<?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" article-type="research-article">
  <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-21-14507-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening for
cooling Earth using a simple heuristic model</article-title><alt-title>Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. Wood}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name><surname>Wood</surname><given-names>Robert</given-names></name>
          <email>robwood2@uw.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1401-3828</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA 98195, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Robert Wood (robwood2@uw.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>1</day><month>October</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>21</volume>
      <issue>19</issue>
      <fpage>14507</fpage><lpage>14533</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>19</day><month>April</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>21</day><month>May</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25</day><month>August</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>27</day><month>August</month><year>2021</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</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="d1e78">A simple heuristic model is described to assess the potential for
increasing solar reflection by augmenting the aerosol population below
marine low clouds, which nominally leads to increased cloud droplet
concentration and albedo. The model estimates the collective impact of many
point source particle sprayers, each of which generates a plume of injected
particles that affects clouds over a limited area. A look-up table derived
from simulations of an explicit aerosol activation scheme is used to derive
cloud droplet concentration as a function of the sub-cloud aerosol size
distribution and updraft speed, and a modified version of Twomey's
formulation is used to estimate radiative forcing. Plume overlap is
accounted for using a Poisson distribution, assuming idealized elongated
cuboid plumes that have a length driven by aerosol lifetime and wind speed,
a width consistent with satellite observations of ship track broadening, and a depth equal to an assumed boundary layer depth. The model is found to
perform favorably against estimates of brightening from large eddy
simulation studies that explicitly model cloud responses to aerosol
injections over a range of conditions. Although the heuristic model does not account for cloud condensate or coverage adjustments to aerosol, in most realistic ambient remote marine conditions these tend to augment the Twomey effect in the large eddy simulations, with the result being a modest
underprediction of brightening in the heuristic model.</p>
    <p id="d1e81">The heuristic model is used to evaluate the potential for global radiative
forcing from marine cloud brightening as a function of the quantity, size,
and lifetime of salt particles injected per sprayer and the number of
sprayers deployed. Radiative forcing is sensitive to both the background
aerosol size distribution in the marine boundary layer into which particles
are injected and the assumed updraft speed. Given representative values
from the literature, radiative forcing sufficient to offset a doubling of
carbon dioxide <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is possible but would require spraying 50 % or more of the ocean area. This is likely to require at least 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> sprayers to avoid major losses of particles due to near-sprayer coagulation. The optimal dry diameter of injected particles, for a given salt mass injection rate, is 30–60 nm. A major consequence is that the total salt emission rate (50–70 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" 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>) required to offset <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a factor of five lower than the emissions rates required to generate significant forcing in previous studies with climate models, which have mostly assumed dry diameters for injected particles in excess of 200 nm. With the lower required emissions, the salt mass loading in the marine boundary layer for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is dominated by natural salt aerosol, with injected particles only contributing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %. When using particle sizes optimized for cloud brightening, the aerosol direct radiative forcing is shown to make a minimal contribution to the overall radiative forcing.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e188">Marine low clouds reflect solar radiation and cool the Earth as a result
(Hartmann and Short, 1980; Ramanathan et al., 1989). The solar radiation
reflected by marine low clouds (albedo) increases with the amount of liquid
water they contain and as the size of cloud droplets decreases (Stephens,
1978). Twomey (1974, 1977) showed that, for a fixed liquid water path
(LWP), cloud albedo increases with the concentration of cloud droplets
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Thus anthropogenic aerosol pollution increases cloud albedo and cools climate. A total of 4 decades of subsequent research has established the “Twomey effect” as being the largest contributor to the overall cooling<?pagebreak page14508?> impact of aerosols on climate (Zelinka et al., 2014; Bellouin et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e202">In recent decades, evidence showing cloud macrophysical adjustments to aerosol increases has mounted. Albrecht (1989) suggested that reduced
droplet sizes would lead to suppressed collision–coalescence, greater
retention of water, and an augmentation of the Twomey effect. Modeling and
observations both show precipitation suppression by aerosol in warm
clouds (Ackerman et al., 2004; Sorooshian et al., 2010; Terai et al., 2015),
and yet observations of ship tracks (Coakley and Walsh, 2002; Toll et al.,
2019), pollution plumes (Toll et al., 2019; Trofimov et al., 2020), and
large-scale shipping lanes (Diamond et al., 2020) reveal LWP reductions in
the mean. Modeling has shown that aerosols can cause both positive and
negative LWP adjustments (Ackerman et al., 2004; Wood, 2007), with the sign
of the change dependent on meteorological and aerosol conditions. Reduced
LWP stems from increased cloud-top entrainment of dry free-tropospheric air
due to smaller cloud droplets and/or turbulent invigoration of the boundary
layer caused by suppressed precipitation (Wang et al., 2003; Ackerman et
al., 2004; Bretherton et al., 2007; Wood, 2007). A recent paper by Glassmeier
et al. (2021) illustrates that the sign of LWP adjustments depends not only
on the meteorological conditions but also on the number of aerosol
particles, which cause positive adjustments when the aerosol number is small, and
precipitation suppression increases the condensate retention. Negative
adjustments are found when the aerosol number is large, due to the
aforementioned entrainment drying. Studies using shipping and land-based
pollution sources suggest that mean LWP decreases may offset the Twomey
response to a degree that ranges from 3 % (Trofimov et al., 2020) to
perhaps 20 % (Toll et al., 2019; Diamond et al., 2020). LWP adjustments in
low clouds are poorly handled in large-scale models (Malavelle et al.,
2017), which almost universally show LWP increases in simulations of
anthropogenic aerosol impacts (Lohmann and Feichter, 2005; Isaksen et al.,
2009; Bellouin et al., 2020). Global models also tend to show cloud cover
increases in response to aerosol, but these appear to be small compared with
the Twomey responses and LWP adjustments (Zelinka et al., 2014). Cloud cover
adjustments are difficult to constrain using observations (e.g., Gryspeerdt
et al., 2016; Possner et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e205">The high sensitivity of cloud albedo to aerosol increases led Latham (1990)
to speculate that cloud albedo could potentially be increased deliberately
by augmenting the number of aerosol particles ingested into them. This is
commonly known as marine cloud brightening (MCB), and it has been an
increasing focus of research as a potential climate intervention strategy
for over a decade (e.g., Latham et al., 2008, 2012; Jones et al., 2009;
Rasch et al., 2009; Alterskjær et al., 2012; National Research Council,
2015; Ahlm et al., 2017; Stjern et al., 2018). MCB involves spraying small
solution drops containing sea salt into the marine boundary layer (MBL),
increasing the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei. This ideally
results in a higher concentration of cloud droplets and more reflective
clouds. Any large-scale deployment of MCB would involve many point source
injections from seagoing vessels distributed over the ocean (Salter et al.,
2008). Essentially, such a deployment can be thought of as a deliberate
augmentation of the natural experiment currently being conducted by the
fleet of commercial ships (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 000) that are currently emitting aerosol and precursor gases over the world's oceans (Eyring et al.,
2010). Thus, we can draw on the study of ship tracks and shipping lanes to
provide insights regarding the potential efficacy of MCB.</p>
      <p id="d1e215">A ship track is a brightened curvilinear feature in a marine cloud deck
caused by the emission of particles and their precursors from an individual
ship (Conover, 1966). These tracks provide dramatic evidence that cloud
reflectivity can increase when particles are released into the MBL. However,
ship tracks are insufficient for estimating the large-scale radiative forcing
possible. The global increase in reflected shortwave radiation from
discernible ship tracks has been estimated from satellite observations to be
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4–6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Schreier et al., 2007),
which is 2–3 orders of magnitude smaller than climate model estimates of
the total effect of shipping emissions of aerosol and aerosol precursors,
which range from 0.06–0.6 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Capaldo et al., 1999; Lauer et al.,
2007; Eyring et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2012; Partanen et al., 2013). The
most easily discernible ship tracks form in very shallow MBLs (Durkee et
al., 2000). These type I ship tracks tend to occur in MBLs with
particularly low concentrations of background aerosol (Hindman et al., 1994;
Ackerman et al., 1995) in which turbulent mixing is weak because drizzle
depletes liquid water and precludes strong cloud top radiative cooling. A
more common type of ship track (type II) tends to be more readily
discernible using near-infrared rather than visible satellite imagery
(Coakley et al., 1987), highlighting the smaller droplets in the track. The
MBLs in which type II ship tracks form tend to be somewhat deeper, more
well mixed, and strongly driven by cloud-top cooling. Ship track albedo
perturbations in these cases tend to be weaker than in type I tracks. Large
eddy simulations of deep stratocumulus-topped MBLs indicate that albedo can
be increased substantially by injected aerosol emissions, even when a clear
track is not discernible (Possner et al., 2018). In Durkee et al. (2000), no
ship tracks were detected in MBLs deeper than 800 m, but Possner et al. (2020) show that over 80 % of all stratocumulus-topped MBLs over the
oceans are deeper than 800 m, where surface emissions can increase cloud
albedo, but tracks may not be easy to detect.</p>
      <?pagebreak page14509?><p id="d1e269">An alternative to observational studies of individual ship tracks is to
quantify the mean radiative forcing over a heavily trafficked area to assess
the aggregate effect of shipping. Diamond et al. (2020) was able to discern
a corridor of enhanced mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in clouds above a shipping lane that traverses the SE Atlantic subtropical stratocumulus deck. In this corridor, an increase in reflected diurnal–seasonal mean shortwave radiation of 2 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> was observed associated with an increase in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is consistent with expectations from the Twomey effect. Cloud adjustments were found to be relatively small, with reduced cloud LWP in the shipping lane offsetting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % of the Twomey effect and a small cloud fraction increase augmenting the Twomey
effect by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %. Although the radiative forcing would need
to be somewhat stronger for MCB to offset a significant fraction of the
radiative forcing from increased greenhouse gases, the lack of major
canceling cloud adjustments points to the potential for regional albedo
enhancement using MCB. In this case, the aerosols (from ship emissions) were
inadvertently brightening clouds; aerosols of a size and concentration that
target intentional cloud brightening would very likely have a larger impact
on cloud albedo and radiative forcing.</p>
      <p id="d1e340">Climate models demonstrate the potential for producing a globally significant radiative forcing from MCB. These studies fall into the following two broad categories: (i) studies in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (or droplet effective radius
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in some fraction of the marine low cloud population is altered to some specified value to increase cloud albedo, and (ii) studies that achieve cloud albedo changes by increasing the surface aerosol source and treating the aerosol activation process, leading to changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The latter studies involve a more complete treatment of the chain of causality that links aerosol emissions to brightening, while the former studies can be carried out without explicit representation of the aerosol–cloud interaction processes.</p>
      <p id="d1e376">Seeded regions in studies with specified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> perturbations have increased <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to different levels, i.e.,  375 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in Jones et al. (2009), 1000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in Rasch et al. (2009) and Baughman et al. (2012), and both 375 and 1000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in Latham et al. (2008). In Bala et al. (2011), the cloud effective radius is instead decreased from 14 to 11.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m for all marine liquid clouds, which is approximately equivalent to increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by 80 %. Stjern et al. (2018) increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by 50 % in all marine low clouds. Because cloud albedo increases scale with the ratio of perturbed (seeded) to unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Sect. 2.1), these changes represent a wide diversity in terms of how much a seeded cloud is brightened in each study. Very different fractions of the available ocean are seeded in different studies, ranging from 1.0 %, 1.6 %, 2.1 %, and 4.7 % of the ocean area
in Jones et al. (2009), 9 % in Baughman et al. (2012), 20 %, 30 %, 40 %, and 70 % in Rasch et al. (2009), and the entire ocean in Bala et al. (2011). Jones et al. (2009) achieved a forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> despite only perturbing 4.7 % of the ocean surface, but perturbed regions had extensive low clouds. Rasch et al. (2009) went further and identified the albedo susceptibility (change in albedo upon increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 1000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for each grid box on a seasonal basis. The most susceptible 20 %, 30 %, 40 %, and 70 % of the boxes were then used as seeding regions. The wide range of different areas seeded and in the strength of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> perturbation where the seeding occurs makes it difficult to intercompare the effectiveness of the seeding across studies.</p>
      <p id="d1e547">Climate model studies in which an aerosol surface source is added as a proxy
for deliberate spraying have also been shown to produce globally significant
radiative forcing (Ahlm et al., 2017), with values in some studies more than
offsetting those from doubling CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., Alterskjær et al., 2012).
Such studies introduce several additional degrees of freedom into the
experimental design. A comprehensive representation of the aerosol life cycle
is needed, as is an aerosol activation parameterization to predict
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of the aerosol size distribution in the MBL. As studies with aerosol activation schemes and/or parcel models have shown, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is sensitive primarily to the concentration of aerosol in the accumulation mode (particles with dry diameters around 50–200 nm) but is also sensitive to updraft speed and to small concentrations of coarse-mode aerosol, which reduce the peak supersaturation in an updraft and lower the fraction of smaller aerosols activated (Ghan et al., 1998; McFiggans et al., 2006).</p>
      <p id="d1e581">An additional aerosol surface source from an MCB sprayer can, in principle,
be tailored to consist of particles of a specific diameter. Connolly et al. (2014) explored the optimal particle size given the energy constraints on
particle production, which primarily scales with the mass of salt injected,
and found that sodium chloride particles with a modal diameter in the range
30–90 nm are optimal. Climate model studies, to date, have typically
introduced injected particles with modal diameters that are several times as
large as this (Alterskjær et al., 2012; Ahlm et al., 2017), which implies
that these models likely require much larger salt mass emissions than may be
required if smaller particles are injected. Only Partanen et al. (2012) have
tested the sensitivity to injecting particles with a modal dry diameter of 100 nm and found the same brightening as in a base case with 200 nm diameter particles but with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 times less mass injected. Consideration
of total salt mass injected is important not only from the perspective of
the energy required to produce particles but also because major increases
in sodium chloride aerosol mass could potentially alter natural chemical
cycles in the MBL (Horowitz et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e591">This study describes a simple heuristic model that predicts the global
radiative forcing from MCB using physical principles to determine the
collective impact of plumes from many point source sprayers distributed over
the oceans on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and cloud albedo. The model is designed to facilitate easy experimentation on the factors controlling MCB, including details of the unperturbed aerosol size distribution, the number concentration, size and residence time of injected particles, the number of sprayers, and the fraction of the ocean over which sprayers are deployed. Section 2 describes the heuristic model in detail, and Sect. 3 tests the model using comparisons with high-resolution, small-domain large eddy simulation models into which point source injections are introduced. Section 4 uses the heuristic model to examine factors controlling global radiative forcing from MCB and critically examines some assumptions made in previous climate model<?pagebreak page14510?> studies. Finally, Sect. 5 discusses implications of the results and suggests pathways for future study, and Sect. 6 provides conclusions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Heuristic model description</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Radiative forcing from aerosol-cloud interactions</title>
      <p id="d1e620">Central to the model is Twomey's formulation for the susceptibility of cloud
albedo <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to an increase in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> assuming no cloud adjustments (Twomey, 1977), viz.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M46" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          Integrating Eq. (1) gives an expression for the increase in cloud albedo
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> caused by an increase in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M49" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ratio of the droplet concentration in seeded vs.
unperturbed clouds. It is worth noting that Eq. (2) is rather insensitive to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varies by only
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> changes from 0.3–0.7. Thus,
the key sensitivity in Eq. (2) is to the value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e888">To estimate the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) albedo for the same cloud requires a
conversion to account for the absorption and scattering of solar radiation
by the atmosphere above cloud. We follow the approach by Diamond et al. (2020; Eq. 17) and multiply the cloud albedo change by an atmospheric
correction factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M57" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">TOA</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the transmissivity
and albedo of the free troposphere only. The more variable of these two
parameters is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which depends upon free-tropospheric water
vapor. Here, we assume a value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, consistent with
values over dry regions of the Tropics and midlatitudes from the CERES-SYN
product (Doelling et al., 2013). Free-tropospheric albedo is less variable,
and we here assume a value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">FT</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (also consistent
with CERES-SYN). For typical cloud albedos <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the range 0.25
to 0.75, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges from 0.66 to 0.70; for simplicity,
we herein assume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We estimate TOA indirect
radiative forcing as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean incoming solar irradiance
averaged over day and night. Here, we assume a value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equal
to the global mean solar irradiance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">342</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Geographical variation in insolation is not considered.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Regions where sprayers operate</title>
      <p id="d1e1156">Marine cloud brightening, by definition, would only be deployed over the
fraction of Earth covered by ocean. We further restrict this area to
minimize the likelihood that plumes will intersect land areas. This is done
by summing up the ocean area of those <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude/longitude boxes that contain less than 10 % land area. The choice of boxes with 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on a side is made because plumes are of the order of 1000 km in length (see Sect. 2.4). This limits the eligible fraction of Earth's surface for spraying, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, to 0.54. We then assume that sprayers are confined to operate within some specified fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of this eligible area. If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is chosen to be less than unity, it is assumed that sprayed regions will be those with the highest climatological unobstructed low cloud cover. To determine the mean low cloud cover for the sprayed subregions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, climatological monthly mean low cloud
fractions are determined using MODIS Terra and Aqua level 3 liquid cloud
fractions (years 2006–2010) for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> boxes. As
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases, the fraction of the ocean sprayed has a
greater coverage of low clouds. If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is chosen to be very
small, spraying would occur only in regions with the highest climatological
monthly mean cloud cover (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 68 %). The MODIS data are
well fitted with the following empirically determined expression:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M84" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.36</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">exp</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Expression for global radiative forcing associated with MCB</title>
      <p id="d1e1349">Cloud condensate and coverage adjustments to injected aerosol are assumed to
be zero, so MCB indirect radiative forcing arises only from the Twomey
effect. In sprayed areas without low clouds, injected particles can exert a
direct radiative forcing. The direct radiative forcing from injected aerosol
in cloud-free regions between clouds is quantitatively estimated (see Sect. 2.7), but increasing direct radiative forcing is not a goal of the injection design. The global mean shortwave radiative forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from MCB aerosol–cloud interactions is written as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M86" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          To give a “back of the envelope” assessment of the potential for MCB, we
take <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, assume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and use
Eq. (4) to set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. If cloud albedo is increased by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, then <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.41</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Alternatively, it would take a cloud albedo increase of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to produce a radiative forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which would balance the longwave radiative forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from doubling CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 1 shows <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for different values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Using Eq. (2), if we assume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Bender et al., 2011, finds TOA cloud albedos of 0.35 to 0.42 for overcast stratocumulus in the major subtropical stratocumulus, Sc, decks, which must be corrected to cloud albedos
with Eq. 3), then the ratio of seeded to unseeded cloud droplet
concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would need to be 3.0 to produce a forcing with a magnitude
equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Assuming the entire ocean area could
be seeded (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), we find a value
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is in the range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases over
the ocean (2.10–2.85) that were needed to counter CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> doubling in an
analysis of three variants on<?pagebreak page14511?> a climate model (Slingo, 1990). If only half of
the eligible ocean area is seeded (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), then
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would need to be at least 7 to counter CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> doubling
(Fig. 1). Stjern et al. (2018) analyzed an ensemble of different climate
models in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all marine low clouds is increased by 50 % (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as a proxy for MCB and found an ensemble mean
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Based on Fig. 1, and scaling the
forcing to include the entire ocean, Eq. (5) produces a very similar forcing
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is also consistent with the
models in Stjern et al. (2018) having small cloud adjustments overall so
that the overwhelming bulk of the forcing is from the Twomey effect.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1881">Global radiative forcing from marine cloud brightening (MCB)
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a function of the ratio of the perturbed to unperturbed (background) cloud droplet concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Curves are shown for the case where sprayers are deployed over all eligible ocean regions (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; black lines) and where sprayers are deployed over only 50 % of these areas (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; gray lines) for unperturbed cloud albedos <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 0.3–0.7. The fraction of the Earth's surface area eligible for seeding is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the atmospheric correction factor is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Aerosol delivery and plume/track configuration</title>
      <p id="d1e2007">Any practical MCB deployment would be unable to produce uniform increases in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> because seeding is necessarily discrete in nature rather than being distributed evenly. It is impractical to deploy sprayers at every point over the ocean; in practice, any deployment would likely consist of an array of floating particle injection systems distributed throughout regions where low clouds occur. To extend the heuristic model to account for this, assumptions are made about the spatiotemporal extent of the region affected by a single sprayer. Sprayers are assumed to be stationary so that air masses pass over them at the rate of the near-surface wind speed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is taken as 7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" 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>, i.e., the mean value over oceans (Archer and Jacobson, 2005). Each sprayer injects sodium chloride particles continuously with a salt mass rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Injected particles have a lognormal size distribution with geometric mean dry diameter (GMD) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and geometric standard deviation (GSD) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The total number of particles sprayed per second from each sprayer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is then as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M135" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ln</mml:mi><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the density of solid sodium chloride
(2160 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The volume into which particles are emitted increases
with time as the plume expands to fill the depth of the MBL and widens
horizontally. The timescale for vertical dispersion through the depth of the
MBL is 10–20 min (Chosson et al., 2008), as evidenced by the fact that, in
ship tracks, brightened clouds become evident typically 10–20 km downwind of the responsible ship. As satellite data readily show, ship tracks from
commercial shipping are narrower close to the emitting ship and broaden
downstream (Durkee et al., 2000). After rapid vertical dispersion through
the MBL, dilution primarily occurs through lateral diffusion. Entrainment of
lower-concentration free-tropospheric air also dilutes the plume but at a
slower rate. The lateral track broadening rate is highly variable but is
parameterized using the Heffter (1965) broadening rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" 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> (see Fig. 7 in Durkee et al., 2000). This rate is broadly consistent with large eddy simulations of horizontal tracer spread in the cloudy MBL (Wang et al., 2011).</p>
      <p id="d1e2206">It has been proposed that a spray system to inject salt particles could
derive the salt from sea water droplets (Salter et al., 2008; Cooper et al.,
2014). Sea water is substantially more dilute than the equilibrium size of
solution droplets at the surface (see, e.g., Hoffman and Feingold, 2021), and
so there is some concern that cooling from the evaporation of water from
equilibrating droplets may hinder or prevent the vertical mixing of injected
particles. Reducing any negative buoyancy is an engineering challenge that
may be addressed by increasing the turbulent mixing of the particle-laden
plume with surrounding air and/or adding some thermal energy to the
particle plume. This issue is beyond the scope of this study, and we herein
assume the injected particles mix readily throughout the depth of the MBL.
We also note that the additional water vapor introduced into the lower MBL
from the evaporating sea water is negligible compared with the natural
surface evaporative water flux and, thus, will have no impact on the MBL
moisture budget.</p>
      <p id="d1e2209">Injected particles in the model have a characteristic residence e-folding
timescale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This residence time incorporates several
processes influencing particle lifetime, including removal by coalescence
scavenging, scavenging by clouds and aerosol particles, and dry deposition.
The value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> varies with meteorological conditions,
cloud, and precipitation properties and is also expected to be somewhat
size dependent. In regions of marine stratocumulus values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res<?pagebreak page14512?></mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 2–3 d are consistent with estimates of precipitation
scavenging (Wood et al., 2012), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d is
used as standard.</p>
      <p id="d1e2260">After a time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the particles injected at time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have moved a distance
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Considering both dilution and removal processes, given a plume
width <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and assuming dispersion through the entire MBL
depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the injected particle concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at time
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M151" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The wind speed and residence time define a length scale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that effectively
determines the streamwise length scale over which the particle concentration
is affected by spraying. The area over the Earth's surface perturbed by each
sprayer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is then determined by multiplying this length scale by a
characteristic track width <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. A linearly widening plume/track will expand
to a width <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the lifetime of the particles.</p>
      <p id="d1e2505">To estimate radiative forcing, the injected particle concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is added to an assumed background aerosol over the
entire track area and over the depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the MBL. Aerosol activation to
form cloud droplets is carried out for the background aerosol and for the
perturbed (background <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> injected) aerosol using an assumed updraft speed.
Section 2.6 provides details of the activation scheme and the aerosol
physical and chemical properties. The ratio of the perturbed to background
cloud <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the activation scheme is used in the calculation of radiative forcing (Eqs. 2 and 5).</p>
      <p id="d1e2550">Figure 2 shows results from the model for a laterally spreading track, along
with injected particle concentration and additional reflected shortwave from
cloud brightening as a function of time/distance downstream of a
point source sprayer. The heuristic model assumes an elongated cuboid plume
(fixed width, height, and length), with the plume length
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and plume width taken to be the
width of the linearly expanding plume at time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The (time-independent)
number concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of injected aerosol particles in the
cuboid plume is as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M165" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          It is relatively straightforward to show that the overall injected particle
concentration integrated over time is the same for the laterally spreading
track (Eq. 7) and the cuboid track (Eq. 8). Although the reflected solar
energy from the two tracks is not identical (Fig. 2c), the values are found
to be close. A heuristic model track reflects slightly less than a spreading
track for a given spray rate, with the difference growing as the magnitude
of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> perturbation increases.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e2715"><bold>(a)</bold> Plan view of a realistic laterally spreading plume/track (top), and the track assumed in the heuristic model, as a function of time/distance downstream of the sprayer. The shading qualitatively indicates the injected particle concentration. <bold>(b)</bold> Injected aerosol concentration as a function of time for the two plume types, given the spray injection information in the box. A residence time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d and a widening rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" 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> are assumed, and the model is run out to 10 d to capture the total reflected solar radiation for the spreading plume. <bold>(c)</bold> Additional reflected solar radiation per meter length of track from aerosol–cloud interactions for the two plume types. The total additional reflected energy <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">tot</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the two plumes is very similar. In this case, approximately 43 % of the energy reflected from the spreading plume occurs for times <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e2798">Experimentation with different spray, background aerosol, and cloud
configurations shows that the reflected sunlight for the cuboid track is
within 5 % of that for the spreading track for number spray rates
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" 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>, with the cuboid model track
being slightly less reflective. As <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases, the
ratio of the additional energy reflected by the spreading track to that from
the cuboid track increases steadily, reaching 1.2 for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" 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 1.5 for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" 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>, with the exact value dependent
upon the background aerosol. As the magnitude of the aerosol number
perturbation increases, an increasing fraction of the energy reflected
occurs at times <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the spreading plume. The
albedo response in the cuboid track is relatively saturated due to the high
aerosol/droplet concentrations (see Fig. 1), so the diluted but widespread
aerosol in the spreading plume later on is more efficient at brightening. As
we show in the discussion, coagulation losses during the high concentrations
near to the sprayer are likely to be large for particle spray rates much
greater than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" 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>. The cuboid tracks are, thus,
a sufficiently accurate representation of reality for us to use them in the
heuristic model, and this simplifies the treatment of overlapping tracks.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page14513?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Overlapping tracks</title>
      <p id="d1e2971">Given the plume dimensions for the heuristic model tracks, we estimate that
the number of (nonoverlapping) tracks required to cover the 54 % of the
ocean eligible for spraying (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.98 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), assuming <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" 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> (i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is 5300. If this number of sprayers was to be deployed either randomly or uniformly, then overlapping tracks would be unavoidable because air mass trajectories are not constant in time. Monte Carlo simulations were conducted, placing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> randomly oriented or aligned rectangular tracks at random over a large domain of area <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
probability <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> tracks overlapping in the domain is
well predicted by a Poisson distribution as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M200" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msup><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">!</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean track density,
i.e., the mean number of superimposed tracks (Fig. 3). Although not shown,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is insensitive to both the track aspect ratio
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>L</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and whether the tracks are aligned with
their long sides in one direction or are randomly oriented.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3254">Probability density functions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the Monte Carlo simulations of overlapping rectangular tracks for three values of the mean track density <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.4, 3.3, and 10). For the simulations, a domain of size 4000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4000 km is modeled, using a 4000 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4000 array, and tracks of length 1200 km and
width 44 km (see Sect. 2.5) are placed randomly in relation to the array, assuming periodic boundary conditions. The long dimension of each track is randomly set to be parallel to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mi>j</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> direction of the box. Poisson distributions (Eq. 8) are shown correspondingly, based on the mean track densities, and represent an excellent fit to the data. The track densities <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 3.3, and 10 correspond to a total number of ships, if spraying were to take place over the entire eligible ocean region of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 3000, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 17 000, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 000, respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3343">The use of the Poisson distribution makes it straightforward to account for
track overlap in the heuristic model; the injected particle concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at any given location is an integer multiple <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the single-track value <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from Eq. (8) as follows:
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E10" content-type="numbered"><label>10</label><mml:math id="M217" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi>K</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where the probability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is given by Eq. (9). For low mean track
densities <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the most likely value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is zero (Fig. 3), and the
ratio of the standard deviation to the mean value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is high. A Poisson
distribution has equal mean and variance, so the relative spatial
heterogeneity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e., the ratio of the standard deviation
to the mean track density, decreases as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ζ</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Because of the
concave relationship between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see, e.g., Carslaw et al., 2013), a more homogeneous distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the seeded area will yield a radiative forcing with a larger magnitude for the same mean value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>Aerosol activation and physical and chemical properties</title>
      <p id="d1e3561">Aerosol activation to form cloud droplets is treated using a
five-dimensional look-up table derived from over 6000 numerical Lagrangian
parcel model simulations (see the Appendix). In comparing with those, using the Abdul-Razzak and Ghan (2000) quasi-analytical activation scheme (henceforth ARG), we find significant differences that indicate a major underprediction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with the ARG scheme when injected dry particle diameters are smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 nm (see the Appendix and also Sect. 4.2), and so we use the look-up table to treat activation in the heuristic model.</p>
      <p id="d1e3582">The aerosol size distributions used are the same for each activation
approach. The background (unperturbed) aerosol particles are assumed to
comprise lognormal accumulation and coarse modes. Accumulation-mode size
values (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">175</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are taken
from the synthesis of marine accumulation-mode measurements by Heintzenberg et al. (2000). Measured marine accumulation-mode number concentrations
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> vary considerably over the ocean, and the impacts of this on brightening are explored in Sect. 4.2. Although there is significant
variability in the composition of marine cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), studies tend to find that the accumulation-mode aerosol in the unpolluted MBL consists of a mixture of sulfate, sea salt, and organic species. Different assessments of the hygroscopicity parameter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>; from Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007) of CCN in the MBL provide a significant diversity of values, from values as low as 0.45 (Wex et al., 2010) to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.7 (Andreae and Rosenfeld 2008). Here, we use the mean marine value of 0.7 from the model study of Pringle et al. (2010) for the unperturbed accumulation mode. The background coarse mode is lognormal, with GMD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">615</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm and GSD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> taken from summertime measurements at Graciosa island in the Azores (Zheng et al., 2018). The presence of the coarse mode suppresses the peak supersaturation in the updraft, increasing the minimum size of the particles that are activated, reducing the activated fraction (Ghan et al., 1998). This is<?pagebreak page14514?> explored further in Sect. 4.2. Injected aerosols are sodium chloride (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007),
distributed lognormally with GMD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and GSD <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, where
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is allowed to vary and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Table 1 provides a
summary of the assumed aerosol properties used. A recent study suggests that
the other inorganic species in sea salt render it slightly less hygroscopic
than pure sodium chloride (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Zieger et al., 2017). Testing
showed that the results of this study are largely insensitive to small
variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e3772">Parameters used in the heuristic model and their assumed values. Note: SD – standard deviation; acc. – accumulation.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="1.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="4.7cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="6cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Symbol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Assumed value(s)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Justification</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Unperturbed cloud albedo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.56</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Bender et al. (2011; see text).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric correction factor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.70</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Based on Diamond et al. (2020).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fraction of Earth's surface covered by ocean eligible for spraying</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Divide globe into <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> boxes (approximate sprayer plume length). Only boxes with less than 10 % land eligible for spraying to minimize plumes intercepting land areas (see text).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fraction of eligible ocean areas in which sprayers operate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5–1.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Fraction of sprayed area covered by stratiform low clouds unobscured by high clouds</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>decreasing from 0.68 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.33 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Use the MODIS liquid cloud fraction. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, sort eligible <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> boxes by their monthly climatological mean liquid cloud fraction and set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">low</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equal to the mean of the cloudiest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> fraction; see Eq. (4) in Sect. 2.2.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Solar irradiance</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">342 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Assumed day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> night averaged global mean <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>solar irradiance.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Rate of NaCl injection by each <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sprayer</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1–1000 kg h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Variable</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Number of sprayer vessels deployed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Variable</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Geometric mean diameter of injected NaCl particles</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10–1000 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Variable</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Geometric SD of injected NaCl <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>particle size</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Residence time of injected particles</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2 d</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Based on Wood et al. (2012).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col2">Geometric mean diameter of<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>background aerosol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col3">175 nm (acc.) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>615 nm (coarse)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Accumulation-mode size values based on marine aerosol climatology of Heintzenberg et al.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Geometric SD of background <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>aerosol size</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.5 (acc.) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1.8 (coarse)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(2000) and coarse-mode values from Zheng et al. (2018).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Number concentration of background aerosol</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">50–150 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (acc.) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>10 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (coarse)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Coarse-mode value from summer mean at the Graciosa Island from Zheng et al. (2018).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">κ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol hygroscopicity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.7 (acc.) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1.2 (coarse; injected)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Accumulation mode from Pringle et al. (2010). <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Coarse mode/injected salt from Petters and Kreidenweis (2007).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Updraft speed for aerosol activation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.4 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Approximate value based on numerous <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>stratocumulus field experiments.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mean surface wind speed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mean near-surface wind over the global ocean (Archer and Jacobson, 2005).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MBL depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 km</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Typical mean value for marine low clouds over oceans.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Plume lateral spread rate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.85 km h<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" 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></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Based on observed ship track spreading rate (Durkee et al., 2000).</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4570">For most of the analysis presented in this study, a fixed updraft speed of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is assumed in the activation scheme. This is broadly
representative of updrafts in the stratocumulus-topped MBL (Nicholls and
Leighton, 1986; Wood, 2005; Bretherton et al., 2010; Zheng et al., 2016).
Sensitivity to updraft speed is explored in Sect. 4.3. For simplicity, the
temperature and pressure are set to be 280 K and 925 hPa, respectively, but
the results are not highly sensitive to these values.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS7">
  <label>2.7</label><title>Aerosol direct radiative forcing</title>
      <p id="d1e4605">The heuristic model is also used to produce rough estimates of the aerosol
direct radiative forcing from the injected aerosol. We assume direct forcing
only in clear-sky regions. In an analogous formulation to Eq. (5), we
estimate the global mean direct radiative forcing as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E11" content-type="numbered"><label>11</label><mml:math id="M287" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">direct</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>⊙</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">clear</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AOD</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">clear</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the clear-sky fraction in the regions where
sprayers operate, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AOD</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the aerosol optical thickness (550 nm) of injected particles, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the clear-sky radiative forcing efficiency. We use <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">29</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> AOD<inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" 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>, which is the average over oceans for several models in the AeroCom study of Schulz et al. (2006). In this study, direct effects are only estimated for the case where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, i.e., sprayers operate in all eligible regions of the oceans, and so <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">clear</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is taken as the complement of
the total cloud cover during the daytime over the global oceans from Hahn
and Warren (2007). To estimate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AOD</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the injected
aerosol lognormal size distribution (accounting for overlapping tracks as
discussed in Sect. 2.5) is used to estimate extinction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 550 nm, using the Mie code of Bohren and Huffman (1998). A mean relative humidity in clear-sky MBLs of 80 % is used to set a hygroscopic diameter growth factor for sodium chloride of 2.0 from Tang (1996). The assumed MBL depth <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 km (Table 1) is used to determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AOD</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Direct forcing estimates are presented in Sect. 4.4.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Comparison of heuristic model with large eddy simulations</title>
      <p id="d1e4819">Several existing studies in the literature have used large eddy simulations
(LESs) to explore the impacts of salt aerosol injections on marine low cloud
microphysical and macrophysical properties and albedo. In contrast to
climate models, LES explicitly resolves the turbulent dynamics responsible
for aerosol distribution through the MBL, including ingestion into clouds, in
addition to determining cloud macrophysical responses to aerosol resulting
from changes in precipitation and mixing with the free troposphere. Although
it is not currently possible to run LESs with domain sizes large enough to
examine regional and global MCB, their faithful representation of injections
into domains on scales of a few tens to a few hundred kilometers can provide
important insights into the potential efficacy of MCB.</p>
      <p id="d1e4822">The heuristic model framework is adapted to account for the limited LESs
domain size to test its predictions. This also allows a quantitative
intercomparison of the LES results, which is needed because there is a
considerable diversity in the domain sizes, spray rates, and particle sizes,
as well as in the unperturbed cloud states, boundary layer depths,
simulation durations, and in the way in which injections have been introduced into the domains across the different LES studies to date (see Table 2). Each
LES experiment consisted of an unperturbed (control) case with no particle
injections, and a case with particle injections. A total of 18 different
injection simulation experiments are extracted from five studies.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e4828">Large eddy simulation studies included in this study. Information
included in this table focused on highlighting diversity in injected
particles and domain size.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.91}[.91]?><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="2.3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="2.6cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="2.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="2.7cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="justify" colwidth="2.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="2cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="justify" colwidth="2cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Study</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Wang et</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Berner et</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Jenkins et</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Possner et</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">Chun et al. (2021)  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">al. (2015)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">al. (2018)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">(C21) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(W11)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(B15)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(J13)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(P18)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Case info</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">DYCOMS-II<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>RF02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Collapsed MBL <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(Sanko Peace)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">DYCOMS-II <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>RF02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">VOCALS RF06<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Deep open cell</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(a) Collapsed<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>MBL (Sanko<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Peace)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(b) CGILS S12 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Shallow MBL</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">MBL depth in m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">900</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">350</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">750</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">350</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">700</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spray rate, <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>particles per<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>second <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(diameter in nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.04 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(200)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (clean)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (poll.) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(200)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (weak) <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(200)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.04 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(600)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(50)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(50)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spray duration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.7 min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30 min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">48 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">7.6 min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7.6 min</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mass of NaCl <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>emitted total, kg <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(per hour in kg)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10320 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(344)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(57)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1105 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(2210)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(9400)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.7 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(5.2)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">0.7 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(5.2)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>duration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">30 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">48 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8 h</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8 h</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Domain size,<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> km <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(area in km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">60 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 120 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(7200)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">51.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12.8 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(660)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">9 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(81)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">180 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 180 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(32000)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">48 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 9.6 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(460)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.8 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>115</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>particles emitted<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">174</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1650</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">370</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">57</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Spray details</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Sprayer traverses</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Sprayer passes</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Sprayer traverses</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Sprayer traverses</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">Sprayer traverses short edge </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">long edge of domain several times.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">through short edge<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>of domain once<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>only.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">domain once only.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">domain several<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>times.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">of domain once only. </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Simulation <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>experiments used</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Wet and dry profiles used. Wet cases with 50, 100, and 200 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> CCN initially. Dry case has 100 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> CCN.<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Used single sprayer and uniform seeding only.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">BaseTrack (clean)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>and SensHiAer<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(polluted) case<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>used.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Non-precipitating (NP-Ch; NP-Pa)<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>and precipitating<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(WP) cases used.<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Sensitivity study<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>with weaker <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sprayer on WP.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Single experiment.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">In total, two<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>simulation<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>experiments;<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>one with <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>reduced sea <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>spray aerosol.</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Single<?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>experiment.</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?pagebreak page14516?><p id="d1e5525">Radiative forcing driven by particle injections is estimated for the LES
case studies using albedo changes given in the various papers. Unless
otherwise stated, heuristic model parameters are those in Table 1. Diurnal
mean insolation is assumed. Where appropriate, cloud albedo changes are
corrected to the TOA using a fixed value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">atm</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 3;
Table 1) consistent with that used in the heuristic model. The heuristic
model uses a fixed value for unperturbed cloud albedo (Table 1), but the MBL
depth is set to the value for each of the LES cases (Table 2). In several of
the cases, the sprayer passes through the model domain multiple times, and
in other cases the track does not extend over the entire domain. For the
heuristic model predictions, we use the Poisson distribution approach (Sect. 2.5) as follows. The duration of the LES experiment in each case is used to
determine the track width using the track spreading rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mi>K</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> used in the
heuristic model (Table 1), and the ship speed through the domain is used in
place of the wind speed to determine the track length by multiplying by the
duration of the simulation. The track area is then computed as the product
of the width and length, and this is divided by the LES domain size to
obtain a mean track density, which is used to obtain a Poisson distribution
of overlapping tracks (Eq. 9). This distribution is used in the heuristic
model. In some of the LES experiments, track density is less than unity, but
in cases with relatively long durations and/or small domains, it
considerably exceeds unity. Wang et al. (2011; henceforth W11) also
included a simulation where the same rate is injected uniformly over the
model domain as a comparison experiment against a point source sprayer.
This is represented in the heuristic model by assuming many (weaker)
sprayers operating in the domain.</p>
      <p id="d1e5546">Unperturbed (control case) aerosol size distributions for the heuristic
model comprise an accumulation mode with distribution parameters from Table 1 (which are close to those assumed in the LES studies) and concentrations
are adjusted to produce unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values reported in the various
studies with a fixed 0.4 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" 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> updraft (i.e., the standard value used
in the heuristic model). Jenkins et al. (2013, henceforth J13), used a bin
aerosol scheme rather than a modal scheme. Including an additional coarse
mode with modal diameter 500 nm, GSD of 1.8, and concentration of 10 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which we found represents a fairly good match to the size distributions shown in J13, made less than a 10 % difference in the radiative forcing predicted by the heuristic model. No coarse mode is included in the heuristic model for the other cases because none was included in the LESs.</p>
      <?pagebreak page14517?><p id="d1e5584">Figure 4 presents results from the comparison of the LESs and the heuristic
model. Overall, the radiative forcing in the LESs correlates quite well
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.62</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with predictions from the heuristic model (Fig. 4a), but the
heuristic model underestimates the magnitude of the LES forcing by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30 % in the median. This underestimation is greatest when
the unperturbed value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is low (Fig. 4b). There is little bias for cases with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, but there is underprediction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and an
overprediction of brightening for high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cases. The sensitivity of the heuristic model brightening bias to unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4b) is not driven by a model failure to represent the Twomey effect, as the heuristic model's ability to predict domain mean perturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is excellent (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.91</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, Fig. 4c), with only a 25 % overestimate in the median. This would lead to a small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %) overprediction of Twomey forcing magnitude. Instead, the heuristic model underprediction at low
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> occurs because particle injection into very clean MBLs often leads to increases in liquid water path (LWP), cloud cover, or both. In these cases, the Twomey effect is augmented by cloud adjustments that result in stronger brightening, and this is not represented in the heuristic model. The reasons for the overprediction of brightening for high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cases is unknown and warrants further attention using more LES studies.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e5756">Comparison of heuristic model and LES results. Each color
indicates a different study (see Table 2 for details). For W11, open circles
indicate cases with uniform seeding across the domain. <bold>(a)</bold> Brightening (radiative forcing) for the LES and heuristic model. The dashed line indicates agreement, and dotted lines represent factor of 3 differences. <bold>(b)</bold> Ratio of the brightening in the heuristic model to that in the LESs plotted against the droplet concentration in the unperturbed case <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The dashed line shows the linear least squares fit to the data. <bold>(c)</bold> Modeled vs. LES cloud droplet concentration, given the injection rates and particle size distribution employed in the model (see the text). The sensitivity of the normalized forcing (expressed as joules per injected particle) to the unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <bold>(d)</bold> the LES experiments is shown. <bold>(e)</bold> The heuristic model with lines
representing least squares fits to the data. <bold>(f)</bold> The brightening efficiency expressed as the energy reflected over the course of the simulation experiments per mass of salt injected. For J13, the triangle indicates a reduced injection rate by a factor of 5, with the arrows connecting the simulation experiments with full and reduced injection rates.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e5806">Forcing normalized by the total number of particles injected helps to account
for the different quantities of particles injected in different studies and
provides a useful metric of brightening obtained per particle injected. The
LES results show a remarkably strong dependence of this on the unperturbed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4d), with a factor of 20 less brightening as unperturbed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases from 10 to 100 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Although the heuristic model
underpredicts (overpredicts) brightening in the clean (polluted) cases,
there is still a strong decrease (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> factor 10) in the
brightening as unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases (Fig. 4e), as anticipated from
the Twomey formulation (Eq. 2). In Fig. 4d and e, J13 stands out as an
anomaly, with a much weaker per-particle brightening compared with the other
models. This appears to be because the injection rates used were greater
than needed. An experiment with the precipitating case with an injection
rate reduced by a factor of 5 (cyan triangles in Fig. 4d and e) leads to
less than a 15 % reduction in brightening, implying asymptotic brightening as injection rates are increased and little benefit from the high spray rates used in most of the cases in J13.</p>
      <p id="d1e5862">It is instructive to compare the brightening obtained per mass of salt
injected, and Fig. 4f highlights just how wide a spread there is in this
quantity. The most efficient brightening is obtained in the Chun et al. (2021) cases with the smallest injected particles (Fig. 4f). For reasons
discussed in the introduction, if a forcing can be achieved by injecting
less salt mass, then this is desirable; so understanding the optimal size
and concentration of injected particles to achieve a required forcing should
be a focus for LES studies. These issues are explored further for the
heuristic model in Sect. 4.</p>
      <p id="d1e5865">To synthesize the findings reported here, it should be noted that all the
LES studies surveyed show some level of brightening when aerosol injections
are introduced. The brightening achieved in the LES experiments, which is
here expressed as an equivalent diurnal mean, ranged from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1–100 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, with mean of 17 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and a median of 7 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
The median unperturbed cloud <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (29 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) across all the cases
here is somewhat lower than satellite estimates of average values for low
clouds over the global oceans (40–90 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Bennartz, 2007). We also used
the approach of Bennartz (2007) to derive a pdf (probability distribution function) of estimated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all
marine low clouds from MODIS data and found a median value of 50 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
Thus, we might anticipate that the clouds simulated in the LES cases have a
somewhat greater susceptibility to brightening than the average marine
cloud. The brightening in the deepest MBL case here (P11) does not stand out
as being anomalously weak compared with similarly clean cases, although no
clear track is produced in the simulated cloud field (Possner et al., 2018).
It is important to stress, however, that several low cloud systems (e.g.,
self-aggregated cumulus and midlatitude stratus) that contribute significantly to low cloud cover over the global oceans are not represented in the LES cases in the literature to date. The LES cases also do not provide
sufficient constraints on how brightening changes with injection rate and
injected particle size across the different meteorological conditions.
Another consideration is that almost all the LES studies examine responses
that take place within the first day after injection. As Fig. 2 suggests, a
significant fraction of the reflected energy likely takes place between 1–3 d after injection. However, studies suggest that cloud adjustments to
aerosol may change significantly over timescales of hours to a few days
(Wood, 2007; Gryspeerdt et al., 2021; Glassmeier et al., 2021), resulting in
changes on longer timescales that may, in some cases, offset some of the
Twomey brightening. Thus, although the LES simulations here provide some
validation of the heuristic model, there is a need for many more simulations
to test its sensitivities under the full range of meteorological, background
aerosol, and aerosol injection scenarios.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Global forcing estimates from the heuristic model</title>
      <p id="d1e5978">The heuristic model is next used to estimate the global radiative forcing for
MCB under different assumptions regarding the number of sprayers and the
rate and size of the injected particles. The sensitivity of the forcing to the properties of the background aerosol and updraft speed is also explored.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Sprayer number and injection rate</title>
      <p id="d1e5988">Figure 5 presents results as a function of the number of sprayers
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the salt mass injection rate per sprayer
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For this case, injected particles have
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, and spraying occurs over all eligible ocean areas
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ocean</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. 5). A
background accumulation-mode aerosol concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is assumed, representative of
conditions over the open oceans (Heintzenberg et al., 2000), and a
representative coarse mode is included (Sect. 2.6 and Table 1). Other
parameters are set to the values provided in Table 1 and discussed in Sect. 2. The assumed MBL depth of 1000 m is representative of typical conditions in which stratiform marine low clouds occur. A global mean radiative forcing magnitude of 1–4 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> can be achieved, with forcing generally
increasing as total salt mass injection rates increase from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" 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> (Fig. 5a). As the total injection rate
increases beyond 100 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" 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>, there are<?pagebreak page14518?> somewhat diminishing returns in terms of further brightening, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reaches <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5–8 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for an injection rate of 1000 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" 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>. The reduced sensitivity as more particles are injected is driven by increased competition for water vapor in the updraft, resulting in a decreasing fraction of injected aerosols activated to form droplets (Fig. 5b; dotted contours). When the injected aerosol concentration is less than a few hundred particles per cubic centimeter, such competition for vapor is relatively modest, and the activated fraction
exceeds 70 %, but this reduces to only 30 %–40 % at injection rates of 300 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" 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>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e6202"><bold>(a)</bold> Global mean radiative forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (colors) and total flux of sodium chloride (dotted contours) from MCB applied to all eligible ocean areas (54 % of Earth's surface) as a function of the number of sprayers <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the salt mass injection
rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each sprayer. <bold>(b)</bold> Increase in cloud droplet concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (colors), mean
fraction of aerosol activated in tracks (dotted contours), and track
coverage (dashed contours). <bold>(c)</bold> Injected aerosol number concentration in tracks (colors) and mean mass loading in the MBL of injected salt (dotted contours). The inset of panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the key model parameters, with others as seen in Table 1. The two scenarios, (1) and (2), which each produce sufficient forcing to offset doubled CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, are highlighted. Scenario (2) has a higher number of sprayers but a lower rate of particles injected per sprayer.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e6280">Given that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases approximately as a function of total mass
injection rate for mass injection rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" 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>
(Fig. 5a), roughly the same forcing can be achieved either with a smaller
number of high throughput sprayers, or a larger number of somewhat weaker
sprayers. Scenario (1) in Fig. 5 has <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12 000, each injecting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> particles per second, for a total mass
injection rate of 69 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" 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>; this achieves the same forcing
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) as scenario (2), which has
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, each injecting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> particles per second, for a total mass injection rate of
55 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" 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>. As we discuss in Sect. 5.1, particle spray rates approaching 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" 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> will likely result in significant particle losses due to high concentrations in the near field of the spray system, and so we consider scenario (1) to be close to the upper end of the injection rates that are likely to be feasible. From this, it may reasonably be concluded that, if MCB were ever to be used to achieve a radiative forcing close to that needed to offset a doubling of CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, considerably more sprayers would be needed than are assumed in the estimate from Salter et al. (2008), where only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4500 spray vessels were assumed. The need for a greater number of sprayers in the heuristic model is primarily because of
overlapping plumes which reduce effectiveness by introducing heterogeneity
into the injected particle spatial distribution. Plume overlap is not
accounted for in Salter et al. (2008), where each sprayer uniformly
increases the particle concentration over an area of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.7</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Our assumed track area is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.28</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Sect. 2.5), which is quite similar to this, but our plumes overlap. The effect of plume overlap is<?pagebreak page14519?> demonstrated by noting
that scenario (1), with fewer sprayers than scenario (2), requires
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 25 % more injected mass to achieve the same forcing. If we
set <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to the number that would cover the ocean if
there were no overlaps (5300; Sect. 2.5), the heuristic model would require
over twice as much mass to produce a forcing sufficient to offset <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> case because the track coverage (fraction of the seeded area with at least one overlapping track) in seeded areas only marginally exceeds 50 % (Fig. 5b; dashed lines). Thus, almost half of the eligible ocean area remains unperturbed in this case, requiring increases in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to offset doubled CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in the perturbed clouds that are harder to achieve (see Fig. 1). Figure 6 (black curves) shows <inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for different values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> plotted as a function of the total salt mass injection rate to further illustrate the need for a high number of sprayers to minimize the total mass of salt that needs to be injected to achieve a given forcing.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e6623">Radiative forcing as a function of the total (global) rate of salt
mass injection for <bold>(a)</bold> three sprayer numbers (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5300</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 15 000, and 120 000) and for
geometric mean spray diameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 50 nm (gray),
100 nm (black), and 200 nm (yellow). <bold>(b)</bold> Forcing for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 120 000 and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm as a function of injected particle
lifetime. All other parameters are the same as those used in Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e6698">A key result from the heuristic model, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 nm, is that the forcing to offset doubled CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> should be achievable
with a total salt mass injection rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50–70 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" 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>.
This is much lower than the natural sea salt flux, which studies suggest
ranges from 3000 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 000 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" 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> (Textor et al., 2006;
Grythe et al., 2014). The residence time of natural sea spray particles is
considerably shorter than the lifetime (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d) of
the injected salt particles because sea spray particles have a much larger
mean size. Thus, a perhaps more useful comparison is to examine the mass
loading of the injected salt particles, which increases from 0.1 to 1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as the forcing magnitude increases from 1 to 4 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 5c). The coarse-mode aerosol assumed in the model (Table 1) has a mass loading of 12.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is broadly representative of typical salt loadings in the MBL (5–20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; Jaeglé et al., 2011). Thus,
the mass loading of injected particles required to deliver a significant
radiative forcing is a relatively small fraction (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %) of
the natural salt burden in the atmosphere. This is not the case with
existing climate model studies of MCB, where much higher salt mass injection
rates have been required in order to provide a globally<?pagebreak page14520?> significant
radiative forcing. The reasons for this are explored the next section.</p>
      <p id="d1e6862">It is worth comparing the results from the heuristic model with estimates of
radiative forcing from commercial shipping. Total SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions from
shipping are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" 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> (see Lauer et al., 2007).
Assuming this is all converted into sulfate, this equates to a mass of 15 Tg SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" 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>. Introducing injections of 15 Tg NaCl yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" 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 yield a Twomey radiative forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.5–2.0 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (Fig. 6a). This represents a considerably higher efficacy (forcing per mass of solute) for MCB compared with commercial shipping. Although sea salt is slightly more hygroscopic than sulfate, it is unlikely that composition differences explain the greater efficacy. On the other hand, observations show that the modal diameter of accumulation-mode particles over the oceans, which consist mostly of sulfate, tend to be closer to 200 nm diameter than to 100 nm diameter (e.g., Heintzenberg et al., 2000). Although commercial ships do emit a considerable number of small Aitken particles (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2000), one would expect considerable growth into the accumulation mode over the lifetime of the emitted SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>. One hypothesis to explain the greater efficacy of MCB is that commercial shipping emissions result in larger accumulation-mode
particles. Injection rates of 15 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" 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> of NaCl particles with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm would yield a radiative forcing of only 0.5 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6a), a value within the range of estimates of forcing from marine shipping (0.06–0.6 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; see the introduction). Additionally, shipping emissions are much more concentrated geographically than those from our heuristic model (assuming <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which reduces efficacy. A more thorough treatment of the effects of geographical
heterogeneity of sulfate from commercial shipping is beyond the scope of
this study.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Impacts of variations in injected aerosol size and lifetime and
background aerosol concentrations</title>
      <p id="d1e7045">A key unresolved question concerns what size of injected particles produces
the most effective brightening. Prior studies using LES and climate models
have used relatively large particles with modal dry diameters exceeding 200 nm. Although particles of this size serve as very effective CCN, it is
important to take into consideration the overall mass injection rate, which
determines the energetic requirements for particle generation and impacts on
atmospheric chemistry (see the introduction). For the sprayer number and
injection rate from scenario 2 (Sect. 4.1; Fig. 5) the optimal
geometric mean diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of injected particles is 30–60 nm
(Fig. 7a). This optimal size range is consistent with the parcel modeling
of Connolly et al. (2014) and is relatively insensitive to the background
accumulation-mode aerosol concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For fixed mass
injection rate, injected aerosol concentration increases as the inverse
third power of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eqs. 5 and 7). For large injected
particles (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 nm), most of the injected
particles are activated (Fig. 7b), but each particle has a large mass, and
so the overall mass injection rate required to produce a given forcing is
roughly 5 times higher with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm than it is with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (Fig. 6a), which is quantitatively consistent with the GCM (global climate model) sensitivity tests in Partanen et al. (2012). We find that 40 % more
forcing can be achieved per mass injected if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is further
decreased from 100 to 50 nm (Fig. 7a). With <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in this
optimal range in terms of forcing per mass injected, although the activated
fraction is quite low, the gain in the added aerosol concentration counters
this. This occurs up to a point where competition for vapor draws down
supersaturation, and there is a reduction in the number of injected particles
that have critical supersaturations sufficiently low to activate. When
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 nm, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
begins to decrease again (Fig. 7b). The saturation effect of adding very
small particles is also demonstrated by the gray lines in Fig. 6a, which
show forcing as function of total salt mass injection rate for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. For low mass injection rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" 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>), these very small injected particles produce twice as much
brightening as particles with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. At higher rates,
exceeding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" 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>, brightening increases very
modestly.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e7261"><bold>(a)</bold> Global mean radiative forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a fixed salt mass spray rate (based on scenario 2; see the legend) as a function of injected particle geometric mean diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for three unperturbed accumulation-mode aerosol concentrations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 100, and 150 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Black curves show the results from the parcel model and gray curves from the ARG parameterization. <bold>(b)</bold> Change in mean cloud droplet concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and aerosol concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in regions where sprayers are operating. <bold>(c)</bold> Peak supersaturation in the updraft. The gray shaded box indicates the most effective range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e7371">We find a major discrepancy between the parcel model activation used here
and that estimated using the ARG parameterization. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
larger than 100 nm, droplet concentrations from ARG are in general agreement
with those from the parcel model (Fig. 7b), but as the injected particle
size decreases, ARG is unable to activate enough droplets. A significant
tendency to underpredict activation fraction has been noted in several prior
studies (Ghan et al., 2011; Connolly et al., 2014), and Simpson et al. (2014) found a systematic underprediction of peak supersaturations estimated
with ARG, which we confirmed with the parcel model (Fig. 7c). This upshot of
this issue is that, whereas we find that a maximum in brightening for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the competition for vapor in ARG is so strong
that it prevents activation of almost all<?pagebreak page14522?> injected particles, and so the
forcing is close to zero (Fig. 7a). It will, therefore, be very important to
ensure that activation schemes used in climate modeling for MCB are
sufficiently accurate to represent the unusual size distributions that would
be needed for effective implementation of MCB.</p>
      <p id="d1e7401">Alterskjær and Kristjánsson (2013; henceforth AK13) used a climate
model with ARG as its activation scheme and found that injected Aitken-mode
particles (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) produced a strong negative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
at the lowest injection rate used (48.2 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" 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>) but a positive
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for injection rates exceeding this. The behavior is consistent
with our findings using the ARG scheme but is not consistent with the
results from the parcel model, where brightening continues to increase with
injected mass for particles of this size (Fig. 7a), and there is no cloud
darkening (positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). AK13 also conducted a sensitivity study in
which peak supersaturations were fixed at 0.2 % and found that the sign of
the forcing changed from weakly positive to strongly negative. We find that
the suppression of peak supersaturation as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases is
similarly strong in the parcel model and the ARG parameterization for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (Fig. 7c), implying that additional
competition for vapor from the injected particles is not the main reason for
the reduced activation fraction in ARG. Instead, it is the general
underprediction of peak supersaturation in ARG occurring at all values of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that is the main reason for its inability to activate small
Aitken particles. Indeed, the fixed supersaturation of 0.2 % in the AK13
sensitivity test is quite similar to that in the parcel model (Fig. 7c), and
much higher than that for the ARG parameterization, showing that the use of
ARG in AK13 is leading to misleading results regarding the efficacy of
injecting Aitken-mode particles.</p>
      <p id="d1e7499">Although the optimal geometric mean diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of injected
particles is 30–60 nm (Fig. 7a), there are other reasons against injecting
very small Aitken-sized particles, including near-field coagulation and a
higher loss rate to Brownian scavenging by cloud droplets. The former is
explored in Sect. 5.1. The timescale for Brownian scavenging of injected
aerosol in a cloud-topped MBL scales with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Seinfeld and
Pandis, 2003) and also decreases inversely with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For
realistic liquid water contents, it can be shown that under MCB (i.e.,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of a few hundred cubic centimeters) for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the timescale for particle losses to Brownian scavenging by cloud droplets is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 d but falls to only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 d for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm.</p>
      <p id="d1e7600">There is strong sensitivity of forcing to injected particle residence time
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6b). A longer <inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases
the area of each sprayer track in proportion to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(since both track width and length are proportional to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; see Sect. 2.4), but the injected particle concentration
over that area scales as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 7). For the
scenario of many overlapping tracks (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
the total salt mass required to produce a given forcing scales with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6b). Thus, the lifetime of injected particles is
a key determinant of MCB efficacy, warranting further study.</p>
      <p id="d1e7700">Higher background droplet concentration lowers a cloud's albedo
susceptibility (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">α</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Twomey, 1977; Platnick and
Twomey, 1994). In addition, the increase in droplet concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with injection is also reduced when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
higher (Fig. 7b). This occurs because peak supersaturation is reduced when
the background particles are more numerous, and so a lower fraction of the
injected aerosol is activated. This results in a forcing that scales more
weakly with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than would be expected based solely on the
albedo susceptibility. As <inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases
from 50 to 150 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, the albedo susceptibility decreases by a factor of
3, and yet the magnitude of the radiative forcing (e.g., for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm) decreases by less than a factor of 2.</p>
      <p id="d1e7814">The presence of a coarse mode in the unperturbed state imposes a relatively
modest decrease in the effectiveness of aerosol injections in brightening
clouds. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the range 50–100 nm, the realistic
background coarse-mode concentration
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) used throughout this study
results in a forcing that is less than 10 % smaller than in the absence of
a coarse mode (Fig. 8), and the effect is weaker for larger
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Coarse-mode concentrations vary with wind speed and can
reach values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20–50 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at high wind speeds
(Zheng et al., 2018). As Fig. 8 shows, it is only at concentrations well in
excess of 10 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (mass loadings well more than 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
that there would be significant limits to brightening due to the coarse
mode. It is important that MCB spray technology does not introduce a
significant number of coarse-mode particles, as these will reduce
brightening. However, it should be noted that the coarse-mode mass loadings
required to produce a significant dampening of forcing are considerably more
than those required to produce brightening using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 nm
particles.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e7933">Global mean radiative forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a fixed salt mass spray rate (based on scenario 2; see the legend) as a function of background coarse-mode aerosol concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for three injected particle sizes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 100, and 200 nm). The equivalent salt mass loading in the coarse mode is indicated by the top axis.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page14523?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Sensitivity to updraft speed</title>
      <p id="d1e7995">Updraft speed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is a key determinant of the peak supersaturation during
the activation process in updrafts (Sect. 2.6). A single value
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is assumed for the results shown in this study, but
note that the sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is strongly dependent upon
the injected particle size (Fig. 9a), with sensitivity decreasing strongly
as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases. The sensitivity is related to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 9b), which itself depends upon the peak
supersaturation in the updraft (Fig. 9c) and the size distribution of
injected and unperturbed aerosol particles. Note that the suppression in
peak supersaturation for the perturbed case compared with the unperturbed
case is stronger for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm than it is for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm but falls no further for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. Smaller and more numerous particles have a
greater surface area and therefore remove vapor more rapidly, but kinetic
limitations on growth rates restrict the continuation of this when
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> falls much below 100 nm. For the mass spray rates assumed
here (scenario 2; see Sect. 4.1), almost all injected particles activate in
updrafts exceeding 0.3 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" 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> when <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 nm (Fig. 9b). The suppression of peak supersaturation is relatively modest in this
case (Fig. 9c). For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the forcing magnitude
increase with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is stronger because the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increase with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is stronger. However, it should be noted that, for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the forcing magnitude only increases by 30 %
over the range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" 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>, indicating relatively weak
sensitivity to updraft speed overall. The greatest sensitivity to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> occurs
for the smallest injected particles (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm), where the
forcing increases by 80 % over the range <inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" 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>. This
reflects the fact that the greatest sensitivity of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
increasing peak supersaturation will occur when the critical supersaturation
of the modal diameter (where the greatest number of particles lies) is close
to the peak supersaturation. A 50 nm diameter salt particle has a critical
supersaturation of 0.25 % (e.g., Petters and Kreidenweis, 2007), which is
similar to the peak supersaturation at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M546" 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> (Fig. 9c).
Given that activation in real MBL clouds occurs in a spectrum of updrafts
(e.g., Snider et al., 2003), this result would caution against the use of
injected particles that are too small to increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M547" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
majority of clouds seeded.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e8343">Impact of assumed updraft speed on <bold>(a)</bold> global mean radiative forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M548" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(b)</bold> Cloud droplet concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M549" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(c)</bold> Peak supersaturation during activation for a
fixed salt mass spray rate (based on scenario 2; see the legend). Results for
injected particle sizes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M550" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 100, and 200 nm) are shown. Panels <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(c)</bold> also show the values for the unperturbed case.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>Direct radiative forcing</title>
      <p id="d1e8415">A recent study with three climate models found that direct forcing from
injected salt aerosol may compete with or even exceed the indirect forcing
in magnitude (Ahlm et al., 2017). We demonstrated (Sect. 4.2) that injecting
particles with sizes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M551" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M552" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 30–60 nm produces the greatest
brightening for a given salt mass injected, and a forcing to offset doubled
CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M553" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> can be achieved with injection rates below 100 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M554" 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>
(dashed circle; Fig. 10a). These optimal particle sizes are much smaller
than the dry modal diameters of 200, 260, and 880 nm for injected particles
in the models used for the GeoMIP assessment of Ahlm et al. (2017). The
magnitude of the heuristic model global direct forcing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M555" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">direct</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Sect. 2.7) is very small (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M556" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M557" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
for total salt mass injection rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M558" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M559" 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> (Fig. 10b). Indeed, generating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M560" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">direct</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M561" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
requires an order of magnitude greater mass injection rate than it does to
produce the same forcing from MCB (compare Fig. 10a and b). Partanen et
al. (2012) found a very small contribution of direct radiative forcing with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M562" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm because the same indirect forcing in this case
was achieved with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M563" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 times less injected mass than their case
(5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M564" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> GEO) with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M565" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, wherein direct
forcing constituted about 30 % of the forcing.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e8593">Global mean radiative forcing from <bold>(a)</bold> aerosol–cloud interactions (i.e., marine cloud brightening) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M566" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(b)</bold> Direct
radiative forcing of injected aerosol, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M567" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">direct</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <bold>(c)</bold> Ratio of direct to total radiative forcing, plotted as a function of the total salt injection rate, and the geometric mean diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M568" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the injected aerosol. The number of sprayers,  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M569" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sprayers</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M570" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 000, and all other parameters are the same as scenario 2 (see Fig. 5 and Sect. 4.1). The three models used in Ahlm et al. (2017) are shown (see the legend in panel <bold>b</bold>), although it should be noted that, for these models, injections were confined
to the tropical belt (30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M571" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–30<inline-formula><mml:math id="M572" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e8685">The dry size <inline-formula><mml:math id="M573" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to maximize the direct forcing, for a given
mass injection rate, is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M574" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 110 nm (Fig. 10b), which is around
twice as large as the optimal size for MCB. As we have seen (Figs. 6 and 7),
producing significant cloud brightening for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M575" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values in
the models in Ahlm et al. (2017) requires much higher mass injection, and
this leads to significant direct radiative forcing. Indeed, for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M576" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">880</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, the brightening efficiency (Fig. 7) is so low
that we would expect very little brightening for spray rates of several
hundred teragrams per year (hereafter Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M577" 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>), which is consistent with the very small increases in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M578" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for the model that injected particles of this size, despite
an injection rate of 590 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M579" 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>. In<?pagebreak page14524?> conclusion, the results here
demonstrate that marine cloud brightening is not very effective without clouds when consideration is given to the injection rates/sizes
required to produce a significant radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud
interactions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Implications for future work to test marine cloud brightening</title>
      <p id="d1e8778">The heuristic model results presented here, together with the assessment of
LES studies, have implications that may help guide future work to test the
concept of MCB to cool the Earth. Broadly speaking, these implications fall into the following three categories: guidance for the engineering development of particle injection (sprayer) systems, guidance for the design of climate model simulations to evaluate the feasibility of regional and global marine cloud brightening, and suggestions for future LES modeling.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Sprayer development considerations</title>
      <p id="d1e8789">The results presented in Sect. 4.1 suggest that, to produce global radiative
forcing from MCB that offsets a significant fraction of the forcing from
doubling CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M580" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, many sprayers will be required. To keep the number to
below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M581" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M582" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, particle number injection rates
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M583" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M584" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M585" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M586" 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> will be needed. Similar
forcing can be achieved with fewer sprayers, but this will necessitate
higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M587" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This implies very high particle concentrations in the
near field of the spray system. Taking the spray system to be a collection
of nozzles arranged over some area, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M588" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, spraying into an airflow, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M589" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">flow</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, then the initial particle concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M590" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the immediate wake of the sprayer is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M591" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">flow</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
approach in Turco and Yu (1997) is used to model the downstream particle
concentration, assuming a fixed coagulation kernel based on a particle
diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M592" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M593" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">flow</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M594" 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>. The
coagulation kernel is not strongly dependent upon particle diameter for this
size range (see Fig. 13.5 in Seinfeld and Pandis, 2003), so variations in
injected dry size and the degree of hygroscopic swelling do not have major
impacts. It is worth noting that seawater droplets ultimately yielding dry
diameters in the effective range for MCB<?pagebreak page14525?> may be significantly larger and may
coagulate somewhat more slowly. We consider a diluting slender plume based
on the Gaussian plume dispersion, which yields a plume cross sectional area
(and thus volume) that evolves with time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M595" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M596" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="[" close="]"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Here
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M597" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.49</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M598" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s, with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M599" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">flow</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where the plume widths at distance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M600" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
downstream of the sprayer in the cross-wind and vertical directions are
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M601" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M602" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The constants <inline-formula><mml:math id="M603" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M604" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M605" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M606" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are those for neutral stability conditions from Klug (1969), as reproduced in Table 18.3 of Seinfeld and Pandis (2003). Numerical
simulations had to be performed because the solution does not allow for
analytical integration.</p>
      <p id="d1e9242">Results of the coagulation–dilution calculations (Fig. 11a) indicate that
there are relatively weak particle losses from coagulation until particle
injection rates <inline-formula><mml:math id="M607" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M608" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M609" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M610" 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>, above which loss rates grow sharply. Without dilution,
there are large losses within the first 100 s for rates exceeding 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M611" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M612" 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 for rates approaching 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M613" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M614" 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>, most of the losses occur within the first 10 s. Dilution immediately downstream of the
spray system is therefore most important for particle survival. The volume
profile for these simulations is shown in Fig. 11b. We assume that particle
concentration within the expanding plume is uniform, which is somewhat
unrealistic because the edges of the plume will become more diluted at a
faster rate than those in the center. A multi-shelled Gaussian plume model
was employed in Stuart et al. (2013), and this appears to result in somewhat
weaker loss rates than what we find, but the same general dependencies were
found. There is a somewhat weaker dependence of the fraction of particles
remaining on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M615" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> than might be imagined (Fig. 11c), given that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M616" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
determines the initial concentration of particles, and loss rates scale with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M617" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is because it takes longer for turbulent eddies to penetrate a
wider plume and mix ambient air into the plume core, so that larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M618" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is associated with a longer dilution timescale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M619" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dil</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e9388">Effects of coagulation on the concentration of particles at time
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M620" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> downstream of a hypothetical sprayer system with cross-sectional area
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M621" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M622" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and flow rate of air across the sprayer
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M623" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">flow</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M624" 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>. Here, a single particle diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M625" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm is assumed, and solutions follow Turco and Yu (1997). <bold>(a)</bold> Particle concentrations with dilution proceeding according to the dispersion rates for neutral conditions are from Klug (1969), as reproduced in Seinfeld and Pandis (2006; their Table 18.3). Concentrations in the absence of plume dilution are shown for comparison (gray), indicating major losses and eventual asymptotic solution. <bold>(b)</bold> The ratio of volume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M626" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to initial volume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M627" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases super-linearly with time with a dilution timescale <inline-formula><mml:math id="M628" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">dil</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s. <bold>(c)</bold> Fraction of particles remaining at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M629" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M630" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 000 s as a function of initial plume cross-sectional area <inline-formula><mml:math id="M631" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for spray rate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M632" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M633" 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>. <bold>(d)</bold> Fraction of particles
remaining at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M634" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M635" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 000 s as a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M636" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M637" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M638" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The dotted line shows the scaling such that the fraction
remaining decreases at the same rate as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M639" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases,
i.e., there is no increase in far-field particle concentration with
increasing sprayer output.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e9641">The strong dependence of coagulation losses on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M640" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 11d) indicates that, as rates approach 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M641" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">17</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M642" 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>, the fraction of particles remaining decreases as rapidly as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M643" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">˙</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases, which essentially means no increase in the far-field concentration as injection rates are further increased. Because this is not strongly sensitive to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M644" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 11c), this imposes a limit
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M645" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M646" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M647" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M648" 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>) on the maximum rate of
particles that a ship-deployable spray system can provide to the far-field
environment. Recall that the spray scenario to offset doubled CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M649" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
forcing with 15 000 ships discussed in Sect. 4.1 requires a number injection
rate that is at this upper limit of feasibility. More rapid dilution than
can be provided by boundary layer turbulence may be possible in the first
few seconds downstream of the spray system if the initial flow rate can be
increased, but more sophisticated fluid and aerosol dynamics modeling will
be required to determine the maximum far-field injection rates that a
sprayer can provide.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Climate modeling</title>
      <p id="d1e9757">The results of this study have implications for both types of climate
modeling MCB studies discussed in the introduction, namely those that fix
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M650" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at some value in seeded regions and those that attempt to
model aerosol–cloud interactions using salt aerosol injection.</p>
      <p id="d1e9771">The results presented in Sect. 4.1 demonstrate that there are diminishing
returns on increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M651" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as spray rate increases (e.g., Fig. 5b). Producing cloud droplet concentrations of 1000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M652" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is possible
but requires mass injection rates approaching 1000 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M653" 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> (compare
Fig. 5a and b).<?pagebreak page14526?> Locally high mass injection rates would reduce the
fractional area of the ocean required for spraying (see next paragraph), but
it should be borne in mind that increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M654" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 1000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M655" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, as has been done in some climate modeling studies (e.g., Rasch
et al., 2009; Baughman et al., 2012), would increase the Brownian scavenging
rate of interstitial injected aerosol and reduce the overall particle
residence time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M656" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, resulting in a reduced forcing (see
Sect. 4.2; Fig. 6b). Increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M657" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 300 to 1000 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M658" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
reduces the Brownian scavenging timescale by a factor of over 2 (Seinfeld
and Pandis 2003), suggesting that attempting to implement MCB with very high
droplet concentrations may not be practical.</p>
      <p id="d1e9867">Several previous climate model studies have seeded a relatively small
fraction of the ocean area. Jones et al. (2009) set
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M659" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M660" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 375 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M661" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in three regions that total only
4.7 % of the ocean and achieved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M662" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.97</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M663" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M664" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is not known for this study, so it is not
possible to predict the Twomey forcing for this case using the heuristic
model, but for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M665" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a peak forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M666" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M667" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is achievable (Fig. 12), but achieving a forcing magnitude in excess
of 1 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M668" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> requires a mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M669" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of over 800 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M670" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M671" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in the seeded area. One can only conclude that
either the unperturbed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M672" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Jones et al. (2009) was very low,
or that the model produced significant positive cloud adjustments that
augmented the Twomey effect. Figure 12 suggests that global forcing magnitudes
greater than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M673" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M674" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from the Twomey effect alone are
only likely to be possible if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M675" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 % of the eligible ocean
area (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M676" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 40 % of the total ocean area) is seeded.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e10078">Sensitivity of the radiative forcing to different fractions
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M677" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the eligible ocean where sprayers operate.
Forcing is shown as a function of the total (global) rate of salt mass
injection. The mass injected per sprayer is the same as that for scenario 2
(Sect. 4.1 and Fig. 5), and the sprayer density is the same in each case,
i.e., the number of sprayers is proportional to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M678" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and is 100 000 for
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M679" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">spray</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The geometric mean spray diameters are
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M680" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, and the background is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M681" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M682" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. All other parameters are the same as those used in Fig. 5.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e10172">Climate modeling to investigate MCB by injecting surface salt sources has
typically injected particles with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M683" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 200 nm or greater
(Alterskjær et al., 2012, 2013; Ahlm et al., 2017). The heuristic model
sensitivity to injected particle size presented in Sect. 4.2 indicates that
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M684" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm is inefficient (Fig. 7), requiring mass spray
rates 5 times higher than for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M685" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm and over an order
of magnitude higher than for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M686" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm (Fig. 6). This has
led to mass spray rates in existing MCB studies of hundreds of Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M687" 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> (Ahlm et al., 2017), and these high mass spray rates produce significant
direct radiative forcing (Ahlm et al., 2017). Our results suggest that
smaller injected particles can yield global radiative forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M688" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M689" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M690" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with very little direct radiative forcing. Providing meaningful
global radiative forcing using the aerosol direct effect is an extremely
inefficient use of salt particles. We therefore suggest that future climate
modeling should focus on smaller injected particles to build on the
sensitivity study in Partanen et al. (2012). This may challenge some models
because a dedicated injection particle mode independent of the model's
accumulation mode will be required, and accurate treatment of activation for
such cases is a major issue (see Sect. 4.2 and the Appendix).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Challenges for LES modeling</title>
      <p id="d1e10285">One notable feature of existing LES studies designed to test the sensitivity
of albedo to particle injections (Sect. 3) is that all existing simulation
experiments show some degree of brightening, although some do show cloud
cover or condensate adjustments that partly offset the Twomey effect. In
most cases, especially very clean conditions, cloud adjustments
significantly augment Twomey brightening. No LES studies in the literature
show domain-wide cloud adjustments that completely offset Twomey
brightening. However, predicting cloud adjustments accurately is a
challenge, even for LES models; some models do not represent the physical
processes needed to produce the correct adjustments. Such processes include
size-dependent droplet evaporation, which requires an estimation of
supersaturation (many LESs assume saturation adjustment; see Wang et al.,
2003) and sedimentation–entrainment feedback (e.g., Bretherton et al.,
2007). Tests to establish the importance of these processes for determining
susceptibility to particle injections are incomplete. In addition, existing
LES studies represent only a small subset of possible meteorological
conditions, focusing primarily upon shallow MBLs that are probably more
susceptible to aerosol injections. Studies examining the susceptibility to
particle injections of deeper trade wind MBLs, including aggregated shallow
convective systems, need to be conducted to establish the efficacy of MCB in
these regions.</p>
      <p id="d1e10288">It should be noted that most LES cases to test MCB are of insufficient
duration to examine the responses at timescales longer than the injected
particle residence time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M691" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which suggests that longer
simulations will be necessary to evaluate the true radiative forcing from
injections. Furthermore,<?pagebreak page14527?> no LES studies to date have attempted to constrain the injected particle residence time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M692" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is a key
determinant of MCB forcing (Sect. 4.2; Fig. 6b). The dependence of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M693" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> on precipitation, entrainment, in-cloud Brownian
scavenging, and other factors warrants exploration using LESs. In addition,
there are several potentially important feedbacks involving aerosol
residence time that are ideal for study using LESs. First, it is well
understood that MBL precipitation is a major sink of CCN (Wood et al., 2012;
Zheng et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2021). Residence time is expected to be
shorter in precipitating MBLs, and suppression of precipitation by high
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M694" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in seeded clouds will increase <inline-formula><mml:math id="M695" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Wood et al.,
2012), but increased cloud surface area will increase Brownian scavenging of
injected particles, reducing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M696" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">res</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Precipitation
suppression will also impact the background aerosol properties, including
potentially increasing the concentration of coarse mode and giant CCN that
may counter some of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M697" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>-driven precipitation suppression
(Feingold et al., 1999). These feedback processes may affect aerosol
residence time and MCB forcing in ways not accounted for in current
analyses. Finally, deficiencies in some activation schemes used in LESs are
likely to be a significant issue hindering accurate representation of the
effects of injected particles smaller than 100 nm (Sect. 4.2; Appendix; Connolly et al., 2014), so it will be important to ensure that LES models
can handle the activation process faithfully.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e10378">This study presents a simple heuristic model to produce useful quantitative
estimates of the radiative forcing from the Twomey effect driven by salt
particle injections over the global oceans (marine cloud brightening – MCB).
The model includes a treatment of individual sprayer plumes and their
overlap, and so it can be used to explore brightening as a function of the
number of sprayers. Brightening is predicted using Twomey's albedo
susceptibility given predicted increases in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M698" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from an
activation look-up table derived using Lagrangian parcel modeling that
incorporates both background and injected aerosol particle size
distributions. Parameters for the model are constrained with observations of
cloud cover and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M699" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from satellites, along with aerosol
properties from syntheses of in situ observations. The model performs
reasonably well in estimating the cloud brightening from a number of large
eddy simulations (LESs) reported in the literature, although the LES cases
tend to produce more brightening for clean unperturbed states and less for
polluted states, likely because of cloud adjustments (changes in cloud cover
and/or liquid water path in response to aerosols) that are not included in
the heuristic model. The heuristic model is then used to estimate global
radiative forcing from MCB and its sensitivity to injected particle spray
rates and particle sizes. The key conclusions of the work are as follows.</p>
      <p id="d1e10403"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Radiative forcing to offset doubled CO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M700" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> can be achieved with global
mean salt spray rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M701" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50–70 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M702" 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>. This is
much lower than the natural sea salt flux and much lower than
spray rates used in global models, which have injected larger particles than
are needed to efficiently brighten clouds. To produce this radiative
forcing, a large number of sprayers (10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M703" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>–10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M704" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) will be required to
operate over the majority of the 54 % of the Earth's surface that is over
ocean and remote from land.</p>
      <p id="d1e10453">Injected particles with geometric mean dry diameters of 30–60 nm are most
efficient at brightening clouds for a fixed mass of salt injected.</p>
      <p id="d1e10456">There is no evidence for marine cloud darkening (positive radiative forcing)
using the parcel-model-based activation scheme, although the Abdul-Razzak
and Ghan (2000) parameterization incorrectly shows that this occurs for very
high concentrations of small injected particles due to excessive competition
for water vapor.</p>
      <p id="d1e10460">Competition for vapor effectively limits the maximum possible magnitude of
radiative forcing from MCB to approximately 8 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M705" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for salt spray
rates less than 1000 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M706" 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>, assuming all ocean regions are seeded.
This assumes that negative cloud adjustments remain relatively small
compared with the Twomey effect.</p>
      <p id="d1e10487">Heuristic model radiative forcing estimates are mostly within a factor of 3
of those from LESs, across a range of different spray and unperturbed
conditions.</p>
      <p id="d1e10490">Brightening in the heuristic model and the LES decreases strongly with the
aerosol/droplet concentrations in the unperturbed clouds, so it is critical
to better understand and model the seasonal and geographical variations in
these parameters in order to identify optimal locations and times for
particle injections and to predict radiative forcing.</p>
      <p id="d1e10493">For injected particles with geometric mean dry diameters of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M707" display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 nm or more, there is relatively weak sensitivity to updraft speed for
values larger than 0.2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M708" 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>.</p>
      <p id="d1e10515">Direct radiative forcing from injected particles is very small for mass
injection rates less than 100 Tg yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M709" 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>. MCB is far less effective
without clouds when consideration is given to the quantity of salt that must
be injected.</p>
</sec>

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

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>Parcel model emulator</title>
      <p id="d1e10541">To determine aerosol activation, an explicit Lagrangian parcel model is used
to construct a five-dimensional look-up table that predicts peak
supersaturation and the concentration of activated aerosol (cloud droplet
concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M710" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as a function of updraft speed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M711" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the concentration
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M712" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and geometric mean dry diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M713" display="inline"><mml:mi>c</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the injected
particles, respectively, and the unperturbed particle concentrations of
accumulation-mode <inline-formula><mml:math id="M714" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and coarse-mode
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M715" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> particles. All other aerosol size and hygroscopicity
parameters are fixed at their values in Table 1. The temperature and
pressure are fixed at 280 K and 900 hPa, respectively. The Lagrangian<?pagebreak page14528?> parcel
model is initialized just below cloud base, with a saturation ratio of 0.99,
and is integrated to a height of 50 m above the saturation level. Particles
are determined to be activated if they have reached a diameter of 2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M716" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m
at this height. Split time-stepping is used to render the integration stable
for the very small sizes of some of the injected particles. The
discretization of the dry size distribution is set for each case to provide
an accurate estimate of the number of activated droplets. Parcel model
simulations are produced for all 6468 permutations of the values of the five
input parameters shown in Table A1. The injected particle concentrations
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M717" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are set to be a function of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M718" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, such that the
overall mass of injected particles is the same for a given value of the
scaling factor (Table A1). A scaling factor of unity corresponds to an
injected-mode mass loading of 1.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M719" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>g mg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M720" 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>. For the look-up table, basic linear interpolation in five dimensions is used to determine the
droplet concentration and peak supersaturation for any given set of input
variables <inline-formula><mml:math id="M721" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M722" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M723" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M724" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M725" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F13"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e10727">Comparison of the parcel model and ARG peak supersaturations <bold>(a, c, e)</bold> and activated cloud droplet concentrations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M726" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <bold>(b, d, f)</bold> as a function of the injected particle geometric mean diameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M727" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the mass loading of injected particles. The other parameters are set as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M728" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M729" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M730" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M731" 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
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M732" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M733" 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> (base values used
throughout the paper). Panels <bold>(a)</bold>–<bold>(b)</bold> show results from the parcel model, panels <bold>(c)</bold>–<bold>(d)</bold> from ARG, and panels  <bold>(e)</bold>–<bold>(f)</bold> are the ratio of ARG to the parcel model.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=256.074803pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/21/14507/2021/acp-21-14507-2021-f13.png"/>

      </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Table A1</label><caption><p id="d1e10877">Parameter values used to construct the activation look-up table.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="6cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="6cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Values used</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M734" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Updraft speed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.2, 0.4, 0.6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M735" 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></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M736" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Injected particle geometric mean dry diameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">15, 30, 45, 60, 80, 100, 150, 200, 300, 500, 1000 nm</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M737" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Injected particle concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling factor of [0, 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 30] times <inline-formula><mml:math id="M738" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">400</mml:mn><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M739" 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>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M740" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is in nm</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M741" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">acc</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Unperturbed accumulation-mode concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">5, 10, 50, 100, 150, 200, 500 mg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M742" 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></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M743" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">coarse</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Unperturbed coarse-mode concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0, 3, 10, 30 mg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M744" 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></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e11101"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>Figure A1 provides a comparison between the parcel model results and the ARG
parameterization. In general, ARG significantly underpredicts the peak
supersaturation (Fig. A1a, c, and e) in all cases. Despite this,
there is good agreement between the parcel model and ARG droplet
concentrations for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M745" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. For this size range,
the injected particles have critical supersaturations small enough that,
despite the underprediction of peak supersaturation in ARG, it is
sufficiently high to activate most injected particles. However, as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M746" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> falls below 200 nm, the underprediction of peak
supersaturation in ARG has increasingly severe consequences, and this is
exacerbated at the highest mass loadings. For <inline-formula><mml:math id="M747" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> nm, ARG
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M748" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is only around 50 % of that in the parcel model, and this
underprediction falls rapidly as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M749" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> falls further. Based on
these findings, we conclude that the biases in ARG are too large for this
parameterization to produce useful results.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e11173">All code and data used in this study are available on request from the author.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e11179">The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e11185">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e11191">This article is part of the special issue “Resolving uncertainties in solar geoengineering through multi-model and large-ensemble simulations (ACP/ESD inter-journal SI)”. It is not associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e11197">LESs were performed at the University of Washington by Peter Blossey and Je-Yun Chun, with assistance from Matthew Wyant. Sarah Doherty, Phil Rasch, Kelly Wanser, Tom Ackerman, Peter Blossey, Matthew Wyant, Ehsan Erfani, Je-Yun Chun, Armand Neukermans, Chris Bretherton, Gary Cooper, Sean Garner, Kate Murphy, Paul Connolly, and Michael Diamond are thanked for the discussions that have helped to frame and improve this work.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e11202">Support for this work was provided by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) award (grant no. NA20OAR4320271), an Earth's Radiation Budget program grant (NOAA CPO
Climate &amp; CI grant no. 03-01-07-001), and from Lowercarbon, the Pritzker
Innovation Fund, and SilverLining, through the Marine Cloud Brightening
Project.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e11209">This paper was edited by Michael Schulz and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol
activation: 2. Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  105, 6837–6844, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ackerman, A. S., Toon, O. B., and Hobbs, P. V.: Numerical modeling of ship
tracks produced by injections of cloud condensation nuclei into marine
stratiform clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 7121–7133, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD00026" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95JD00026</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ackerman, A. S., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Stevens, D. E., and Toon, O. B.: The
impact of humidity above stratiform clouds on indirect aerosol climate
forcing, Nature, 432, 1014–1017, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03174" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature03174</ext-link>,
2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ahlm, L., Jones, A., Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Kravitz, B., and Kristjánsson, J. E.:
Marine cloud brightening – as effective without clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13071–13087, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness,
Science, 245, 1227–1230, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4923.1227" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.245.4923.1227</ext-link>,
1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Alterskjær, K., Kristjánsson, J. E., and Seland, Ø.: Sensitivity to deliberate sea salt seeding of marine clouds – observations and model simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2795–2807, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2795-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-2795-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Alterskjær, K. and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The sign of the radiative
forcing from marine cloud brightening depends on both particle size and
injection amount, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 210–215, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054286" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL054286</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Andreae, M. O. and Rosenfeld, D.: Aerosol–cloud–precipitation
interactions. Part 1. The nature and sources of cloud-active aerosols,
Earth-Sci. Rev., 89, 13–41, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001</ext-link>,
2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Archer, C. L. and Jacobson,  M. Z.: Evaluation of global wind power, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, D12110,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005462" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005462</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Nemani, R., Cao, L., Ban-Weiss, G., and Shin,
H.-J.: Albedo enhancement of marine clouds to counteract global warming:
Impacts on the hydrological cycle, Clim. Dynam., 37, 915–931, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Baughman, E., Gnanadesikan, A., Degaetano, A., and Adcroft, A.:
Investigation of the Surface and Circulation Impacts of Cloud-Brightening
Geoengineering, J. Climate, 25, 7527–7543, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00282.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00282.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page14530?><ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P.,
Watson-Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau,
A.-L., Dufresne, J.-L., Feingold, G., Fiedler, S., Forster, P., Gettelman,
A., Haywood, J. M., Lohmann, U., Malavelle, F., Mauritsen, T., …
Stevens, B.: Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change,
Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000660.
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019RG000660</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bender, F. A.-M., Charlson, R. J., Ekman, A. M. L., and Leahy, L. V.:
Quantification of Monthly Mean Regional-Scale Albedo of Marine Stratiform
Clouds in Satellite Observations and GCMs, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 50, 2139–2148, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-049.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAMC-D-11-049.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bennartz, R.: Global assessment of marine boundary layer cloud droplet
number concentration from satellite,
J. Geophys. Res., 112, D02201, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007547" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007547</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., and Wood, R.: Large eddy simulation of ship tracks in the collapsed marine boundary layer: a case study from the Monterey area ship track experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5851–5871, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5851-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-5851-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Bohren, C. F. and Huffman, D. R.: Absorption and scattering of light by small particles, Wiley, New York, 544 pp., 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bretherton, C. S., Blossey, P. N., and Uchida, J.: Cloud droplet
sedimentation, entrainment efficiency, and subtropical stratocumulus albedo.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L03813, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027648" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL027648</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., George, R. C., Leon, D., Allen, G., and Zheng, X.: Southeast Pacific stratocumulus clouds, precipitation and boundary layer structure sampled along 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M750" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10639–10654, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10639-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-10639-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Capaldo, K., Corbett, J. J., Kasibhatla, P., Fischbeck, P., and Pandis, S.
N.: Effects of ship emissions on sulphur cycling and radiative climate
forcing over the ocean, Nature, 400, 743–746, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/23438" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/23438</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carslaw, K. S., Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Rap, A.,
Forster, P. M., Mann, G. W., Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Regayre, L.
A., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to
uncertainty in indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 67–71, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature12674</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chosson, F., Paoli, R., and Cuenot, B.: Ship plume dispersion rates in convective boundary layers for chemistry models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 4841–4853, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-4841-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-4841-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Chun, J.-Y., Wood, R., Blossey, P., and Wyant, M.: Large eddy simulations of salt
tracks in shallow marine boundary layers: sensitivity to injected particle
size, in preparation, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Coakley, J. A., Bernstein, R. L., and Durkee, P. A.: Effect of
Ship-Stack Effluents on Cloud Reflectivity, Science, 237, 1020–1022, 1987.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Coakley Jr., J. A. and Walsh, C. D.: Limits to the aerosol indirect
radiative effect derived from observations of ship tracks, J. Atmos. Sci.,
59, 668–680, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Connolly, P. J., McFiggans, G. B., Wood, R., and Tsiamis, A.: Factors
determining the most efficient spray distribution for marine cloud
brightening, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20140056, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0056" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2014.0056</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Conover, J. H.: Anomalous Cloud Lines, J. Atmos. Sci., 23,
778–785, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1966)023&lt;0778:ACL&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1966)023&lt;0778:ACL&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1966.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Cooper, G., Foster, J., Galbraith, L., Jain, S., Neukermans, A., and Ormond, B.:
Preliminary results for salt aerosol production
intended for marine cloud brightening, using effervescent spray atomization, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20140055, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0055" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2014.0055</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Diamond, M. S., Director, H. M., Eastman, R., Possner, A., and Wood, R.:
Substantial Cloud Brightening from Shipping in Subtropical Low Clouds, AGU
Advances, 1, e2019AV000111, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000111" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019AV000111</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Doelling, D. R., Loeb, N. G., Keyes, D. F., Nordeen, M. L., Morstad, D.,
Nguyen, C., Wielicki, B. A., Young, D. F., and Sun, M.: Geostationary Enhanced Temporal
Interpolation for CERES Flux Products, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 30, 1072–1090, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00136.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00136.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Durkee, P. A., Chartier, R. E., Brown, A., Trehubenko, E. J., Rogerson, S.
D., Skupniewicz, C., Nielsen, K. E., Platnick, S., and King, M. D.:
Composite ship track characteristics, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2542–2553, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Eyring, V., Isaksen, I. S. A., Berntsen, T., Collins, W. J., Corbett, J. J.,
Endresen, O., Grainger, R. G., Moldanova, J., Schlager, H., and Stevenson,
D. S.: Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping, Atmos. Environ., 44,
4735–4771, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Feingold, G., Cotton, W. R., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Davis, J. T.:
The impact of giant cloud condensation nuclei on drizzle formation in
stratocumulus: Implications for cloud radiative properties, J. Atmos. Sci., 56,
4100–4117, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J., Guzman, G., and Abdul-Razzak, H.: Competition between sea salt
and sulfate particles as cloud condensation nuclei, J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 3340–3347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;3340:CBSSAS&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;3340:CBSSAS&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ghan, S. J., Abdul-Razzak, H., Nenes, A., Ming, Y., Liu, X., Ovchinnikov,
M., Shipway, B., Meskhidze, N., Xu, J., and Shi, X.: Droplet nucleation:
Physically-based parameterizations and comparative evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M10001,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000074" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011MS000074</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Glassmeier, F., Hoffmann, F., Johnson, J. S., Yamaguchi, T., Carslaw, K. S.,
and Feingold, G.: Aerosol-cloud-climate cooling overestimated by ship-track
data, Science, 371, 485–489, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3980" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.abd3980</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gryspeerdt, E., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Constraining the aerosol
influence on cloud fraction, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 3566–3583,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023744" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023744</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., and Smith, T. W. P.: Observing the timescales of aerosol–cloud interactions in snapshot satellite images, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6093–6109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6093-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-21-6093-2021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Grythe, H., Ström, J., Krejci, R., Quinn, P., and Stohl, A.: A review of sea-spray aerosol source functions using a large global set of sea salt aerosol concentration measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 1277–1297, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hahn, C. J. and Warren, S. G.:  A Gridded Climatology of Clouds over Land (1971–1996) and Ocean (1954–2008) from Surface Observations Worldwide, Numeric Data Package NDP-026E, 2007 (updated 2009), CDIAC, Department of Energy<?pagebreak page14531?>, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, available at: <uri>https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp026e/ndp026e.html</uri> (last access: 30 September 2021),  2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hartmann, D. L. and Short, D. A.: On the Use of Earth Radiation Budget
Statistics for Studies of Clouds and Climate, J. Atmos. Sci., 37,
1233–1250, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;1233:OTUOER&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;1233:OTUOER&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Heffter, J. L.: The Variation of Horizontal Diffusion Parameters with Time
for Travel Periods of One Hour or Longer, J. Appl. Meteorol., 4, 153–156, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1965)004&lt;0153:TVOHDP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1965)004&lt;0153:TVOHDP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Heintzenberg, J., Covert, D. C., and Van Dingenen, R.: Size distribution
and chemical composition of marine aerosols: A compilation and review,
Tellus B, 52, 1104–1122, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hindman, E. E., Porch, W. M., Hudson, J. G., and Durkee, P. A.:
Ship-produced cloud lines of 13 July 1991, Atmos. Environ., 28, 3393–3403, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)00171-G" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/1352-2310(94)00171-G</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hobbs, P. V., Garrett, T. J., Ferek, R. J., Strader, S. R., Hegg, D. A., Frick, G. M., Hoppel, W. A., Gasparovic, R. F., Russell, L. M., Johnson, D. W., O'Dowd, C., Durkee, P. A., Nielsen, K. E., and Innis, G.: Emissions from ships with respect to their effects on
clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2570–2590, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hoffmann, F. and Feingold, G.: Cloud Microphysical Implications for Marine
Cloud Brightening: The Importance of the Seeded Particle Size
Distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0077.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-21-0077.1</ext-link>, online first,
2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Horowitz, H. M., Holmes, C., Wright, A., Sherwen, T., Wang, X., Evans, M.,
Huang, J., Jaeglé, L., Chen, Q., Zhai, S., and Alexander, B.: Effects
of Sea Salt Aerosol Emissions for Marine Cloud Brightening on Atmospheric
Chemistry: Implications for Radiative Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085838, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085838" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019GL085838</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Isaksen, I. S. A., Granier, C., Myhre, G., Berntsen, T. K., Dalsøren, S.
B., Gauss, M., Klimont, Z., Benestad, R., Bousquet, P., Collins, W., Cox,
T., Eyring, V., Fowler, D., Fuzzi, S., Jöckel, P., Laj, P., Lohmann, U.,
Maione, M., Monks, P., Prevot, A. S. H., Raes, F., Richter, A., Rognerud, B., Schulz, M., Shindell, D., Stevenson, D. S., Storelvmo, T., Wang, W.-C., van Weele, M., Wild, M., and Wuebbles, D.: Atmospheric composition
change: Climate–Chemistry interactions, Atmos. Environ., 43,
5138–5192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.08.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.08.003</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jaeglé, L., Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Alexander, B., and Lin, J.-T.: Global distribution of sea salt aerosols: new constraints from in situ and remote sensing observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3137–3157, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3137-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-3137-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jenkins, A. K. L., Forster, P. M., and Jackson, L. S.: The effects of timing and rate of marine cloud brightening aerosol injection on albedo changes during the diurnal cycle of marine stratocumulus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1659–1673, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1659-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-1659-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Climate impacts of geoengineering
marine stratocumulus clouds, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, D10106, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011450</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Klug, W.: A method for determining diffusion conditions from synoptic
observations, Staub-Reinhalt. Luft, 29, 14–20, 1969.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Latham, J.: Control of global warming?, Nature, 347, 339–340, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/347339b0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/347339b0</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Latham, J., Rasch, P., Chen, C.-C., Kettles, L., Gadian, A., Gettelman, A.,
Morrison, H., Bower, K., and Choularton, T.: Global Temperature Stabilization via
Controlled Albedo Enhancement of Low-Level Maritime Clouds, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 366, 1882,
3969–3987, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0137" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2008.0137</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Latham, J., Bower, K., Choularton, T., Coe, H., Connolly, P., Cooper, G., Craft, T., Foster, J., Gadian, A., Galbraith, L., Iacovides, H., Johnston, D., Launder, B., Leslie, B., Meyer, J., Neukermans, A., Ormond, B., Parkes, B., Rasch, P., Rush, J., Salter, S., Stevenson, T., Wang, H., Wang, Q., and Wood, R.: Marine cloud brightening, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 370, 4217–4262, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2012.0086</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Jöckel, P., and Lohmann, U.: Global model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on aerosols, clouds, and the radiation budget, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5061–5079, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Malavelle, F. F., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Gettelman, A., Clarisse, L.,
Bauduin, S., Allan, R. P., Karset, I. H. H., Kristjánsson, J. E.,
Oreopoulos, L., Cho, N., Lee, D., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Grosvenor, D.
P., Carslaw, K. S., Dhomse, S., Mann, G. W., Schmidt, A., Coe, H., Hartley, M. E., Dalvi, M., Hill, A. A., Johnson, B. T., Johnson, C. E., Knight, J. R., O'Connor, F. M., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Myhre, G., Platnick, S., Stephens, G. L., Takahashi, H., and
Thordarson, T.: Strong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from
volcanic eruptions, Nature, 546, 485–491,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22974" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature22974</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>McFiggans, G., Artaxo, P., Baltensperger, U., Coe, H., Facchini, M. C., Feingold, G., Fuzzi, S., Gysel, M., Laaksonen, A., Lohmann, U., Mentel, T. F., Murphy, D. M., O'Dowd, C. D., Snider, J. R., and Weingartner, E.: The effect of physical and chemical aerosol properties on warm cloud droplet activation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 2593–2649, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-2593-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-2593-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>National Research Council: Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.17226/18988" ext-link-type="DOI">10.17226/18988</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Nicholls, S. and Leighton, J.: An observational study of the structure of
stratiform cloud sheets: Part I. Structure, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 112, 431–460, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Partanen, A.-I., Kokkola, H., Romakkaniemi, S., Kerminen, V.-M., Lehtinen,
K. E. J., Bergman, T., Arola, A., and Korhonen, H.: Direct and indirect
effects of sea spray geoengineering and the role of injected particle size, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D02203, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016428" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016428</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Partanen, A. I., Laakso, A., Schmidt, A., Kokkola, H., Kuokkanen, T., Pietikäinen, J.-P., Kerminen, V.-M., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Laakso, L., and Korhonen, H.: Climate and air quality trade-offs in altering ship fuel sulfur content, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12059–12071, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Peters, K., Stier, P., Quaas, J., and Graßl, H.: Aerosol indirect effects from shipping emissions: sensitivity studies with the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 5985–6007, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5985-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-5985-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Petters, M. D. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and clou<?pagebreak page14532?>d condensation nucleus activity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1961–1971, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Platnick, S. and Twomey, S.: Determining the Susceptibility of Cloud
Albedo to Changes in Droplet Concentration with the Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer, J. Appl. Meteorol., 33, 334–347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033&lt;0334:DTSOCA&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033&lt;0334:DTSOCA&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Possner, A., Wang, H., Wood, R., Caldeira, K., and Ackerman, T. P.: The efficacy of aerosol–cloud radiative perturbations from near-surface emissions in deep open-cell stratocumuli, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17475–17488, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17475-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-17475-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Possner, A., Eastman, R., Bender, F., and Glassmeier, F.: Deconvolution of boundary layer depth and aerosol constraints on cloud water path in subtropical stratocumulus decks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 3609–3621, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-3609-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-3609-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Pöschl, U., and Lelieveld, J.: Global distribution of the effective aerosol hygroscopicity parameter for CCN activation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5241–5255, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ramanathan, V., Cess, R. D., Harrison, E. F., Minnis, P., Barkstrom, B. R.,
Ahmad, E., and Hartmann, D.: Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results
from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, Science, 243, 57–63,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.243.4887.57" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.243.4887.57</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rasch, P. J., Latham, J., and Chen, C.-C.: Geoengineering by Cloud Seeding:
Influence on Sea Ice and Climate System, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045112, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Salter, S., Sortino G., and Latham, J.: Sea-going hardware for the cloud
albedo method of reversing global warming, Philos.
T. R. Soc. A, 366, 2989–4006, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schreier, M., Mannstein, H., Eyring, V., and Bovensmann, H.: Global ship
track distribution and radiative forcing from 1 year of AATSR data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L17814, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030664" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL030664</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A., Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura, T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From
Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd Edn., John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 1203 pp., 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Simpson, E., Connolly, P., and McFiggans, G.: An investigation into the performance of four cloud droplet activation parameterisations, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1535–1542, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1535-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-1535-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Slingo, A.: Sensitivity of the Earth's radiation budget to changes in low
clouds, Nature, 343, 49–51, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/343049a0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/343049a0</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Snider, J. R., Guibert, S., Brenguier, J.-L., and Putaud, J.-P.: Aerosol
activation in marine stratocumulus clouds: 2. Köhler and parcel theory
closure studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8629, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002692" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002692</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sorooshian, A., Feingold, G., Lebsock, M. D., Jiang, H., and Stephens, G.
L.: Deconstructing the precipitation susceptibility construct: Improving
methodology for aerosol-cloud precipitation studies, J. Geophys.
Res., 115, D17201, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013426" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009JD013426</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stephens, G. L.: Radiation Profiles in Extended Water Clouds. I: Theory, J.
Atmos. Sci., 35, 2111–2122, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035&lt;2111:RPIEWC&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035&lt;2111:RPIEWC&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1978.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Ahlm, L., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Ji, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Kravitz, B., Lenton, A., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Schmidt, H., Watanabe, S., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Response to marine cloud brightening in a multi-model ensemble, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 621–634, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-621-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stuart, G. S., Stevens, R. G., Partanen, A.-I., Jenkins, A. K. L., Korhonen, H., Forster, P. M., Spracklen, D. V., and Pierce, J. R.: Reduced efficacy of marine cloud brightening geoengineering due to in-plume aerosol coagulation: parameterization and global implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10385–10396, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10385-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-10385-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Tang, I. N.: Chemical and size effects of hygroscopic aerosols on light
scattering coefficients, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 101, 19245–19250, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96JD03003</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Textor, C., Schulz, M., Guibert, S., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, H., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Horowitz, L., Huang, P., Isaksen, I., Iversen, I., Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: Analysis and quantification of the diversities of aerosol life cycles within AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1777–1813, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Terai, C. R., Wood, R., and Kubar, T. L.: Satellite estimates of
precipitation susceptibility in low-level marine stratiform clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 8878–8889,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023319" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023319</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Toll, V., Christensen, M., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Weak average
liquid-cloud-water response to anthropogenic aerosols, Nature, 572,
51–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1423-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41586-019-1423-9</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Trofimov, H., Bellouin, N., and Toll, V.: Large-Scale Industrial Cloud
Perturbations Confirm Bidirectional Cloud Water Responses to Anthropogenic
Aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125,
e2020JD032575, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032575" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020JD032575</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Turco, R. P. and Yu, F.: Aerosol invariance in expanding coagulating
plumes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 1223–1226, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL01092" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/97GL01092</ext-link>,
1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ.,
8, 1251–1256, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds, J.
Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1977.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, H., Rasch, P. J., and Feingold, G.: Manipulating marine stratocumulus cloud amount and albedo: a process-modelling study of aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in response t<?pagebreak page14533?>o injection of cloud condensation nuclei, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4237–4249, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4237-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-4237-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Wang, S., Wang, Q., and Feingold, G.: Turbulence, condensation, and liquid
water transport in numerically simulated nonprecipitating stratocumulus
clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 262–278, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wang, Y., Xia, W., Liu, X., Xie, S., Lin, W., Tang, Q., Ma, H.-Y., Jiang,
Y., Wang, B., and Zhang, G. J.: Disproportionate control on aerosol burden
by light rain, Nat. Geosci., 14, 72–76, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wex, H., McFiggans, G., Henning, S., and Stratmann, F.: Influence of the
external mixing state of atmospheric aerosol on derived CCN number
concentrations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L10805, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043337" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010GL043337</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wood, R.: Drizzle in Stratiform Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Vertical and
Horizontal Structure, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3011–3033, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3529.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS3529.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wood, R.: Cancellation of Aerosol Indirect Effects in Marine Stratocumulus
through Cloud Thinning, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 2657–2669,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3942.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS3942.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wood, R., Leon, D., Lebsock, M., Snider, J., and Clarke, A. D.:
Precipitation driving of droplet concentration variability in marine low
clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D19210, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018305" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012JD018305</ext-link>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zelinka, M. D., Andrews, T.,  Forster, P. M., and Taylor, K. E.: Quantifying
components of aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions in climate models, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7599–7615, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021710" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014JD021710</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zheng, G., Wang, Y., Aiken, A. C., Gallo, F., Jensen, M. P., Kollias, P., Kuang, C., Luke, E., Springston, S., Uin, J., Wood, R., and Wang, J.: Marine boundary layer aerosol in the eastern North Atlantic: seasonal variations and key controlling processes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17615–17635, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17615-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-17615-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zheng, Y., Rosenfeld, D., and Li, Z.: Quantifying cloud base updraft speeds of
marine stratocumulus from cloud top radiative cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
43, 11407–11413, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071185" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL071185</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zieger, P., Väisänen, O., Corbin, J. C., Partridge, D. G.,
Bastelberger, S., Mousavi-Fard, M., Rosati, B., Gysel, M., Krieger, U. K.,
Leck, C., Nenes, A., Riipinen, I., Virtanen, A., and Salter, M. E.:
Revising the hygroscopicity of inorganic sea salt particles, Nat. Commun., 8, 15883, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15883" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ncomms15883</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening for cooling Earth using a simple heuristic model</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>A simple heuristic model is described to assess the potential for
increasing solar reflection by augmenting the aerosol population below
marine low clouds, which nominally leads to increased cloud droplet
concentration and albedo. The model estimates the collective impact of many
point source particle sprayers, each of which generates a plume of injected
particles that affects clouds over a limited area. A look-up table derived
from simulations of an explicit aerosol activation scheme is used to derive
cloud droplet concentration as a function of the sub-cloud aerosol size
distribution and updraft speed, and a modified version of Twomey's
formulation is used to estimate radiative forcing. Plume overlap is
accounted for using a Poisson distribution, assuming idealized elongated
cuboid plumes that have a length driven by aerosol lifetime and wind speed,
a width consistent with satellite observations of ship track broadening, and a depth equal to an assumed boundary layer depth. The model is found to
perform favorably against estimates of brightening from large eddy
simulation studies that explicitly model cloud responses to aerosol
injections over a range of conditions. Although the heuristic model does not account for cloud condensate or coverage adjustments to aerosol, in most realistic ambient remote marine conditions these tend to augment the Twomey effect in the large eddy simulations, with the result being a modest
underprediction of brightening in the heuristic model.</p><p>The heuristic model is used to evaluate the potential for global radiative
forcing from marine cloud brightening as a function of the quantity, size,
and lifetime of salt particles injected per sprayer and the number of
sprayers deployed. Radiative forcing is sensitive to both the background
aerosol size distribution in the marine boundary layer into which particles
are injected and the assumed updraft speed. Given representative values
from the literature, radiative forcing sufficient to offset a doubling of
carbon dioxide Δ<i>F</i><sub>2 × CO<sub>2</sub></sub> is possible but would require spraying 50&thinsp;% or more of the ocean area. This is likely to require at least 10<sup>4</sup> sprayers to avoid major losses of particles due to near-sprayer coagulation. The optimal dry diameter of injected particles, for a given salt mass injection rate, is 30–60&thinsp;nm. A major consequence is that the total salt emission rate (50–70&thinsp;Tg&thinsp;yr<sup>−1</sup>) required to offset Δ<i>F</i><sub>2 × CO<sub>2</sub></sub> is a factor of five lower than the emissions rates required to generate significant forcing in previous studies with climate models, which have mostly assumed dry diameters for injected particles in excess of 200&thinsp;nm. With the lower required emissions, the salt mass loading in the marine boundary layer for Δ<i>F</i><sub>2 × CO<sub>2</sub></sub> is dominated by natural salt aerosol, with injected particles only contributing  ∼ &thinsp;10&thinsp;%. When using particle sizes optimized for cloud brightening, the aerosol direct radiative forcing is shown to make a minimal contribution to the overall radiative forcing.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol
activation: 2. Multiple aerosol types, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,  105, 6837–6844, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Ackerman, A. S., Toon, O. B., and Hobbs, P. V.: Numerical modeling of ship
tracks produced by injections of cloud condensation nuclei into marine
stratiform clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 100, 7121–7133, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD00026" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD00026</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Ackerman, A. S., Kirkpatrick, M. P., Stevens, D. E., and Toon, O. B.: The
impact of humidity above stratiform clouds on indirect aerosol climate
forcing, Nature, 432, 1014–1017, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03174" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03174</a>,
2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Ahlm, L., Jones, A., Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Kravitz, B., and Kristjánsson, J. E.:
Marine cloud brightening – as effective without clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13071–13087, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness,
Science, 245, 1227–1230, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4923.1227" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4923.1227</a>,
1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Alterskjær, K., Kristjánsson, J. E., and Seland, Ø.: Sensitivity to deliberate sea salt seeding of marine clouds – observations and model simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2795–2807, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2795-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2795-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Alterskjær, K. and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The sign of the radiative
forcing from marine cloud brightening depends on both particle size and
injection amount, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 210–215, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054286" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054286</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Andreae, M. O. and Rosenfeld, D.: Aerosol–cloud–precipitation
interactions. Part 1. The nature and sources of cloud-active aerosols,
Earth-Sci. Rev., 89, 13–41, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2008.03.001</a>,
2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Archer, C. L. and Jacobson,  M. Z.: Evaluation of global wind power, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, D12110,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005462" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005462</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Nemani, R., Cao, L., Ban-Weiss, G., and Shin,
H.-J.: Albedo enhancement of marine clouds to counteract global warming:
Impacts on the hydrological cycle, Clim. Dynam., 37, 915–931, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Baughman, E., Gnanadesikan, A., Degaetano, A., and Adcroft, A.:
Investigation of the Surface and Circulation Impacts of Cloud-Brightening
Geoengineering, J. Climate, 25, 7527–7543, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00282.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00282.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P.,
Watson-Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau,
A.-L., Dufresne, J.-L., Feingold, G., Fiedler, S., Forster, P., Gettelman,
A., Haywood, J. M., Lohmann, U., Malavelle, F., Mauritsen, T., …
Stevens, B.: Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change,
Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000660.
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Bender, F. A.-M., Charlson, R. J., Ekman, A. M. L., and Leahy, L. V.:
Quantification of Monthly Mean Regional-Scale Albedo of Marine Stratiform
Clouds in Satellite Observations and GCMs, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 50, 2139–2148, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-049.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-11-049.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Bennartz, R.: Global assessment of marine boundary layer cloud droplet
number concentration from satellite,
J. Geophys. Res., 112, D02201, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007547" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007547</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Berner, A. H., Bretherton, C. S., and Wood, R.: Large eddy simulation of ship tracks in the collapsed marine boundary layer: a case study from the Monterey area ship track experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5851–5871, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5851-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5851-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Bohren, C. F. and Huffman, D. R.: Absorption and scattering of light by small particles, Wiley, New York, 544 pp., 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Bretherton, C. S., Blossey, P. N., and Uchida, J.: Cloud droplet
sedimentation, entrainment efficiency, and subtropical stratocumulus albedo.
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L03813, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027648" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027648</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Bretherton, C. S., Wood, R., George, R. C., Leon, D., Allen, G., and Zheng, X.: Southeast Pacific stratocumulus clouds, precipitation and boundary layer structure sampled along 20°&thinsp;S during VOCALS-REx, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 10639–10654, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10639-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-10639-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Capaldo, K., Corbett, J. J., Kasibhatla, P., Fischbeck, P., and Pandis, S.
N.: Effects of ship emissions on sulphur cycling and radiative climate
forcing over the ocean, Nature, 400, 743–746, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/23438" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/23438</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Carslaw, K. S., Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Rap, A.,
Forster, P. M., Mann, G. W., Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Regayre, L.
A., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to
uncertainty in indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 67–71, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Chosson, F., Paoli, R., and Cuenot, B.: Ship plume dispersion rates in convective boundary layers for chemistry models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 4841–4853, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-4841-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-4841-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Chun, J.-Y., Wood, R., Blossey, P., and Wyant, M.: Large eddy simulations of salt
tracks in shallow marine boundary layers: sensitivity to injected particle
size, in preparation, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Coakley, J. A., Bernstein, R. L., and Durkee, P. A.: Effect of
Ship-Stack Effluents on Cloud Reflectivity, Science, 237, 1020–1022, 1987.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Coakley Jr., J. A. and Walsh, C. D.: Limits to the aerosol indirect
radiative effect derived from observations of ship tracks, J. Atmos. Sci.,
59, 668–680, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Connolly, P. J., McFiggans, G. B., Wood, R., and Tsiamis, A.: Factors
determining the most efficient spray distribution for marine cloud
brightening, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20140056, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0056" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0056</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Conover, J. H.: Anomalous Cloud Lines, J. Atmos. Sci., 23,
778–785, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1966)023&lt;0778:ACL&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1966)023&lt;0778:ACL&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1966.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Cooper, G., Foster, J., Galbraith, L., Jain, S., Neukermans, A., and Ormond, B.:
Preliminary results for salt aerosol production
intended for marine cloud brightening, using effervescent spray atomization, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20140055, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0055" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0055</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Diamond, M. S., Director, H. M., Eastman, R., Possner, A., and Wood, R.:
Substantial Cloud Brightening from Shipping in Subtropical Low Clouds, AGU
Advances, 1, e2019AV000111, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000111" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000111</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Doelling, D. R., Loeb, N. G., Keyes, D. F., Nordeen, M. L., Morstad, D.,
Nguyen, C., Wielicki, B. A., Young, D. F., and Sun, M.: Geostationary Enhanced Temporal
Interpolation for CERES Flux Products, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 30, 1072–1090, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00136.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00136.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Durkee, P. A., Chartier, R. E., Brown, A., Trehubenko, E. J., Rogerson, S.
D., Skupniewicz, C., Nielsen, K. E., Platnick, S., and King, M. D.:
Composite ship track characteristics, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2542–2553, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Eyring, V., Isaksen, I. S. A., Berntsen, T., Collins, W. J., Corbett, J. J.,
Endresen, O., Grainger, R. G., Moldanova, J., Schlager, H., and Stevenson,
D. S.: Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping, Atmos. Environ., 44,
4735–4771, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.04.059</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Feingold, G., Cotton, W. R., Kreidenweis, S. M., and Davis, J. T.:
The impact of giant cloud condensation nuclei on drizzle formation in
stratocumulus: Implications for cloud radiative properties, J. Atmos. Sci., 56,
4100–4117, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Ghan, S. J., Guzman, G., and Abdul-Razzak, H.: Competition between sea salt
and sulfate particles as cloud condensation nuclei, J. Atmos. Sci., 55, 3340–3347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;3340:CBSSAS&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1998)055&lt;3340:CBSSAS&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Ghan, S. J., Abdul-Razzak, H., Nenes, A., Ming, Y., Liu, X., Ovchinnikov,
M., Shipway, B., Meskhidze, N., Xu, J., and Shi, X.: Droplet nucleation:
Physically-based parameterizations and comparative evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 3, M10001,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000074" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011MS000074</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Glassmeier, F., Hoffmann, F., Johnson, J. S., Yamaguchi, T., Carslaw, K. S.,
and Feingold, G.: Aerosol-cloud-climate cooling overestimated by ship-track
data, Science, 371, 485–489, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3980" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd3980</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Gryspeerdt, E., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Constraining the aerosol
influence on cloud fraction, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 3566–3583,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023744" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023744</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., and Smith, T. W. P.: Observing the timescales of aerosol–cloud interactions in snapshot satellite images, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6093–6109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6093-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6093-2021</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Grythe, H., Ström, J., Krejci, R., Quinn, P., and Stohl, A.: A review of sea-spray aerosol source functions using a large global set of sea salt aerosol concentration measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 1277–1297, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-1277-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Hahn, C. J. and Warren, S. G.:  A Gridded Climatology of Clouds over Land (1971–1996) and Ocean (1954–2008) from Surface Observations Worldwide, Numeric Data Package NDP-026E, 2007 (updated 2009), CDIAC, Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, available at: <a href="https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/epubs/ndp/ndp026e/ndp026e.html" target="_blank"/> (last access: 30 September 2021),  2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Hartmann, D. L. and Short, D. A.: On the Use of Earth Radiation Budget
Statistics for Studies of Clouds and Climate, J. Atmos. Sci., 37,
1233–1250, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;1233:OTUOER&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1980)037&lt;1233:OTUOER&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Heffter, J. L.: The Variation of Horizontal Diffusion Parameters with Time
for Travel Periods of One Hour or Longer, J. Appl. Meteorol., 4, 153–156, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1965)004&lt;0153:TVOHDP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1965)004&lt;0153:TVOHDP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1965.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Heintzenberg, J., Covert, D. C., and Van Dingenen, R.: Size distribution
and chemical composition of marine aerosols: A compilation and review,
Tellus B, 52, 1104–1122, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Hindman, E. E., Porch, W. M., Hudson, J. G., and Durkee, P. A.:
Ship-produced cloud lines of 13 July 1991, Atmos. Environ., 28, 3393–3403, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)00171-G" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/1352-2310(94)00171-G</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Hobbs, P. V., Garrett, T. J., Ferek, R. J., Strader, S. R., Hegg, D. A., Frick, G. M., Hoppel, W. A., Gasparovic, R. F., Russell, L. M., Johnson, D. W., O'Dowd, C., Durkee, P. A., Nielsen, K. E., and Innis, G.: Emissions from ships with respect to their effects on
clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 57, 2570–2590, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Hoffmann, F. and Feingold, G.: Cloud Microphysical Implications for Marine
Cloud Brightening: The Importance of the Seeded Particle Size
Distribution, J. Atmos. Sci., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0077.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-21-0077.1</a>, online first,
2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Horowitz, H. M., Holmes, C., Wright, A., Sherwen, T., Wang, X., Evans, M.,
Huang, J., Jaeglé, L., Chen, Q., Zhai, S., and Alexander, B.: Effects
of Sea Salt Aerosol Emissions for Marine Cloud Brightening on Atmospheric
Chemistry: Implications for Radiative Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085838, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085838" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085838</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Isaksen, I. S. A., Granier, C., Myhre, G., Berntsen, T. K., Dalsøren, S.
B., Gauss, M., Klimont, Z., Benestad, R., Bousquet, P., Collins, W., Cox,
T., Eyring, V., Fowler, D., Fuzzi, S., Jöckel, P., Laj, P., Lohmann, U.,
Maione, M., Monks, P., Prevot, A. S. H., Raes, F., Richter, A., Rognerud, B., Schulz, M., Shindell, D., Stevenson, D. S., Storelvmo, T., Wang, W.-C., van Weele, M., Wild, M., and Wuebbles, D.: Atmospheric composition
change: Climate–Chemistry interactions, Atmos. Environ., 43,
5138–5192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.08.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.08.003</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Jaeglé, L., Quinn, P. K., Bates, T. S., Alexander, B., and Lin, J.-T.: Global distribution of sea salt aerosols: new constraints from in situ and remote sensing observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 3137–3157, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3137-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-3137-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Jenkins, A. K. L., Forster, P. M., and Jackson, L. S.: The effects of timing and rate of marine cloud brightening aerosol injection on albedo changes during the diurnal cycle of marine stratocumulus clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1659–1673, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1659-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1659-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Climate impacts of geoengineering
marine stratocumulus clouds, J. Geophys.
Res., 114, D10106, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Klug, W.: A method for determining diffusion conditions from synoptic
observations, Staub-Reinhalt. Luft, 29, 14–20, 1969.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Latham, J.: Control of global warming?, Nature, 347, 339–340, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/347339b0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/347339b0</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Latham, J., Rasch, P., Chen, C.-C., Kettles, L., Gadian, A., Gettelman, A.,
Morrison, H., Bower, K., and Choularton, T.: Global Temperature Stabilization via
Controlled Albedo Enhancement of Low-Level Maritime Clouds, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 366, 1882,
3969–3987, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0137" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0137</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Latham, J., Bower, K., Choularton, T., Coe, H., Connolly, P., Cooper, G., Craft, T., Foster, J., Gadian, A., Galbraith, L., Iacovides, H., Johnston, D., Launder, B., Leslie, B., Meyer, J., Neukermans, A., Ormond, B., Parkes, B., Rasch, P., Rush, J., Salter, S., Stevenson, T., Wang, H., Wang, Q., and Wood, R.: Marine cloud brightening, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 370, 4217–4262, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Lauer, A., Eyring, V., Hendricks, J., Jöckel, P., and Lohmann, U.: Global model simulations of the impact of ocean-going ships on aerosols, clouds, and the radiation budget, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5061–5079, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5061-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Malavelle, F. F., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Gettelman, A., Clarisse, L.,
Bauduin, S., Allan, R. P., Karset, I. H. H., Kristjánsson, J. E.,
Oreopoulos, L., Cho, N., Lee, D., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Grosvenor, D.
P., Carslaw, K. S., Dhomse, S., Mann, G. W., Schmidt, A., Coe, H., Hartley, M. E., Dalvi, M., Hill, A. A., Johnson, B. T., Johnson, C. E., Knight, J. R., O'Connor, F. M., Partridge, D. G., Stier, P., Myhre, G., Platnick, S., Stephens, G. L., Takahashi, H., and
Thordarson, T.: Strong constraints on aerosol–cloud interactions from
volcanic eruptions, Nature, 546, 485–491,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22974" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22974</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
McFiggans, G., Artaxo, P., Baltensperger, U., Coe, H., Facchini, M. C., Feingold, G., Fuzzi, S., Gysel, M., Laaksonen, A., Lohmann, U., Mentel, T. F., Murphy, D. M., O'Dowd, C. D., Snider, J. R., and Weingartner, E.: The effect of physical and chemical aerosol properties on warm cloud droplet activation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 2593–2649, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-2593-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-2593-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
National Research Council: Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/18988" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.17226/18988</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Nicholls, S. and Leighton, J.: An observational study of the structure of
stratiform cloud sheets: Part I. Structure, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 112, 431–460, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Partanen, A.-I., Kokkola, H., Romakkaniemi, S., Kerminen, V.-M., Lehtinen,
K. E. J., Bergman, T., Arola, A., and Korhonen, H.: Direct and indirect
effects of sea spray geoengineering and the role of injected particle size, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D02203, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016428" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016428</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Partanen, A. I., Laakso, A., Schmidt, A., Kokkola, H., Kuokkanen, T., Pietikäinen, J.-P., Kerminen, V.-M., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Laakso, L., and Korhonen, H.: Climate and air quality trade-offs in altering ship fuel sulfur content, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12059–12071, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Peters, K., Stier, P., Quaas, J., and Graßl, H.: Aerosol indirect effects from shipping emissions: sensitivity studies with the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAM, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 5985–6007, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5985-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-5985-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Petters, M. D. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1961–1971, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Platnick, S. and Twomey, S.: Determining the Susceptibility of Cloud
Albedo to Changes in Droplet Concentration with the Advanced Very High
Resolution Radiometer, J. Appl. Meteorol., 33, 334–347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033&lt;0334:DTSOCA&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1994)033&lt;0334:DTSOCA&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Possner, A., Wang, H., Wood, R., Caldeira, K., and Ackerman, T. P.: The efficacy of aerosol–cloud radiative perturbations from near-surface emissions in deep open-cell stratocumuli, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17475–17488, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17475-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17475-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Possner, A., Eastman, R., Bender, F., and Glassmeier, F.: Deconvolution of boundary layer depth and aerosol constraints on cloud water path in subtropical stratocumulus decks, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 3609–3621, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-3609-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-3609-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Pringle, K. J., Tost, H., Pozzer, A., Pöschl, U., and Lelieveld, J.: Global distribution of the effective aerosol hygroscopicity parameter for CCN activation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5241–5255, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5241-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Ramanathan, V., Cess, R. D., Harrison, E. F., Minnis, P., Barkstrom, B. R.,
Ahmad, E., and Hartmann, D.: Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results
from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, Science, 243, 57–63,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.243.4887.57" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.243.4887.57</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Rasch, P. J., Latham, J., and Chen, C.-C.: Geoengineering by Cloud Seeding:
Influence on Sea Ice and Climate System, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045112, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Salter, S., Sortino G., and Latham, J.: Sea-going hardware for the cloud
albedo method of reversing global warming, Philos.
T. R. Soc. A, 366, 2989–4006, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Schreier, M., Mannstein, H., Eyring, V., and Bovensmann, H.: Global ship
track distribution and radiative forcing from 1 year of AATSR data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L17814, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030664" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030664</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Schulz, M., Textor, C., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Dentener, F., Guibert, S., Isaksen, I. S. A., Iversen, T., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., and Takemura, T.: Radiative forcing by aerosols as derived from the AeroCom present-day and pre-industrial simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 5225–5246, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-5225-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From
Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd Edn., John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 1203 pp., 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Simpson, E., Connolly, P., and McFiggans, G.: An investigation into the performance of four cloud droplet activation parameterisations, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1535–1542, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1535-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1535-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Slingo, A.: Sensitivity of the Earth's radiation budget to changes in low
clouds, Nature, 343, 49–51, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/343049a0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/343049a0</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Snider, J. R., Guibert, S., Brenguier, J.-L., and Putaud, J.-P.: Aerosol
activation in marine stratocumulus clouds: 2. Köhler and parcel theory
closure studies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 108, 8629, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002692" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002692</a>,
2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Sorooshian, A., Feingold, G., Lebsock, M. D., Jiang, H., and Stephens, G.
L.: Deconstructing the precipitation susceptibility construct: Improving
methodology for aerosol-cloud precipitation studies, J. Geophys.
Res., 115, D17201, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013426" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013426</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Stephens, G. L.: Radiation Profiles in Extended Water Clouds. I: Theory, J.
Atmos. Sci., 35, 2111–2122, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035&lt;2111:RPIEWC&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1978)035&lt;2111:RPIEWC&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1978.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Ahlm, L., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Ji, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Kravitz, B., Lenton, A., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Schmidt, H., Watanabe, S., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Response to marine cloud brightening in a multi-model ensemble, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 621–634, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Stuart, G. S., Stevens, R. G., Partanen, A.-I., Jenkins, A. K. L., Korhonen, H., Forster, P. M., Spracklen, D. V., and Pierce, J. R.: Reduced efficacy of marine cloud brightening geoengineering due to in-plume aerosol coagulation: parameterization and global implications, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10385–10396, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10385-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10385-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Tang, I. N.: Chemical and size effects of hygroscopic aerosols on light
scattering coefficients, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 101, 19245–19250, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03003</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Textor, C., Schulz, M., Guibert, S., Kinne, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, H., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Horowitz, L., Huang, P., Isaksen, I., Iversen, I., Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kirkevåg, A., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Liu, X., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, Ø., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: Analysis and quantification of the diversities of aerosol life cycles within AeroCom, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1777–1813, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1777-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Terai, C. R., Wood, R., and Kubar, T. L.: Satellite estimates of
precipitation susceptibility in low-level marine stratiform clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 8878–8889,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023319" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023319</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Toll, V., Christensen, M., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Weak average
liquid-cloud-water response to anthropogenic aerosols, Nature, 572,
51–55, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1423-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1423-9</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Trofimov, H., Bellouin, N., and Toll, V.: Large-Scale Industrial Cloud
Perturbations Confirm Bidirectional Cloud Water Responses to Anthropogenic
Aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125,
e2020JD032575, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032575" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD032575</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Turco, R. P. and Yu, F.: Aerosol invariance in expanding coagulating
plumes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24, 1223–1226, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL01092" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL01092</a>,
1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ.,
8, 1251–1256, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds, J.
Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034&lt;1149:TIOPOT&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1977.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, H., Rasch, P. J., and Feingold, G.: Manipulating marine stratocumulus cloud amount and albedo: a process-modelling study of aerosol-cloud-precipitation interactions in response to injection of cloud condensation nuclei, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 4237–4249, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4237-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-4237-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, S., Wang, Q., and Feingold, G.: Turbulence, condensation, and liquid
water transport in numerically simulated nonprecipitating stratocumulus
clouds, J. Atmos. Sci., 60, 262–278, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, Y., Xia, W., Liu, X., Xie, S., Lin, W., Tang, Q., Ma, H.-Y., Jiang,
Y., Wang, B., and Zhang, G. J.: Disproportionate control on aerosol burden
by light rain, Nat. Geosci., 14, 72–76, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00675-z</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>
Wex, H., McFiggans, G., Henning, S., and Stratmann, F.: Influence of the
external mixing state of atmospheric aerosol on derived CCN number
concentrations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L10805, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043337" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043337</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R.: Drizzle in Stratiform Boundary Layer Clouds. Part I: Vertical and
Horizontal Structure, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 3011–3033, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3529.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3529.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R.: Cancellation of Aerosol Indirect Effects in Marine Stratocumulus
through Cloud Thinning, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 2657–2669,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3942.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS3942.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R., Leon, D., Lebsock, M., Snider, J., and Clarke, A. D.:
Precipitation driving of droplet concentration variability in marine low
clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 117, D19210, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018305" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018305</a>, 2012.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Zelinka, M. D., Andrews, T.,  Forster, P. M., and Taylor, K. E.: Quantifying
components of aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions in climate models, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7599–7615, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021710" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021710</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, G., Wang, Y., Aiken, A. C., Gallo, F., Jensen, M. P., Kollias, P., Kuang, C., Luke, E., Springston, S., Uin, J., Wood, R., and Wang, J.: Marine boundary layer aerosol in the eastern North Atlantic: seasonal variations and key controlling processes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17615–17635, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17615-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17615-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, Y., Rosenfeld, D., and Li, Z.: Quantifying cloud base updraft speeds of
marine stratocumulus from cloud top radiative cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
43, 11407–11413, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071185" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071185</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>
Zieger, P., Väisänen, O., Corbin, J. C., Partridge, D. G.,
Bastelberger, S., Mousavi-Fard, M., Rosati, B., Gysel, M., Krieger, U. K.,
Leck, C., Nenes, A., Riipinen, I., Virtanen, A., and Salter, M. E.:
Revising the hygroscopicity of inorganic sea salt particles, Nat. Commun., 8, 15883, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15883" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15883</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
