation of absorbing aerosols above clouds over the south-east Atlantic Ocean from the geostationary satellite SEVIRI – Part 1: Method description and sensitivity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9595–9611, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9595-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9595-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Pennypacker et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Pennypacker, S., Diamond, M., and Wood, R.: Ultra-clean and smoky marine boundary layers frequently occur in the same season over the southeast Atlantic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2341–2351, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2341-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2341-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Petters et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Petters, M. D., Snider, J. R., Stevens, B., Vali, G., Faloona, I., and Russell, L.:
Accumulation mode aerosol, pockets of open cells, and particle nucleation in the remote subtropical Pacific marine boundary layer,
J. Geophys. Res.,
111, D02206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005694" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005694</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Platnick et al.(2017a)</label><mixed-citation>
Platnick, S., Meyer, K., 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>, 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Platnick et al.(2017b)</label><mixed-citation>
Platnick, S., King, M., and Hubanks, P.:
MODIS Atmosphere L3 Monthly Product. NASA MODIS Adaptive Processing System,
Goddard Space Flight Center,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD08_M3.061" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD08_M3.061</a>, 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Savic-Jovcic and Stevens(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Savic-Jovcic, V. and Stevens, B.:
The structure and mesoscale organization of precipitating stratocumulus,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
65, 1587–1605, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2456.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2456.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Sharon et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Sharon, T. M., Albrecht, B. A., Jonsson, H., Minnis, P., Khaiyer, M. M., VanReken, T. M., Seinfeld, J., and Flagan, R.:
Aerosol and cloud micro-physical characteristics of rifts and gradients in maritime stratocumulus clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
63, 983–997, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3667.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3667.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Stevens et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B., Ackerman, A. S., Albrecht, B. A., Brown, A. R., Chlond, A., Cuxart, J., Duynkerke, P. G., Lewellen, D. C., MacVean, M. K., Neggers, R. J. A., Sanchez, E., Siebesma, A. P., and Stevens, D. E.:
Simulations of trade wind cumulus under a strong inversion,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
58, 1870–1891, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;1870:SOTWCU&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058&lt;1870:SOTWCU&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Stevens et al.(2005)</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, 51–57, <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.bib42"><label>Taylor et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Taylor, J. W., Allan, J. D., Allen, G., Coe, H., Williams, P. I., Flynn, M. J., Le Breton, M., Muller, J. B. A., Percival, C. J., Oram, D., Forster, G., Lee, J. D., Rickard, A. R., Parrington, M., and Palmer, P. I.: Size-dependent wet removal of black carbon in Canadian biomass burning plumes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13755–13771, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13755-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13755-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Terai et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Terai, C. R., Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., and Painter, G.: Aircraft observations of aerosol, cloud, precipitation, and boundary layer properties in pockets of open cells over the southeast Pacific, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8071–8088, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8071-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-8071-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Vance et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Vance, A. K., Abel, S. J., Cotton, R. J., and Woolley, A. M.: Performance of WVSS-II hygrometers on the FAAM research aircraft, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 1617–1625, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1617-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-1617-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>van der Werf et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., Mu, M., Kasibhatla, P. S., Morton, D. C., DeFries, R. S., Jin, Y., and van Leeuwen, T. T.: Global fire emissions and the contribution of deforestation, savanna, forest, agricultural, and peat fires (1997–2009), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11707–11735, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11707-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Walters et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Walters, D., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Melvin, T., Stratton, R., Vosper, S., Wells, H., Williams, K., Wood, N., Allen, T., Bushell, A., Copsey, D., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Gross, M., Hardiman, S., Harris, C., Heming, J., Klingaman, N., Levine, R., Manners, J., Martin, G., Milton, S., Mittermaier, M., Morcrette, C., Riddick, T., Roberts, M., Sanchez, C., Selwood, P., Stirling, A., Smith, C., Suri, D., Tennant, W., Vidale, P. L., Wilkinson, J., Willett, M., Woolnough, S., and Xavier, P.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 6.0/6.1 and JULES Global Land 6.0/6.1 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1487–1520, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1487-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Wang and Feingold(2009a)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H. and Feingold, G:
Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle in marine stratocumulus. Part I: Impact of drizzle on the formation and evolution of open cells,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
66, 3237–3256, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3022.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3022.1</a>, 2009a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Wang and Feingold(2009b)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H. and Feingold, G:
Modeling mesoscale cellular structures and drizzle in marine stratocumulus. Part II: The microphysics and dynamics of the boundary region between open and closed cells,
J. Atmos. Sci.,
66, 3257–3275, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3120.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3120.1</a>, 2009b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Wilcox(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Wilcox, E. M.: Stratocumulus cloud thickening beneath layers of absorbing smoke aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 11769–11777, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11769-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-11769-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Winker et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Winker, D. M., Vaughan, M. A., Omar, A., Hu, Y., Powell, K. A., Liu, Z., Hunt, W. H., and Young, S. A.:
Overview of the CALIPSO mission and CALIOP data processing algorithms,
J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech.,
26, 2310–2323, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1281.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JTECHA1281.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Wood and Hartmann(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R. and Hartmann, D. L.:
Spatial variability of liquid water path in marine low cloud: The importance of mesoscale cellular convection,
J. Climate,
19, 1748–1764, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3702.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3702.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Wood et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R., Comstock, K. K., Bretherton, C. S., Cornish, C., Tomlinson, J., Collins, D. R., and Fairall, C.:
Open cellular structure in marine stratocumulus sheets,
J. Geophys. Res.,
113, D12207, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009371" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009371</a>, 2008.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Wood et al.(2011)</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.bib54"><label>Wood et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R., Kuan-Ting, O., Bretherton, C. S., Mohrmann, J., Albrecht, B. A., Zuidema, P., Ghate, V., Schwartz, C., Eloranta, E., Glienke, S., Shaw, R. A., Fugal, J., and Minnis, P.:
Ultraclean Layers and Optically Thin Clouds in the Stratocumulus-to-Cumulus Transition. Part I: Observations,
J. Atmos. Sci., 75, 1631–1652,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0213.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-17-0213.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Yamaguchi et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Yamaguchi, T., Feingold, G., Kazil, J., and McComiskey, A.:
Stratocumulus to cumulus transition in the presence of elevated smoke layers,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
42, 10478–10485, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066544" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066544</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>Yorks et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Yorks, J. E., Palm, S. P., Hlavka, D. L., McGill, M. J., Nowottnick, E., Selmer, P., and Hart, W. D:
The Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS) algorithm theoretical basis document, release 1.2.,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>Zhang and Zuidema(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, J. and Zuidema, P.: The diurnal cycle of the smoky marine boundary layer observed during August in the remote southeast Atlantic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14493–14516, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14493-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14493-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>Zuidema et al.(2016a)</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>, 2016a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>Zuidema et al.(2016b)</label><mixed-citation>
Zuidema, P., Chang, P., Medeiros, B., Kirtman, B. P., Mechoso, R., Schneider, E. K., Toniazzo, T., Richter, I., Small, R. J., Bellomo, K., Brandt, P., de Szoeke, S., Farrar, J. T., Jung, E., Kato, S., Li, M., Patricola, C., Wang, Z., Wood, R., and Xu, Z.:
Challenges and Prospects for Reducing Coupled Climate Model SST Biases in the Eastern Tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: The U.S. CLIVAR Eastern Tropical Oceans Synthesis Working Group,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc.,
97, 2305–2328, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00274.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00274.1</a>, 2016b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>Zuidema et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Zuidema, P., Sedlacek III, A. J., Flynn, C., Springston, S., Delgadillo, R., Zhang, J., Aiken, A. C., Koontz, A., and Muradyan, P.:
The Ascension Island boundary layer in the remote southeast Atlantic is often smoky,
Geophys. Res. Lett.,
45, 4456–4465, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076926" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076926</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
