<?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"><?xmltex \bartext{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-22-8457-2022</article-id><title-group><article-title>Impact of Holuhraun volcano aerosols on clouds in cloud-system-resolving simulations</article-title><alt-title>Impact of Holuhraun volcano aerosols on clouds​​​​​​​</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Impact of Holuhraun volcano aerosols on clouds​​​​​​​}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. Haghighatnasab et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name><surname>Haghighatnasab</surname><given-names>Mahnoosh</given-names></name>
          <email>mahnoosh.haghighatnasab@uni-leipzig.de</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Kretzschmar</surname><given-names>Jan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8013-5831</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Block</surname><given-names>Karoline</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4458-2327</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Quaas</surname><given-names>Johannes</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7057-194X</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Institute for Meteorology, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Mahnoosh Haghighatnasab (mahnoosh.haghighatnasab@uni-leipzig.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>4</day><month>July</month><year>2022</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>13</issue>
      <fpage>8457</fpage><lpage>8472</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>14</day><month>January</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>24</day><month>January</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>16</day><month>May</month><year>2022</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>4</day><month>June</month><year>2022</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2022 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2022</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="d1e106">Increased anthropogenic aerosols result in an enhancement in cloud droplet number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" 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>), which consequently modifies the cloud and precipitation process. It is unclear how exactly the cloud liquid water path (LWP) and cloud fraction respond to aerosol perturbations. A volcanic eruption may help to better understand and quantify the cloud response to external perturbations, with a focus on the short-term cloud adjustments. The goal of the present study is to understand and quantify the response of clouds to a selected volcanic eruption and to thereby advance the fundamental understanding of the cloud response to external forcing. In this study we used the ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) model in its numerical weather prediction setup at a cloud-system-resolving resolution of 2.5 km horizontally, to simulate the region around the Holuhraun volcano for 1 week (1–7 September 2014). A pair of simulations, with and without the volcanic aerosol plume, allowed us to assess the simulated effective radiative forcing and its mechanisms, as well as its impact on adjustments of LWP and cloud fraction to the perturbations of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" 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 comparison to MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite retrievals, a clear enhancement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" 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> due to the volcanic aerosol is detected and attributed. In contrast, no changes in either LWP or cloud fraction could be attributed. The on average almost unchanged LWP is a result of some LWP enhancement for thick clouds and a decrease for thin clouds.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e151">Volcanic eruptions influence the climate by emitting large quantities of solid particles (ash) and gaseous compounds into the atmosphere <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.1"/>. Ash particles block sunlight and, therefore, decrease solar radiation reaching the surface. This leads to a cooling, even if the ash settles down relatively fast due to gravity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47" id="paren.2"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e160">The gas emissions mainly include water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur components (mainly sulfur dioxide, SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), and nitrogen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.3"/>. Chemical processes convert SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> to sulfuric acid (H<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>; sulfate aerosol) in the troposphere at relatively short time spans of few days, while in the stratosphere, the conversion can take weeks to months <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx49" id="paren.4"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e206">Sulfate aerosols, injected from a large volcanic eruption, modify the Earth's radiative budget directly by scattering sunlight and indirectly via interaction with clouds <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="paren.5"/>. The latter is the focus of the present paper. A large volcanic eruption as a natural laboratory may help to better understand and quantify how cloud properties are modified in response to anthropogenic aerosol emissions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23 bib1.bibx9" id="paren.6"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e215">Imposed effective radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions in warm clouds can be separated into the Twomey effect <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.7"/> and cloud adjustments to radiative forcing <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.8"/>. An enhancement in cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations lead to an increase in cloud droplet number concentration (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" 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>), resulting in a smaller effective radius (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" 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>) if the cloud liquid water path (LWP) is constant. Consequently, scattering cross section and the cloud albedo are enhanced, causing clouds to reflect more sunlight back to space, which is known as the Twomey effect <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx63" id="paren.9"/>. Anthropogenic aerosols modify cloud particle size distributions, which reduces the efficiency of collision–coalescence processes, leading to a delay in precipitation onset consequently enhancing cloud lifetime <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx3" id="paren.10"/>. This infers on average an enhancement in cloud fraction and LWP <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42 bib1.bibx18" id="paren.11"/>. These longer-lived clouds reflect more sunlight back to space and cool the atmosphere and surface even more, which is known as the lifetime effect <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx66" id="paren.12"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e260">Along with the aforementioned effects, there is a large variety of processes that partially offset these effects on clouds, such as a reduced maximum supersaturation if more droplets compete for the available water vapor <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx62" id="paren.13"/>, a larger evaporation rate of smaller droplets <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx56" id="paren.14"/>, increased droplet spectrum dispersion <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7 bib1.bibx34" id="paren.15"/>, or enhanced evaporation due to cloud-top mixing <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2 bib1.bibx18" id="paren.16"/>. Because the different effects oppose each other, the overall changes in the effective radiative forcing could be minor on larger scales <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx25 bib1.bibx57" id="paren.17"/>. In this study, the responses of clouds to aerosols emitted in the Holuhraun volcano eruption were examined. The Holuhraun eruption was the strongest in Europe since the 18th century and emitted substantial amounts of sulfate aerosol <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.18"/>. This natural phenomenon triggered a large effort to investigate the impact of this large aerosol perturbation on cloud properties. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="paren.19"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e285"><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.20"/> found a significant reduction in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" 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 satellite data but only insignificant alterations of LWP. They further concluded that several general circulation models overemphasize LWP increase in response to the additional aerosol. However, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="text.21"/> did find an increase in LWP when carefully conditioning on moisture convergence. In addition, ambiguous results, with LWP responses of either sign, were obtained by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx61" id="text.22"/> when analyzing multiple volcanic eruptions.
Several cloud-resolving modeling studies on the sensitivity of LWP to variation in cloud droplet number concentration have been conducted.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8" id="text.23"/> examined the effect of entertainment and sedimentation rate on LWP in stratocumulus cloud regimes using large-eddy simulation (LES).
Their results explained the process details of the conclusions by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="text.24"/>, namely that sedimentation leads to a decrease in entrainment rates and an increase in LWP.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx55" id="text.25"/> conducted a set of LES simulations over fair weather cumulus cloud regimes over the subtropical ocean. They concluded that in this cloud regime, the response of LWP to enhancing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" 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> was almost negligible in equilibrium and slight reduction in cloud cover was obtained, leading to a negative cloud lifetime effect, compensating for the positive radiative forcing of the Twomey effect. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32" id="text.26"/> performed LES simulations of two different cloud regimes of marine stratocumulus and trade wind cumulus clouds. They showed different relationships between the relative LWP response to the relative change in aerosol concentration <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a term they called <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the precipitation probability susceptibility (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">POP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). For the trade wind cumulus clouds regime, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases with enhancement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">POP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> because of the entrainment and evaporation rate effect in cumulus clouds. In stratocumulus clouds, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">POP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in contrast, were positively related. In this case, aerosol-induced evaporation–entrainment and/or sedimentation–entrainment effects further restricted the increase in LWP in their simulations. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx52" id="text.27"/> conducted a 1-year global cloud-resolving simulation to examine the sensitivity of liquid water content (LWC) to aerosol loading. They demonstrated that in their model, the condensation process in the lower part of clouds is associated with a positive LWC response and the evaporation process in the upper part of clouds is responsible for a negative response to additional aerosol loading.
Following these previous studies, we chose the Holuhraun eruption to investigate the response of LWP, cloud fraction, and its corresponding radiative effect in response to additional CCN in the emission plume of the volcano, employing simulations at cloud-resolving resolution and comparing them to satellite observations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Model and data</title>
      <p id="d1e408">The present study focuses on a detection and attribution approach, using cloud-resolving simulations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx58" id="paren.28"><named-content content-type="pre">kilometer-scale resolution,</named-content></xref> in combination with the analysis of satellite data.
A pair of simulations over the North Atlantic Ocean around the Holuhraun volcano in Iceland was employed (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>). The model used is the ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx68" id="paren.29"><named-content content-type="pre">ICON,</named-content></xref>. The ICON model is developed by a collaboration between the German Meteorological Service and the Max Plank Institute for Meteorology <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.30"/>. It can be used as a global simulation on the climate scale <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15" id="paren.31"/> to high-resolution large-eddy simulations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.32"/>. Here, the physics package of the numerical weather prediction (NWP) variant is used (ICON-NWP). The resolution corresponds to approximately 2.5 km in the horizontal (R2B10 triangular grid). Vertically, 75 layers with a top height at 30 km were chosen. The vertical resolution increases towards the model top with a model layer thickness of 20 m in the boundary layer and a maximum layer thickens of 400 m near the model top.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e435">Domain of the ICON-NWP simulations over the North Atlantic Ocean (50–80<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) which included the Holuhraun volcano in Iceland that erupted in September 2014. The model resolution is approximately 2.5 km in the horizontal (R2B10 triangular grid). Red dot indicates location of Holuhraun volcano. Blue color indicates the ocean and color bar indicates the elevation of land above sea surface (in m) in the ICON-NWP model.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=312.980315pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e471">The physics package of ICON-NWP includes a comprehensive double-moment cloud liquid and ice microphysical scheme <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx53" id="paren.33"/>. Because of using a rather fine resolution, deep convection is considered to be resolved, whereas, for shallow convection, the parameterization scheme by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60" id="text.34"/> with modifications by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="text.35"/> was used. A grid-scale cloud cover scheme was employed in simulations. In this scheme, if the sum of specific cloud water content and specific cloud ice content is larger than a certain threshold, the cloud fraction is set to 1; otherwise, it is set to 0, and the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx60" id="text.36"/> shallow-convection scheme contributes to the computation of specific cloud water and ice content. To achieve a more realistic representation of the Twomey effect, we furthermore coupled the hydrometeor number concentrations from the double-moment microphysical scheme to the radiation scheme as proposed in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.37"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e490">Initial and boundary conditions were derived from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast (ECMWF) Integrated Forecasting System (IFS) operational analysis. Variables such as temperature, wind, geopotential, humidity and hydrometeors were used in initial and boundary conditions. The 2014 Holuhraun eruption was a fissure eruption that started on 20 August 2014 and ended on 25 February 2015. By 7 September 2014, the lava field had extended more than 11 km to the north <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28" id="paren.38"/>. We choose the period from 1 to 7 September 2014 for our analysis because the lava field had developed sufficiently in this period and substantial amounts of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> had been emitted into the atmosphere, while, at the same time, a well-defined plume was observable. The first 9 h of the simulations were excluded from analyses so that the spin-up effect is sufficiently small in our simulations.
An additional feature in simulations that must be mentioned is the implementation of a satellite simulator into the model. Satellites are essential tools to assess the character of clouds due to their global coverage and availability <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.39"/>. Differences between model simulations and satellite retrievals stem in part from a different definition of the respective quantities that are compared. Therefore, one approach to reduce inconstancy between model simulations and satellite retrievals is to use satellite simulators in models to mimic the observational processes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48" id="paren.40"/>. The COSP satellite simulator <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.41"/> is an open-source work package developed by CFMIP (Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project) to replicate active and passive satellite data using variables from the model as input <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx64" id="paren.42"/>. In this study, only the satellite simulator for MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) observations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.43"/> was used. The COSP simulator uses several model variables as input such as temperature, pressure, cloud fraction, and cloud water content <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.44"/> to generate what the MODIS retrievals would capture given the simulated clouds fields <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="paren.45"/>.
In addition to the abovementioned variables, the effective radius of liquid cloud droplets and ice crystals is regarded as the MODIS simulator's input. The effective radius of cloud droplets and ice crystals was calculated from parameters derived from the size distribution function of the hydrometeor in the two-moment microphysic scheme. The satellite simulator has previously been implemented and used in ICON-NWP by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.46"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e530">In the cloud-resolving simulation (each grid box is either fully cloudy or clear), the use of sub-grid variability, one of the features of COSP for application in general circulation models, was not necessary. In order to evaluate COSP related variables in our simulations, the collection 6.1 Level-2 MODIS-Aqua optical and physical cloud data product was used <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="paren.47"/>; therefore, swaths with 1 km spatial resolution for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" 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>, cloud optical thickness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and LWP along with a cloud fraction with a 5 km spatial resolution were used and remapped to the model resolution to have an accurate comparison. To remap the MODIS granule to a latitude–longitude grid, for each specific point the mean value of each variable in each swath is computed. It should be mentioned that even when using a satellite simulator there is an uncertainty between the definition of LWP in the simulation and MODIS observations because the bulk microphysic scheme has a gap in the size distribution between cloud droplets and rain that is not necessarily the same as in the visible/near-infrared retrievals by MODIS. To a lesser extent, this issue may also affect the computation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" 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>.
Furthermore, the planetary albedo at the top of the atmosphere is analyzed as retrieved by the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument on board the Aqua satellite <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59 bib1.bibx35" id="paren.48"/>.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>CCN activation</title>
      <p id="d1e579">The ICON-NWP version applied in this study does not contain an interactive aerosol model; therefore, in this section, we discuss how CCN are activated into clouds droplets in the default model setup and afterwards we introduce a new method for CCN activation in the microphysical scheme which has been developed specifically for this study. In the default setup of ICON, CCN activation uses a parameterization that employs a functional dependency of grid-scale vertical velocity and pressure to derive the number of newly activated CCN <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.49"/>.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="text.50"/> performed model simulations that considered a multi-modal interactive aerosol scheme to provide information on the formation and transport of aerosols in Europe and, by using the parameterization of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx1" id="text.51"><named-content content-type="post">ARG</named-content></xref>, derived CCN number concentrations for different vertical velocities for a selected date (30 April 2013).
This parameterization thus assumes a temporally and spatially constant profile of CCN which is representative of CCN background over Europe. For that reason, this parameterization alone cannot provide information about CCN concentration within a plume of volcanic aerosol.</p>
      <p id="d1e593">In order to more accurately represent the aerosol plume, we use look-up tables that contain the number of activated CCN as a function of pressure <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and vertical velocity <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as input for the ICON simulation. The number of activated CCN is interpolated from these look-up tables considering the values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in each grid-box within the cloud microphysical scheme. This method had been developed for the ICON model in its large-eddy setup <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.52"/> and has been implemented into ICON-NWP for our study. While dedicated interactive aerosol simulations were performed to create the look-up tables in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="text.53"/>, we use the Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) reanalysis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx24" id="paren.54"/> to obtain the information about the spatial–temporal distribution of the aerosol mass mixing ratio by aerosol species. The CAMS reanalysis provides aerosol mass mixing ratios at 60 hybrid sigma/pressure levels up to 0.1 hPa, and covers the 2003 to 2020 period. Using the aerosol mass mixing ratio from the CAMS reanalysis, along with using the ARG parametrization, which calculates the number of activated aerosols employing the Köhler theory <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx27" id="paren.55"/>, we created look-up tables of activated CCN for our simulation.</p>
      <p id="d1e637">In our study, the ARG parameterization is employed offline, by running a box model setup and using the aerosol mass mixing ratio from the CAMS reanalyses as input for various vertical velocities. The ARG parameterization has been used in microphysical schemes at a wide range of resolutions before, ranging from global climate models to cloud-resolving models <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx14 bib1.bibx65 bib1.bibx36 bib1.bibx16" id="paren.56"/>. The ARG parameterization is based on the competition between aerosol particles for available water vapor, which depends on aerosol particle composition, size distribution, and most importantly the supersaturation forcing rate obtained by the updraft. We evaluate supersaturation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" 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>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 10 specific values of vertical velocity used in the look-up tables <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.57"><named-content content-type="pre">see</named-content></xref>. After calculating <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the critical radius of activation for each aerosol mode is obtained in the box model. When the supersaturation for each aerosol mode is smaller than maximum supersaturation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the environment has gained the needed supersaturation to activate the particles. Using this approach, an observations-tied spatially–temporally varying input number concentration of activated CCN for 10 prescribed vertical velocity classes was produced. In the CAMS reanalyses data, the aerosols emitted from the Holuhraun volcano are not represented. Firstly, in the emission source model of CAMS, no volcanic
emissions are considered so that the plume is not included in the forward model simulation. Secondly, the plume is also not constrained by the data assimilation. CAMS assimilates MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrievals (Levy et al., 2013), but due to the presence of extensive clouds in the region of interest, MODIS was not able to capture sufficient information about AOD. Therefore, the CAMS data were used to obtain background spatial and temporal aerosol concentration, and in order to implement aerosol concentrations inside the plume, the sulfate aerosol concentration in CAMS was scaled based on the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emission monitored by Ozone Mapping and Profile Suite (OMPS) satellite retrievals, which will be explained in more detail in the next section <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.58"/>.
The approach used in this study does not use interactive aerosol physics, which would simulate the evolution of aerosol field by transport and transformation. However, an important buffering mechanism, namely the consumption of CCN by activation, is considered in this study <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="paren.59"/>. So the CCN are depleted when they are activated and thereafter are relaxed back to their initial profile. This is implemented by a simple prognostic equation for the CCN concentration that considers a sink for CCN at droplet activation and a source by relaxation to the prescribed CCN profile; advection is not computed. It should also be noted that there is an important advantage of our method compared to a fully interactive aerosol scheme, which is that the location of the plume is derived from observations and therefore is in the same region as in satellite retrievals. This allowed us to analyze inside and outside the plume in simulations and satellite products with confidence.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>The volcanic-aerosol plume in the model simulations</title>
      <p id="d1e722">Lava flows and emitted gases from volcanic eruptions are the most common features that can be monitored remotely globally and at different timescales. SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is one of the most common gases emitted from volcanic eruptions and can be retrieved by spaced-based sensors <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.60"/>. In this study, the OMPS data product (Level 2) for SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> was used.
This data set provides information about vertically integrated SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (in Dobson units, DU). The SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> retrievals for 1 to 7 September 2014 for the lower troposphere are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e769">Total vertical column  amount of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> associated with the ground pixel retrieved using a prescribed SO<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> profile centered at 3 km (in Dobson units) from 1 to 7 September 2014 obtained from OMPS <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.61"/> satellite retrievals. No data are available for 6 September 2014.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e799">The SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> plume was detected on 1 September shortly after the beginning of the eruption and evolved over time mostly eastwards, towards Scandinavia. Former studies compared OMPS satellite retrievals with surface observations for the Holuhraun eruption and showed that satellite retrievals are able to detect the spatial and temporal evolution of the volcanic plume <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.62"/>.
In this study, we performed two simulations over the domain shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>: one with background aerosol concentrations only, which is referred to as the no-volcano simulation, and one with scaling the sulfate concentrations in the CAMS reanalysis data within the plume as defined by the OMPS satellite retrievals, referred to as the volcano simulation in this article. As shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>, grid points with SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in the lower troposphere exceeding  1 DU are considered to constitute the plume. For these grid points, a scale factor field was computed by dividing the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations retrieved within the plume by the mean SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration for the entire domain outside the plume region. In the next step, the sulfate aerosol mass mixing ratio from the CAMS reanalyses was scaled inside the plume by these scaling factors to derive a new CCN distribution that now considers the volcanic plume with the enhancement consistent with the OMPS satellite retrievals. SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is considered a proxy of the loading of additional sulfate aerosols in a volcanic plume. The potentially activated CCN concentration was computed from the vertically resolved aerosol component (including sulfate) mass mixing ratio using a box model. The potentially activated CCN profile that is produced to be used as input in ICON-NWP is thus also resolved at vertical levels. In order to define the volcanic plume on the basis of the distribution of sulfate aerosol from the CAMS reanalysis, we scaled each vertical level of sulfate aerosol in CAMS based on the lower-troposphere (up to 3 km) column amount of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> in OMPS data. In consequence, the vertical distribution within the plume follows the one generated by the reanalysis without the plume, but the scaling makes use of the vertical information from the satellite retrievals such that only the boundary-layer enhancement is used, i.e., the aerosol that is relevant for the formation of the liquid water clouds investigated in our study. It should be mentioned that in this study, the emission of water vapor from the volcanic eruption has not been taken to account.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e867">Number of column-mean activated CCN (cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" 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 2 September 2014 for two different vertical velocities (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.55 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" 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>, panels <bold>a</bold> and <bold>b</bold>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.6 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" 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>, panels <bold>c</bold> and <bold>d</bold>). Panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(c)</bold> (no-plume) correspond to background concentrations of aerosols, and panels <bold>(b)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> (plume) correspond to scaled aerosol concentrations.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e966">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/> shows the geographical distribution of the vertical-mean number of activated CCN for 2 September 2014 with a background sulfate aerosol concentration (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a and c) and scaled sulfate concentration (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b and d) for two different prescribed vertical velocities (0.599 and 4.64 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" 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 is mentioned in Sect. 2.1, the strength of the updraft corresponds to the maximum supersaturation in the ARG parameterization. Therefore, more CCN gets activated at a higher vertical velocity. In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>, the location of the plume can be identified  smoothly. This information lead us to perform two simulations: one with a background activated CCN concentration (a and c), referred as no-volcano simulation, and one with scaled activated CCN concentration (b and d), referred to as volcano simulation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e998">The present study aims at a detection and attribution approach, assessing the differences in cloud properties within and outside the volcanic plume by comparing simulations with satellite observations. It has been shown that meteorological conditions and cloud regimes are important to determine the effect of additional aerosol loading on cloud microphysical properties.  Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> indicates the visible image obtained from MODIS-AQUA satellite retrievals. A synoptic frontal system is located over the North Atlantic Ocean and contains large-scale, mostly stratiform ice and liquid phase clouds. These conditions remain similar during the simulation period. In order to select liquid phase clouds in the MODIS data, the Cloud Phase Optical Properties flag was used. For simulations, the COSP simulator produces the microphysical properties for the liquid and ice phase clouds separately, and we used only the outputs dedicated to liquid phase clouds in our analyses. This study aims to evaluate how cloud microphysical properties (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" 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 LWP) behave differently in and outside the volcano plume.
To address this scientific question, grid cells that are located inside and outside the volcano plume are analyzed and compared to each other in the volcano and no-volcano simulations along with MODIS satellite retrievals for the 7 d starting on 1 September 2014. In the no-volcano simulation, there is no CCN enhancement due to the volcanic emissions (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a, c). Nevertheless, the grid points that are located inside the volcano plume are compared to the ones outside the plume to assess differences due to different meteorological conditions.</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="d1e1018">Visible image from MODIS-AQUA satellite retrievals from 1 to 7 September 2014. The satellite visible images were downloaded per request by the following online ordering data systems: MODIS true-color images (<uri>https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/</uri>, last access: 2 March 2022).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f04.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1030"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" 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 the first microphysical variable we assess. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" 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 directly retrieved by the operational MODIS satellite retrievals. Instead, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" 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> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are retrieved using the method described by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="text.63"/>. On the basis of such retrievals, assuming clouds that behave like adiabatic ones, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" 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> can be computed as follows <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.64"/>:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M60" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi><mml:mstyle scriptlevel="+1"><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:msubsup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle scriptlevel="+1"><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <p id="d1e1138"><?xmltex \hack{\noindent}?>In this relation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> depends mainly on the adiabatic condensation rate and can be approximated as 1.37 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx46" id="paren.65"/>. In order to obtain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" 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 Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) in our analyses both in simulations and MODIS, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" 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> less than 4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  less than four were excluded from the data set because they are less reliable <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.66"/>. For consistency, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" 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 derived from the COSP diagnostics of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" 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> (see Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/>) in the same way as done in the MODIS retrievals. The model output is sampled at the time of the MODIS-Aqua overpass of approximately 13:30 LST (local sidereal time).</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="d1e1271">Relative frequency distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" 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> (cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" 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 liquid clouds, inside the plume <bold>(a)</bold> and outside the volcano plume <bold>(b)</bold> in the volcano simulation (red), the no-volcano simulation (blue), and MODIS-Aqua level-2 data (black). The probability density function (PDF) shows the spatio-temporal variability for the MODIS overpass time for the 7 d.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f05.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1309">In the subsequent figures, in each panel the blue line is for the no-volcano run, the red line is for the volcano run, and the black line is for the MODIS observations. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> shows the relative frequency distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" 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 order to define the plume, marine pixels that correspond to the SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in the lower troposphere exceeding 1 DU in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/> were chosen. These are assumed to be located inside the volcano plume, and the rest of the pixels are regarded as outside the volcano plume. Panel b (outside the plume) indicates that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" 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> distribution outside the volcano plume for both simulations is, as expected, very similar because the meteorology is the same and there is no additional aerosol. Comparing both simulations to MODIS retrievals demonstrates that the simulated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" 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> distribution is close to what is obtained from the satellite retrievals. In contrast, for the grid points inside the plume, it can be seen that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" 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 substantially enhanced in the volcano run compared to the no-volcano run as was expected due to the larger concentration of activated CCN inside the volcano plume. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" 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> distribution for MODIS shows that these observations are considerably closer to the volcano run with respect to the higher probability of large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" 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> even if at lower concentrations there is a systematic discrepancy between MODIS data and both simulations.
For such low concentrations, there is the possibility that the satellite data are biased <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.67"/>. For broken clouds, MODIS shows overly large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" 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>, which implies overly low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" 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> (Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>). Nevertheless, the results for the large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" 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> concentrations and the overall good agreement between the simulations and satellite retrievals (also outside the plume) allow for clear detection of the enhancement of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" 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> inside the volcanic plume and its attribution to the volcanic aerosol.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1445">Mean values for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" 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>, LWP, RWP, total cloud fraction, and albedo at the top of the atmosphere for MODIS (CERES for the albedo), the no-volcano simulation, and the volcano simulation. The values are computed for outside the plume and enhancement inside the plume which was computed as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>mean for inside plume</mml:mtext><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mtext>mean for outside plume</mml:mtext></mml:mrow><mml:mtext>mean for outside plume</mml:mtext></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variables</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">MODIS outside</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">MODIS plume</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">No-vol. outside</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">No-vol. plume</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Vol. outside</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Vol. plume</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">plume</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">enhancement</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">plume</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">enhancement</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">plume</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">enhancement</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" 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> (cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" 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">135</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">78 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">134</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">128</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">77 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">LWP (g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">149</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">151</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">151</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">30 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RWP (g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">53 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">38 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud fraction (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29  %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">32 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">40 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" 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> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">33 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">24 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All-sky albedo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">18 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">27 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">42 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloudy-sky albedo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">9 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.46</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">7 %</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1844">The mean values for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" 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> are listed in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>. The mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" 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 plume, compared to the mean of the distribution outside the plume, is enhanced by 77 % in the volcano run compared to no (0 %) change in the no-volcano run. The enhancement value in MODIS is 78 %, which is almost exactly the same as in the volcano run. The mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" 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> outside the plume is 134, 128, and 135 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" 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 no-volcano and volcano simulations and MODIS, respectively, showing that outside the plume <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" 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> did not change considerably between simulations because the meteorology is the same and there is no additional activated CCN and showing good consistency between both model runs and the satellite retrievals. Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> further lists the mean values and changes for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" 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> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The effective radius decreased inside the plume by 7 % compare to outside the plume in the volcano simulation. In the no-volcano simulation, there is no difference in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" 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> inside vs. outside the plume. In the MODIS retrievals, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" 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> decreased by 8 % inside the plume compared to outside the plume, very similar to the change in the simulation. This is consistent with the agreement in plume enhancement for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" 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>. Also the cloud optical thickness shows a consistent increase in MODIS as in the volcano simulation, whereas the no-volcano simulation shows a (very slight) decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> inside the plume.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1978">As Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> but for LWP (g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" 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>).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f06.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2001">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/> shows the same analyses as Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/> but for LWP. The distribution of LWP for the region outside the volcano plume is not significantly different between the two simulations, as expected. The mean values for LWP (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>) in both simulations are the same at 151 g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" 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>; furthermore, the MODIS mean value of 149 g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" 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 close to the simulations which demonstrate the accuracy of cloud simulations. This is also true for the entire distribution (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). Considering the simulated profiles, in the simulation with volcano emissions included, there is a decrease in the probability of clouds with lower LWP and an increase in the probability of clouds with higher LWP compared to the no-volcano simulation. The MODIS distribution for LWP inside the plume indicates that the probability for  clouds with lower LWP is less than what the simulations show, but the probability for clouds with higher LWP is more than in the no-volcano run, albeit also less than in the volcano run. In terms of the mean values for LWP (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>) for inside the plume, the simulations indicate a slight enhancement (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 %) attributable to the different weather conditions (plume enhancement in the no-volcano run) and a strong enhancement (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>30 %) in the volcano run. The difference suggests that the model shows an LWP enhanced by 24 % due to additional CCN inside the volcano plume. MODIS, however, is very close to the result of the no-volcano run for the average values. This almost zero enhancement on average, however, seems to come about by a decrease in LWP for the clouds with low LWP and an enhancement of LWP for large LWP values (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>). This is qualitatively consistent with the results of the ICON-NWP model. The model, however, exaggerates the increase in large LWP values, leading to the exaggerated mean increase.</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="d1e2057">Relative frequency distribution of RWP profile in logarithmic scale for inside the plume <bold>(a)</bold> and outside the volcano plume <bold>(b)</bold> in the volcano simulation (red) and no-volcano simulation (blue).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f07.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2072">The question is now what is the underlying process leading to an increase in LWP in the volcano simulation? One reason is the suppression of precipitation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx54" id="paren.68"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.,</named-content></xref>. Therefore, the distribution of rain water path (RWP) was analyzed to investigate the alteration of precipitation inside and outside the volcano plume in both the volcano and the no-volcano simulations. The comparison is shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>. Since the precipitation information is not available from MODIS or other satellite retrievals, RWP is only depicted for the simulations. Inside the volcano plume, there is a decrease in light rain and an increase in heavy rain for the volcano simulation, compared to the no-volcano simulation. In terms of mean values for RWP (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>), there is a decrease in the volcano run by 15 % on average, while the precipitation profile for outside the plume is quite similar which is in the agreement of the fact that LWP for outside the plume did not alter significantly. In the volcano simulation compared to the no-volcano simulation, for the region inside the plume, an RWP of less than about 180 g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" 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> occurs less frequently. This is because at larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" 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 thus smaller droplets, the occurrence of light rain is suppressed. Cloud droplets must grow larger, leading to deeper clouds in order to reach the size that they can start to precipitate. This leads to a shift in the LWP distribution to the higher values inside the plume. In turn, these deeper clouds, in which drops have more water available for growth,  produce heavier precipitation. Therefore there is an enhancement in the probability of heavy rain (RWP larger than about 180 g m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" 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>), compared to the no-volcano simulation inside the volcano plume, even if the average RWP (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>) does not change significantly.
Moreover, suppression of precipitation can also lead to enhancement in cloud horizontal extent (cloud fraction). Therefore, the modification in cloud fraction was examined in simulations and MODIS. The analyses for mean values of total cloud fraction in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/> demonstrate that, in the volcano simulation, cloud fraction is enhanced in the plume compared to outside the plume by 40 %, while the enhancement is only 32 % in the no-volcano simulation. However, even in the no-volcano simulation, cloud fraction inside the plume is higher than outside the plume by 32 % due to the different weather conditions, and this is consistent with what MODIS shows (29 %).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Implications for the radiative impact</title>
      <p id="d1e2132">Finally, the effect on radiation (indicative of the effective radiative forcing due to the modification of cloud properties by the volcanic aerosol) is examined. Therefore the top of atmosphere (TOA) albedo was analyzed inside and outside the plume in simulations and CERES level-2 footprint data <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx59" id="paren.69"/>. For the comparison, the simulation output was remapped by distances-weighted average remapping of the four nearest-neighbor values method to a 20 km horizontal resolution to be consistent with the resolution of the CERES footprint. In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/> TOA albedo for the cloudy sky is depicted for inside and outside the volcano plume for both simulations and CERES data. Grid points with SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentrations in the lower troposphere exceeding 1 DU are considered to constitute the plume, and SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration was obtained from OMPS satellite retrievals which are in 50 km footprint data in level-2. We remapped the level-2 data into the 50 km  resolution, and due to the fact that CERES products in 20 km resolution, it has sufficient resolution to identify the plume.
Clear sky was excluded because, in the model, no aerosol–radiation interactions are considered, but in the CERES this effect is in the data and would bias the analysis for clear sky. An additional important aspect that should be considered is that the TOA albedo distribution is considered here for liquid clouds with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  more than four because in obtaining <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" 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 data with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> less than four were excluded as well. Considering the TOA albedo distribution inside the plume, it is seen that in the volcano simulation, there is a higher probability for TOA albedo larger than 0.6 compared to the no-volcano simulation. In the CERES data, there is a peak at TOA albedo between 0.4 and 0.6 that is not as pronounced in either simulation. In turn, the probability for TOA albedo larger than 0.7 is smaller in the data than in both simulations. This bias, however, is clear outside the plume but much less so inside the plume – possibly indicative of the albedo enhancement due to the volcanic aerosol.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2194">Relative frequency distribution of TOA albedo profile for inside the plume <bold>(a)</bold> and outside the volcano plume <bold>(b)</bold>, in the volcano simulation (red), the no-volcano simulation (blue), and CERES level-2 footprint data (black).</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f08.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e2209">For the mean values (Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>), in turn, clear-sky data were taken into account to be able to see the influence of cloud fraction changes on modifying TOA albedo. The difference in mean values between inside and outside the plume in the volcano simulation is 15 % larger compared to the no-volcano simulation.
In CERES data there is an 18 % enhancement inside the volcano plume compared to outside the plume. When compared to the difference between inside and outside the plume in the no-volcano simulation (27 %), it is difficult to conclude that there is a signal of alteration in TOA albedo in CERES data.
We also analyzed cloudy-sky TOA albedo mean values in simulations and CERES. The values in Table 1 demonstrate an enhancement of 9 % in CERES and 7 % in the volcano simulation, while no changes were obtained in no-volcano simulation. The daily mean incoming solar radiation was obtained 260 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" 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>; therefore, effective radiative forcing except cloud cover effect can be estimated as 10 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" 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> in CERES and 8 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" 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> in the volcano simulation.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e2259">In this study, the impact of aerosols emitted by the Holuhraun volcanic eruption on liquid clouds was assessed. For this, we used a pair of cloud-system-resolving simulations with and without the enhancement in CCN due to the volcanic emission as well as MODIS and CERES satellite retrievals. The COSP simulator was implemented in the model to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison between the simulations and satellite data.
To identify the impact of the additional aerosol on cloud microphysical properties, areas located inside and outside the volcano plume were compared in terms of their statistical distributions. In the no-volcano simulation, only the differences in weather conditions are sampled. In the volcano simulation, in addition, there is the effect of the CCN enhancement on the clouds. To the extent the inside vs. outside-plume difference is consistent between the satellite retrievals and the volcano simulation, but not between the satellite retrievals and the no-volcano simulation, detection and attribution of the effect of the aerosol on the clouds are achieved. Our analyses indicated that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" 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> concentration is clearly enhanced inside the volcano plume. This enhancement by almost 80 % is attributable to the additional CCN inside the volcano plume. Our scientific goal in this study was to examine how LWP and cloud fraction respond to the enhancement of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" 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 volcanic plume. The analysis reveals that in the simulations and MODIS, the LWP is increased inside the plume compared to outside the plume. However, the mean increase in MODIS is very close to the result of the no-volcano run. This almost zero enhancement in MODIS on average is because of decrease in LWP for the clouds with low LWP and an enhancement of LWP for large LWP values, which is consistent with the results of the ICON-NWP model; nevertheless, the model, exaggerates the increase in large LWP values.
In the model the reason for the enhancement of LWP in the volcano simulation was the decrease in precipitation compared to the no-volcano simulation by 15 % on average, due to a decrease in light rain in the volcano simulation compared to the no-volcano simulation. When light rain is depressed, clouds droplets must grow deeper in order to reach the droplet size at which precipitation is initiated. This leads to a shift in the LWP distribution to the higher values. Since cloud droplets grow deeper, they precipitate more heavily because they have to fall through more clouds droplets.
Examining cloud fraction (only possible for the mean value) demonstrates that the cloud fraction also increased inside the plume in the volcano simulation compared to the no-volcano simulation. Similar to the result for LWP, this mean increase cannot be attributed confidently to the volcanic aerosol. It is unclear for the MODIS data how much change in cloud fraction between inside and outside the plume is due to the enhancement of cloud lifetime due to the additional CCN and how much is simply because of different weather. To learn about the climate implications, it is essential to identify how the planetary albedo differs inside and outside the volcano plume. In this study, the difference in increase in TOA albedo between inside and outside the volcano plume in the volcano and no-volcano simulations was quantified at 42 % when considering the volcanic aerosol vs. only 27 % without it; however it is, again, not possible to attribute the enhancement in TOA albedo in the CERES observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e2284">Overall, the results from this detailed analysis using level-2 satellite observations and cloud-system-resolving simulations confirm the key result of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.70"/> that there is a clear, detectable, and attributable impact of the volcanic aerosol on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" 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>, but there is on average only a very small, not attributable, effect on both LWP and cloud fraction. This net result for the case of the Holuhraun volcano for LWP comes about by a slight enhancement of LWP for large-LWP clouds compensated for by a decrease in LWP in  low-LWP clouds.</p>
</sec>

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

<app id="App1.Ch1.S1">
  <?xmltex \currentcnt{A}?><label>Appendix A</label><title>Look-up table of potentially activated CCN number concentrations</title>
      <p id="d1e2312">The look-up table consists of potentially activated CCN number concentrations for 10 specific vertical velocities and height for each hybrid-sigma-pressure level (60 levels) and 3 h interval. This look-up table was calculated offline for 1 to 7 September 2014 (the period of simulation). In order to show the range of values, we choose 2 September and computed its daily mean. The model level corresponding to approximately 850 hPa was chosen. Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.T2"/> summarizes each specific vertical velocity that has been used in the box model for computations of potentially activated CCN concentration. The value range is shown as the mean value for the whole domain and the first and the third quartile of grid point values.</p>
<sec id="App1.Ch1.S1.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Vertical profile of activated CCN</title>
      <p id="d1e2322">The scaling of CCN was done by computing the distribution of scaling based on the enhancement of SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> inside the plume relative to the mean SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> value outside the plume in the lower troposphere (up to 3 km). Then the sulfate concentrations in CAMS reanalyses inside the plume were scaled at each level by the computed ratio. So the sulfate aerosol concentration at each level was scaled with the same ratio, but the concentration of the sulfate is not the same at each level because the background concentration is different at each level.  In the next step, the box model was employed on the scaled sulfate aerosol concentration, and the scaled CCN profile was obtained.
To determine the vertical distribution of CCN more specifically, Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="App1.Ch1.S1.F9"/> shows the mean value of column SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration inside the plume in the lower, middle, and upper troposphere in Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (PMS) retrievals along with the vertical profile of mean CCN concentration inside the plume in the no-volcano and volcano run and outside the plume in the no-volcano run for one specific vertical velocity (0.559 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>) on 2 September 2014.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><fig id="App1.Ch1.S1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure A1</label><caption><p id="d1e2368">Mean value of column SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration inside the plume in the lower, middle, and upper troposphere in OMPS retrievals <bold>(a)</bold> along with the vertical profile of mean CCN concentration inside the plume in the no-volcano and volcano run and outside the plume in the no-volcano run <bold>(b)</bold> for just one specific amount of vertical velocity (0.559 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" 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 2 September 2014.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/8457/2022/acp-22-8457-2022-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\clearpage}?><?xmltex \floatpos{h!}?><table-wrap id="App1.Ch1.S1.T2"><?xmltex \hack{\hsize\textwidth}?><?xmltex \currentcnt{A1}?><label>Table A1</label><caption><p id="d1e2409">Look-up table of potentially activated CCN.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col4" align="center">2 September 2014 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variables</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">First quartile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Mean value</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Third quartile</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" 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="col3">(cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" 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="col4">(cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" 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:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" 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="col2">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0278 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" 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="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">32</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0774 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" 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="col2">54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">73</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">87</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.215 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" 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="col2">117</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">166</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">204</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.599 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" 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="col2">230</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">334</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">414</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.67 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" 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="col2">406</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">605</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">753</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4.64 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" 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="col2">639</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">994</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1235</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 12.9 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" 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="col2">918</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1492</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1842</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 35.9 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" 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="col2">1219</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2070</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2534</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CCN-act (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mi>w</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" 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="col2">1528</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2691</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">3271</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</app>
  </app-group><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e2920">The ICON model outputs are stored at the German climate computing center (DKRZ) and are available upon request to the corresponding author. The MODIS data were downloaded from the Atmosphere Archive &amp; Distribution System (LAADS) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC), located in the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland (<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MYD06_L2.061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/MODIS/MYD06_L2.061</ext-link>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45" id="altparen.71"/>). CAMS reanalyses are available from the Atmosphere Data Store (ADS), either interactively through its download web form or by using the CDS API service (<uri>https://ads.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cams-global-reanalysis-eac4?tab=form</uri>, last access: 27 June 2022, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="altparen.72"/>). OMPS data were downloaded via <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/A9O02ZH0J94R" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/A9O02ZH0J94R</ext-link> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx67" id="paren.73"/>. The satellite visible images were downloaded from per request by the following online ordering data systems: MODIS true-color images (<uri>https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/</uri>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="altparen.74"/>).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e2951">MH and JQ conducted this study. JK helped with setting up and running ICON-NWP. KB contributed to producing data for the study. MH prepared the model and observational data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results. MH produced the paper with the aid of all co-authors.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e2957">The contact author has declared that neither they nor their co-authors have any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e2963">Publisher’s note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p>
  </notes><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><?xmltex \hack{~\\[64mm]}?><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e2971">We are thankful for the valuable collaboration with colleagues in the research unit VolImpact, especially within VolCloud with the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Corinna Hoose, and Fatemeh Zarei. We are thankful to the German Meteorological Service (DWD) and the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology for providing the ICON model to the research community and the German Climate Computing Center (Deutsches Klimarechenzentru, DKRZ) for providing the resources to conduct the simulations. We also thank NASA for providing the satellite retrievals employed in this study. We also thank the <uri>https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/</uri> website for providing satellite true images. We further acknowledge funding by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Leipzig University supported by the German Research Foundation within the program Open Access Publication Funding.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e2979">This research has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant no. QU 311/23-1), the Horizon 2020 (CONSTRAIN (grant no. 820829)), and the Open Access Publishing Fund of Leipzig University supported by the German Research Foundation within the program Open Access Publication Funding.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e2986">This paper was edited by Zhanqing Li and reviewed by Yousuke Sato and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Abdul-Razzak and Ghan(2000)}}?><label>Abdul-Razzak and Ghan(2000)</label><?label Abdul-Razzak2000?><mixed-citation>Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, J.: Dri Dw, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD901161" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999JD901161</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Ackerman et~al.(2004)}}?><label>Ackerman et al.(2004)</label><?label ackerman2004?><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.bibx3"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Albrecht(1989)}}?><label>Albrecht(1989)</label><?label albrecht1989?><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.bibx4"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Bechtold et~al.(2008)}}?><label>Bechtold et al.(2008)</label><?label bechtold2008?><mixed-citation>Bechtold, P., Köhler, M., Jung, T., Doblas-Reyes, F., Leutbecher, M., Rodwell, M. J., Vitart, F., and Balsamo, G.: Advances in simulating atmospheric variability with the ECMWF model: From synoptic to decadal time-scales, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 1337–1351, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.289" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.289</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Bellouin et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Bellouin et al.(2020)</label><?label bellouin2020?><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., McCoy, D. T., Myhre, G., Mülmenstädt, J., Neubauer, D., Possner, A., Rugenstein, M., Sato, Y., Schulz, M., Schwartz, S. E., Sourdeval, O., Storelvmo, T., Toll, V., Winker, D., and Stevens, B.: Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Rev. Geophys., 58, 1–45, <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.bibx6"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Bodas-Salcedo et~al.(2011)}}?><label>Bodas-Salcedo et al.(2011)</label><?label Bodas-Salcedo2011c?><mixed-citation>Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J.-L., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.: COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Brenguier et~al.(2011)}}?><label>Brenguier et al.(2011)</label><?label brenguier2011?><mixed-citation>Brenguier, J.-L., Burnet, F., and Geoffroy, O.: Cloud optical thickness and liquid water path – does the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> coefficient vary with droplet concentration?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 9771–9786, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9771-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-9771-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Bretherton et~al.(2007)}}?><label>Bretherton et al.(2007)</label><?label Bretherton2007?><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.bibx9"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Christensen et~al.(2022)}}?><label>Christensen et al.(2022)</label><?label christensen2021?><mixed-citation>Christensen, M. W., Gettelman, A., Cermak, J., Dagan, G., Diamond, M., Douglas, A., Feingold, G., Glassmeier, F., Goren, T., Grosvenor, D. P., Gryspeerdt, E., Kahn, R., Li, Z., Ma, P.-L., Malavelle, F., McCoy, I. L., McCoy, D. T., McFarquhar, G., Mülmenstädt, J., Pal, S., Possner, A., Povey, A., Quaas, J., Rosenfeld, D., Schmidt, A., Schrödner, R., Sorooshian, A., Stier, P., Toll, V., Watson-Parris, D., Wood, R., Yang, M., and Yuan, T.: Opportunistic experiments to constrain aerosol effective radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 641–674, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-641-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-22-641-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Cole-Dai(2010)}}?><label>Cole-Dai(2010)</label><?label Cole-Dai2010?><mixed-citation>Cole-Dai, J.: Volcanoes and climate, WIRES Climate Change, 1, 824–839, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.76" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wcc.76</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Copernicus Atmosphere Data Storage(2022)}}?><label>Copernicus Atmosphere Data Storage(2022)</label><?label Cpernicusdata2022?><mixed-citation>Copernicus Atmosphere Data Storage: CAMS global reanalysis (EAC4), Copernicus [data set], <uri>https://ads.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cams-global-reanalysis-eac4?tab=form</uri>, last access: 27 June 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Costa-Sur{\'{o}}s et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Costa-Surós et al.(2020)</label><?label Costa-Suros2020?><mixed-citation>Costa-Surós, M., Sourdeval, O., Acquistapace, C., Baars, H., Carbajal Henken, C., Genz, C., Hesemann, J., Jimenez, C., König, M., Kretzschmar, J., Madenach, N., Meyer, C. I., Schrödner, R., Seifert, P., Senf, F., Brueck, M., Cioni, G., Engels, J. F., Fieg, K., Gorges, K., Heinze, R., Siligam, P. K., Burkhardt, U., Crewell, S., Hoose, C., Seifert, A., Tegen, I., and Quaas, J.: Detection and attribution of aerosol–cloud interactions in large-domain large-eddy simulations with the ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 5657–5678, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5657-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-5657-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Fioletov et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Fioletov et al.(2020)</label><?label Fioletov2020b?><mixed-citation>Fioletov, V., McLinden, C. A., Griffin, D., Theys, N., Loyola, D. G., Hedelt, P., Krotkov, N. A., and Li, C.: Anthropogenic and volcanic point source SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> emissions derived from TROPOMI on board Sentinel-5 Precursor: first results, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 5591–5607, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5591-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-5591-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx14"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Ghan et~al.(2011)}}?><label>Ghan et al.(2011)</label><?label ghan2011?><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 Syst., 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.bibx15"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Giorgetta et~al.(2018)}}?><label>Giorgetta et al.(2018)</label><?label giorgetta2018?><mixed-citation>Giorgetta, M. A., Brokopf, R., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fiedler, S., Helmert, J., Hohenegger, C., Kornblueh, L., Köhler, M., Manzini, E., Mauritsen, T., Nam, C., Raddatz, T., Rast, S., Reinert, D., Sakradzija, M., Schmidt, H., Schneck, R., Schnur, R., Silvers, L., Wan, H., Zängl, G., and Stevens, B.: ICON-A, the Atmosphere Component of the ICON Earth System Model: I. Model Description, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1613–1637, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001242" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017MS001242</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Goto et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Goto et al.(2020)</label><?label Goto2020?><mixed-citation>Goto, D., Sato, Y., Yashiro, H., Suzuki, K., Oikawa, E., Kudo, R., Nagao, T. M., and Nakajima, T.: Global aerosol simulations using NICAM.16 on a 14 km grid spacing for a climate study: improved and remaining issues relative to a lower-resolution model, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3731–3768, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3731-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-13-3731-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Grosvenor et~al.(2018)}}?><label>Grosvenor et al.(2018)</label><?label grosvenor2018?><mixed-citation>Grosvenor, D. P., Sourdeval, O., Zuidema, P., Ackerman, A., Alexandrov, M. D., Bennartz, R., Boers, R., Cairns, B., Chiu, J. C., Christensen, M., Deneke, H., Diamond, M., Feingold, G., Fridlind, A., Hünerbein, A., Knist, C., Kollias, P., Marshak, A., McCoy, D., Merk, D., Painemal, D., Rausch, J., Rosenfeld, D., Russchenberg, H., Seifert, P., Sinclair, K., Stier, P., van Diedenhoven, B., Wendisch, M., Werner, F., Wood, R., Zhang, Z., and Quaas, J.: Remote Sensing of Droplet Number Concentration in Warm Clouds: A Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Perspectives, Rev. Geophys., 56, 409–453, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000593" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017RG000593</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Gryspeerdt et~al.(2019)}}?><label>Gryspeerdt et al.(2019)</label><?label gryspeerdt2019?><mixed-citation>Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., Sourdeval, O., Quaas, J., Mülmenstädt, J., Dipu, S., Unglaub, C., Gettelman, A., and Christensen, M.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 5331–5347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Hande et~al.(2016)}}?><label>Hande et al.(2016)</label><?label hande2016?><mixed-citation>Hande, L. B., Engler, C., Hoose, C., and Tegen, I.: Parameterizing cloud condensation nuclei concentrations during HOPE, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12059–12079, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12059-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-12059-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Heinze et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Heinze et al.(2017)</label><?label heinze2017?><mixed-citation>Heinze, R., Dipankar, A., Henken, C. C., Moseley, C., Sourdeval, O., Trömel, S., Xie, X., Adamidis, P., Ament, F., Baars, H., Barthlott, C., Behrendt, A., Blahak, U., Bley, S., Brdar, S., Brueck, M., Crewell, S., Deneke, H., Di Girolamo, P., Evaristo, R., Fischer, J., Frank, C., Friederichs, P., Göcke, T., Gorges, K., Hande, L., Hanke, M., Hansen, A., Hege, H., Hoose, C., Jahns, T., Kalthoff, N., Klocke, D., Kneifel, S., Knippertz, P., Kuhn, A., van Laar, T., Macke, A., Maurer, V., Mayer, B., Meyer, C. I., Muppa, S. K., Neggers, R. A. J., Orlandi, E., Pantillon, F., Pospichal, B., Röber, N., Scheck, L., Seifert, A., Seifert, P., Senf, F., Siligam, P., Simmer, C., Steinke, S., Stevens, B., Wapler, K., Weniger, M., Wulfmeyer, V., Zängl, G., Zhang, D., and Quaas, J.: Large‐eddy simulations over Germany using ICON: a comprehensive evaluation, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 69–100, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2947" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2947</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Ialongo et~al.(2015)}}?><label>Ialongo et al.(2015)</label><?label ialongo2015?><mixed-citation>Ialongo, I., Hakkarainen, J., Kivi, R., Anttila, P., Krotkov, N. A., Yang, K., Li, C., Tukiainen, S., Hassinen, S., and Tamminen, J.: Comparison of operational satellite SO2 products with ground-based observations in northern Finland during the Icelandic Holuhraun fissure eruption, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 2279–2289, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2279-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-2279-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Ilyinskaya et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Ilyinskaya et al.(2017)</label><?label Ilyinskaya2017?><mixed-citation>Ilyinskaya, E., Schmidt, A., Mather, T. A., Pope, F. D., Witham, C., Baxter, P., Jóhannsson, T., Pfeffer, M., Barsotti, S., Singh, A., Sanderson, P., Bergsson, B., McCormick Kilbride, B., Donovan, A., Peters, N., Oppenheimer, C., and Edmonds, M.: Understanding the environmental impacts of large fissure eruptions: Aerosol and gas emissions from the 2014–2015 Holuhraun eruption (Iceland), Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 472, 309–322, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.05.025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.epsl.2017.05.025</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Inguaggiato et~al.(2018)}}?><label>Inguaggiato et al.(2018)</label><?label inguaggiato2018?><mixed-citation>Inguaggiato, S., Diliberto, I. S., Federico, C., Paonita, A., and Vita, F.: Review of the evolution of geochemical monitoring, networks and methodologies applied to the volcanoes of the Aeolian Arc (Italy), Earth-Sci. Rev., 176, 241–276, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.006</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Inness et~al.(2019)}}?><label>Inness et al.(2019)</label><?label inness2019?><mixed-citation>Inness, A., Ades, M., Agustí-Panareda, A., Barré, J., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Dominguez, J. J., Engelen, R., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kipling, Z., Massart, S., Parrington, M., Peuch, V.-H., Razinger, M., Remy, S., Schulz, M., and Suttie, M.: The CAMS reanalysis of atmospheric composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3515–3556, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Khain et~al.(2008)}}?><label>Khain et al.(2008)</label><?label khain2008?><mixed-citation>Khain, A. P., BenMoshe, N., and Pokrovsky, A.: Factors determining the impact of aerosols on surface precipitation from clouds: An attempt at classification, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1721–1748, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2515.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JAS2515.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Klocke et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Klocke et al.(2017)</label><?label klocke2017?><mixed-citation>Klocke, D., Brueck, M., Hohenegger, C., and Stevens, B.: Rediscovery of the doldrums in storm-resolving simulations over the tropical Atlantic /704/106/ 704/106/35/ 704/106/35/823 perspective, Nat. Geosci., 10, 891–896,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0005-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-017-0005-4</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{K{\"{o}}hler(1936)}}?><label>Köhler(1936)</label><?label kohler1936?><mixed-citation>Köhler, H.: The nucleus in and the growth of hygroscopic droplets,
T. Faraday Soc., 32, 1152–1161, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1039/TF9363201152" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1039/TF9363201152</ext-link>, 1936.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Kolzenburg et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Kolzenburg et al.(2017)</label><?label kolzenburg2017?><mixed-citation>Kolzenburg, S., Giordano, D., Thordarson, T., Höskuldsson, A., and
Dingwell, D. B.: The rheological evolution of the 2014/2015 eruption at
Holuhraun, central Iceland, B. Volcanol., 79, 45,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1128-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00445-017-1128-6</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Kretzschmar et~al.(2019)}}?><label>Kretzschmar et al.(2019)</label><?label kretzschmar2019?><mixed-citation>Kretzschmar, J., Salzmann, M., Mülmenstädt, J., and Quaas, J.: Arctic clouds in ECHAM6 and their sensitivity to cloud microphysics and surface fluxes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 10571–10589, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10571-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-10571-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Kretzschmar et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Kretzschmar et al.(2020)</label><?label kretzschmar2020?><mixed-citation>Kretzschmar, J., Stapf, J., Klocke, D., Wendisch, M., and Quaas, J.: Employing airborne radiation and cloud microphysics observations to improve cloud representation in ICON at kilometer-scale resolution in the Arctic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13145–13165, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13145-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-13145-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Lai et~al.(2019)}}?><label>Lai et al.(2019)</label><?label lai2019?><mixed-citation>Lai, R., Teng, S., Yi, B., Letu, H., Min, M., Tang, S., and Liu, C.: Comparison of cloud properties from Himawari-8 and FengYun-4A geostationary
satellite radiometers with MODIS cloud retrievals, Remote Sens., 11, 1703,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11141703" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs11141703</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Lebo and Feingold(2014)}}?><label>Lebo and Feingold(2014)</label><?label Lebo2014?><mixed-citation>Lebo, Z. J. and Feingold, G.: On the relationship between responses in cloud water and precipitation to changes in aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11817–11831, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11817-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-11817-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Levy et~al.(2013)}}?><label>Levy et al.(2013)</label><?label levy2013?><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Munchak, L. A., Remer, L. A., Sayer, A. M., Patadia, F., and Hsu, N. C.: The Collection 6 MODIS aerosol products over land and ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2989–3034, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Liu and Daum(2002)}}?><label>Liu and Daum(2002)</label><?label liu2002?><mixed-citation>Liu, Y. and Daum, P. H.: Indirect warming effect from dispersion forcing,
Nature, 419, 580–581, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/419580a" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/419580a</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Loeb et~al.(2016)}}?><label>Loeb et al.(2016)</label><?label loeb2016?><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Manalo-Smith, N., Su, W., Shankar, M., and Thomas, S.: CERES top-of-atmosphere earth radiation budget climate data record: Accounting for in-orbit changes in instrument calibration, Remote Sens., 8, 182,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8030182" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs8030182</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Luo et~al.(2008)}}?><label>Luo et al.(2008)</label><?label luo2008?><mixed-citation>Luo, Y., Xu, K. M., Morrison, H., and McFarquhar, G.: Arctic mixed-phase clouds simulated by a cloud-resolving model: Comparison with ARM observations
and sensitivity to microphysics parameterizations, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1285–1303, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2467.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JAS2467.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx37"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Malavelle et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Malavelle et al.(2017)</label><?label malavelle2017?><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., 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.bibx38"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Mather et~al.(2004)}}?><label>Mather et al.(2004)</label><?label mather2004?><mixed-citation>Mather, T. A., Pyle, D. M., and Allen, A. G.: Volcanic source for fixed
nitrogen in the early Earth's atmosphere, Geology, 32, 905–908,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1130/G20679.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1130/G20679.1</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{McCoy et~al.(2018)}}?><label>McCoy et al.(2018)</label><?label mccoy2018?><mixed-citation>McCoy, D. T., Bender, F. A.-M., Grosvenor, D. P., Mohrmann, J. K., Hartmann, D. L., Wood, R., and Field, P. R.: Predicting decadal trends in cloud droplet number concentration using reanalysis and satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2035–2047, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2035-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-2035-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Nakajima and King(1990)}}?><label>Nakajima and King(1990)</label><?label nakajima1990?><mixed-citation>Nakajima, T. and King, M. D.: Determination of the Optical Thickness and
Effective Particle Radius of Clouds from Reflected Solar Radiation
Measurements. Part I: Theory, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1878–1893, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047&lt;1878:DOTOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047&lt;1878:DOTOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{NASA Worldview(2022)}}?><label>NASA Worldview(2022)</label><?label NASAWorldview2022?><mixed-citation>NASA Worldview: <uri>https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/</uri>, last access: 2 March 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Pincus and Baker(1994)}}?><label>Pincus and Baker(1994)</label><?label pincus1994?><mixed-citation>Pincus, R. and Baker, M. B.: Effect of precipitation on the albedo
susceptibility of clouds in the marine boundary layer, Nature, 372,
250–252, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/372250a0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/372250a0</ext-link>, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Pincus et~al.(2012)}}?><label>Pincus et al.(2012)</label><?label pincus2012?><mixed-citation>Pincus, R., Platnick, S., Ackerman, S. A., Hemler, R. S., and Patrick Hofmann, R. J.: Reconciling simulated and observed views of clouds: MODIS,
ISCCP, and the limits of instrument simulators, J. Climate, 25,
4699–4720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00267.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00267.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Platnick et~al.(2017a)}}?><label>Platnick et al.(2017a)</label><?label platnick2017?><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., Meyer, K. G., King, M. D., Wind, G., Amarasinghe, N., Marchant, B., Arnold, G. T., Zhang, Z., Hubanks, P. A., Holz, R. E., Yang, P., Ridgway, W. L., and Riedi, J.: The MODIS Cloud Optical and Microphysical Products: Collection 6 Updates and Examples from Terra and Aqua, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 55, 502–525, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522</ext-link>, 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Platnick et~al.(2017b)}}?><label>Platnick et al.(2017b)</label><?label platnickdata2017?><mixed-citation>Platnick, S., Ackerman, S., King, M. D., Wind, G., Meyer, K., Menzel, P., Frey, R., Holz, R. E., Baum, B., and Yang, P.: MODIS atmosphere L2 cloud product (06_L2), NASA MODIS Adaptive Processing System, Goddard Space Flight Center, USA [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MYD06_L2.061" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/MODIS/MYD06_L2.061</ext-link>, 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Quaas et~al.(2006)}}?><label>Quaas et al.(2006)</label><?label quaas2006?><mixed-citation>Quaas, J., Boucher, O., and Lohmann, U.: Constraining the total aerosol indirect effect in the LMDZ and ECHAM4 GCMs using MODIS satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 947–955, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-947-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-947-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Robock(1981)}}?><label>Robock(1981)</label><?label robock1981?><mixed-citation>Robock, A.: A latitudinally dependent volcanic dust veil index, and its effect on climate simulations, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 11,
67–80, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0273(81)90076-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0377-0273(81)90076-7</ext-link>, 1981.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Roh et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Roh et al.(2020)</label><?label roh2020?><mixed-citation>Roh, W., Satoh, M., Hashino, T., Okamoto, H., and Seiki, T.: Evaluations of
the thermodynamic phases of clouds in a cloud-system-resolving model using
calipso and a satellite simulator over the southern ocean, J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 3781–3801, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0273.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-19-0273.1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Rose et~al.(2001)}}?><label>Rose et al.(2001)</label><?label rose2001?><mixed-citation>Rose, W. I., Bluth, G. J. S., Schneider, D. J., Ernst, G. G. J., Riley, C. M., Henderson, L. J., and McGimsey, R. G.: Observations of Volcanic Clouds in Their First Few Days of Atmospheric Residence: The 1992 Eruptions of Crater Peak, Mount Spurr Volcano, Alaska, J. Geol., 109, 677–694,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1086/323189" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1086/323189</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Sahyoun et~al.(2019)}}?><label>Sahyoun et al.(2019)</label><?label sahyoun2019?><mixed-citation>Sahyoun, M., Freney, E., Brito, J., Duplissy, J., Gouhier, M., Colomb, A., Dupuy, R., Bourianne, T., Nowak, J. B., Yan, C., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., Schwarzenboeck, A., Planche, C., and Sellegri, K.: Evidence of  New Particle Formation Within Etna and Stromboli Volcanic Plumes and Its Parameterization From Airborne In Situ Measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 5650–5668, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028882" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018JD028882</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Saponaro et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Saponaro et al.(2020)</label><?label saponaro2020?><mixed-citation>Saponaro, G., Sporre, M. K., Neubauer, D., Kokkola, H., Kolmonen, P., Sogacheva, L., Arola, A., de Leeuw, G., Karset, I. H. H., Laaksonen, A., and Lohmann, U.: Evaluation of aerosol and cloud properties in three climate models using MODIS observations and its corresponding COSP simulator, as well as their application in aerosol–cloud interactions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 1607–1626, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1607-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-20-1607-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx52"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Sato et~al.(2018)}}?><label>Sato et al.(2018)</label><?label Sato2018?><mixed-citation>Sato, Y., Goto, D., Michibata, T., Suzuki, K., Takemura, T., Tomita, H., and
Nakajima, T.: Aerosol effects on cloud water amounts were successfully
simulated by a global cloud-system resolving model, Nat. Commun.,
9, 985, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03379-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-03379-6</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx53"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Seifert and Beheng(2006)}}?><label>Seifert and Beheng(2006)</label><?label seifert2006?><mixed-citation>Seifert, A. and Beheng, K. D.: A two-moment cloud microphysics
parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description,
Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 92, 45–66, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-005-0112-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00703-005-0112-4</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx54"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Seifert et~al.(2012)}}?><label>Seifert et al.(2012)</label><?label seifert2012?><mixed-citation>Seifert, A., Köhler, C., and Beheng, K. D.: Aerosol-cloud-precipitation effects over Germany as simulated by a convective-scale numerical weather prediction model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 709–725, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-709-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-709-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx55"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Seifert et~al.(2015)}}?><label>Seifert et al.(2015)</label><?label Seifert2015?><mixed-citation>Seifert, A., Heus, T., Pincus, R., and Stevens, B.: Large-eddy simulation of
the transient and near-equilibrium behavior of precipitating shallow
convection, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 7, 1918–1937,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000489" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015MS000489</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx56"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Small et~al.(2009)}}?><label>Small et al.(2009)</label><?label small2009?><mixed-citation>Small, J. D., Chuang, P. Y., Feingold, G., and Jiang, H.: Can aerosol decrease cloud lifetime?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 1–5,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038888" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL038888</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx57"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Stevens and Feingold(2009)}}?><label>Stevens and Feingold(2009)</label><?label stevens2009?><mixed-citation>Stevens, B. and Feingold, G.: Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and
precipitation in a buffered system, Nature, 461, 607–613,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature08281</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx58"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Stevens et~al.(2020)}}?><label>Stevens et al.(2020)</label><?label stevens2020?><mixed-citation>Stevens, B., Acquistapace, C., Hansen, A., Heinze, R., Klinger, C., Klocke, D., Rybka, H., Schubotz, W., Windmiller, J., Adamidis, P., Arka, I., Barlakas, V., Biercamp, J., Brueck, M., Brune, S., Buehler, S. A., Burkhardt, U., Cioni, G., Costa-Surós, M., Crewell, S., Crüger, T., Deneke, H., Friederichs, P., Henken, C. C., Hohenegger, C., Jacob, M., Jakub, F., Kalthoff, N., Köhler, M., van LAAR, T. W., Li, P., Löhnert, U., Macke, A., Madenach, N., Mayer, B., Nam, C., Naumann, A. K., Peters, K., Poll, S., Quaas, J., Röber, N., Rochetin, N., Scheck, L., Schemann, V., Schnitt, S., Seifert, A., Senf, F., Shapkalijevski, M., Simmer, C., Singh, S., Sourdeval, O., Spickermann, D., Strandgren, J., Tessiot, O., Vercauteren, N., Vial, J., Voigt, A., and Zängl, G.: The added value of large-eddy and storm-resolving models for simulating clouds and precipitation, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 98, 395–435, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2020-021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2151/jmsj.2020-021</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx59"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Su et~al.(2015)}}?><label>Su et al.(2015)</label><?label su2015?><mixed-citation>Su, W., Corbett, J., Eitzen, Z., and Liang, L.: Next-generation angular distribution models for top-of-atmosphere radiative flux calculation from CERES instruments: methodology, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 611–632, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-611-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-8-611-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx60"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Tiedtke(1989)}}?><label>Tiedtke(1989)</label><?label tiedtke1989?><mixed-citation>Tiedtke, M.: A Comprehensive Mass Flux Scheme for Cumulus Parameterization in Large-Scale Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1779–1800,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117&lt;1779:ACMFSF&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117&lt;1779:ACMFSF&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx61"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Toll et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Toll et al.(2017)</label><?label toll2017?><mixed-citation>Toll, V., Christensen, M., Gassó, S., and Bellouin, N.: Volcano and Ship Tracks Indicate Excessive Aerosol-Induced Cloud Water Increases in a Climate Model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12492–12500,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075280" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL075280</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx62"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Twomey(1959)}}?><label>Twomey(1959)</label><?label twomey1959?><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: The nuclei of natural cloud formation part II: The supersaturation in natural clouds and the variation of cloud droplet concentration, Geofisica Pura e Applicata, 43, 243–249, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01993560" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/BF01993560</ext-link>, 1959.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx63"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Twomey(1974)}}?><label>Twomey(1974)</label><?label twomey1974?><mixed-citation>Twomey, S.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 8, 1251–1256, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(74)90004-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0004-6981(74)90004-3</ext-link>, 1974.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx64"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Webb et~al.(2017)}}?><label>Webb et al.(2017)</label><?label webb2017?><mixed-citation>Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., and Watanabe, M.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 359–384, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx65"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{West et~al.(2014)}}?><label>West et al.(2014)</label><?label west2014?><mixed-citation>West, R. E. L., Stier, P., Jones, A., Johnson, C. E., Mann, G. W., Bellouin, N., Partridge, D. G., and Kipling, Z.: The importance of vertical velocity variability for estimates of the indirect aerosol effects, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 6369–6393, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6369-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-14-6369-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx66"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Xue et~al.(2008)}}?><label>Xue et al.(2008)</label><?label xue2008?><mixed-citation>Xue, H., Feingold, G., and Stevens, B.: Aerosol effects on clouds, precipitation, and the organization of shallow cumulus convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 392–406, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2428.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JAS2428.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx67"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Yang(2017)}}?><label>Yang(2017)</label><?label yang2017omps?><mixed-citation>Yang, K.: OMPS-NPP L2 NM Sulfur Dioxide (SO<inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) Total and Tropospheric Column swath orbital V2, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set], <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/A9O02ZH0J94R" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/A9O02ZH0J94R</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx68"><?xmltex \def\ref@label{{Z{\"{a}}ngl et~al.(2015)}}?><label>Zängl et al.(2015)</label><?label zangl2015?><mixed-citation>Zängl, G., Reinert, D., Rípodas, P., and Baldauf, M.: The ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) modelling framework of DWD and MPI-M: Description of the non-hydrostatic dynamical core, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 563–579, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2378" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2378</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Impact of Holuhraun volcano aerosols on clouds in cloud-system-resolving simulations</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Abdul-Razzak and Ghan(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Abdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, J.: Dri Dw, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 6837–6844, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD901161" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD901161</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Ackerman et al.(2004)</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.bib3"><label>Albrecht(1989)</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.bib4"><label>Bechtold et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Bechtold, P., Köhler, M., Jung, T., Doblas-Reyes, F., Leutbecher, M., Rodwell, M. J., Vitart, F., and Balsamo, G.: Advances in simulating atmospheric variability with the ECMWF model: From synoptic to decadal time-scales, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 134, 1337–1351, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.289" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.289</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Bellouin et al.(2020)</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., McCoy, D. T., Myhre, G., Mülmenstädt, J., Neubauer, D., Possner, A., Rugenstein, M., Sato, Y., Schulz, M., Schwartz, S. E., Sourdeval, O., Storelvmo, T., Toll, V., Winker, D., and Stevens, B.: Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, Rev. Geophys., 58, 1–45, <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.bib6"><label>Bodas-Salcedo et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Bodas-Salcedo, A., Webb, M. J., Bony, S., Chepfer, H., Dufresne, J.-L., Klein, S. A., Zhang, Y., Marchand, R., Haynes, J. M., Pincus, R., and John, V. O.: COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1023–1043, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS2856.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>Brenguier et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Brenguier, J.-L., Burnet, F., and Geoffroy, O.: Cloud optical thickness and liquid water path – does the <i>k</i> coefficient vary with droplet concentration?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 9771–9786, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9771-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-9771-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>Bretherton et al.(2007)</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.bib9"><label>Christensen et al.(2022)</label><mixed-citation>
Christensen, M. W., Gettelman, A., Cermak, J., Dagan, G., Diamond, M., Douglas, A., Feingold, G., Glassmeier, F., Goren, T., Grosvenor, D. P., Gryspeerdt, E., Kahn, R., Li, Z., Ma, P.-L., Malavelle, F., McCoy, I. L., McCoy, D. T., McFarquhar, G., Mülmenstädt, J., Pal, S., Possner, A., Povey, A., Quaas, J., Rosenfeld, D., Schmidt, A., Schrödner, R., Sorooshian, A., Stier, P., Toll, V., Watson-Parris, D., Wood, R., Yang, M., and Yuan, T.: Opportunistic experiments to constrain aerosol effective radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 641–674, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-641-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-641-2022</a>, 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>Cole-Dai(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
Cole-Dai, J.: Volcanoes and climate, WIRES Climate Change, 1, 824–839, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.76" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.76</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>Copernicus Atmosphere Data Storage(2022)</label><mixed-citation>
Copernicus Atmosphere Data Storage: CAMS global reanalysis (EAC4), Copernicus [data set], <a href="https://ads.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/cams-global-reanalysis-eac4?tab=form" target="_blank"/>, last access: 27 June 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>Costa-Surós et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Costa-Surós, M., Sourdeval, O., Acquistapace, C., Baars, H., Carbajal Henken, C., Genz, C., Hesemann, J., Jimenez, C., König, M., Kretzschmar, J., Madenach, N., Meyer, C. I., Schrödner, R., Seifert, P., Senf, F., Brueck, M., Cioni, G., Engels, J. F., Fieg, K., Gorges, K., Heinze, R., Siligam, P. K., Burkhardt, U., Crewell, S., Hoose, C., Seifert, A., Tegen, I., and Quaas, J.: Detection and attribution of aerosol–cloud interactions in large-domain large-eddy simulations with the ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 5657–5678, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5657-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5657-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>Fioletov et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Fioletov, V., McLinden, C. A., Griffin, D., Theys, N., Loyola, D. G., Hedelt, P., Krotkov, N. A., and Li, C.: Anthropogenic and volcanic point source SO<sub>2</sub> emissions derived from TROPOMI on board Sentinel-5 Precursor: first results, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 5591–5607, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5591-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5591-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>Ghan et al.(2011)</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 Syst., 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.bib15"><label>Giorgetta et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Giorgetta, M. A., Brokopf, R., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fiedler, S., Helmert, J., Hohenegger, C., Kornblueh, L., Köhler, M., Manzini, E., Mauritsen, T., Nam, C., Raddatz, T., Rast, S., Reinert, D., Sakradzija, M., Schmidt, H., Schneck, R., Schnur, R., Silvers, L., Wan, H., Zängl, G., and Stevens, B.: ICON-A, the Atmosphere Component of the ICON Earth System Model: I. Model Description, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1613–1637, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001242" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001242</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Goto et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Goto, D., Sato, Y., Yashiro, H., Suzuki, K., Oikawa, E., Kudo, R., Nagao, T. M., and Nakajima, T.: Global aerosol simulations using NICAM.16 on a 14 km grid spacing for a climate study: improved and remaining issues relative to a lower-resolution model, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3731–3768, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3731-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3731-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Grosvenor et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Grosvenor, D. P., Sourdeval, O., Zuidema, P., Ackerman, A., Alexandrov, M. D., Bennartz, R., Boers, R., Cairns, B., Chiu, J. C., Christensen, M., Deneke, H., Diamond, M., Feingold, G., Fridlind, A., Hünerbein, A., Knist, C., Kollias, P., Marshak, A., McCoy, D., Merk, D., Painemal, D., Rausch, J., Rosenfeld, D., Russchenberg, H., Seifert, P., Sinclair, K., Stier, P., van Diedenhoven, B., Wendisch, M., Werner, F., Wood, R., Zhang, Z., and Quaas, J.: Remote Sensing of Droplet Number Concentration in Warm Clouds: A Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Perspectives, Rev. Geophys., 56, 409–453, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000593" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000593</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Gryspeerdt et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., Sourdeval, O., Quaas, J., Mülmenstädt, J., Dipu, S., Unglaub, C., Gettelman, A., and Christensen, M.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 5331–5347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Hande et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Hande, L. B., Engler, C., Hoose, C., and Tegen, I.: Parameterizing cloud condensation nuclei concentrations during HOPE, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12059–12079, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12059-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12059-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Heinze et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Heinze, R., Dipankar, A., Henken, C. C., Moseley, C., Sourdeval, O., Trömel, S., Xie, X., Adamidis, P., Ament, F., Baars, H., Barthlott, C., Behrendt, A., Blahak, U., Bley, S., Brdar, S., Brueck, M., Crewell, S., Deneke, H., Di Girolamo, P., Evaristo, R., Fischer, J., Frank, C., Friederichs, P., Göcke, T., Gorges, K., Hande, L., Hanke, M., Hansen, A., Hege, H., Hoose, C., Jahns, T., Kalthoff, N., Klocke, D., Kneifel, S., Knippertz, P., Kuhn, A., van Laar, T., Macke, A., Maurer, V., Mayer, B., Meyer, C. I., Muppa, S. K., Neggers, R. A. J., Orlandi, E., Pantillon, F., Pospichal, B., Röber, N., Scheck, L., Seifert, A., Seifert, P., Senf, F., Siligam, P., Simmer, C., Steinke, S., Stevens, B., Wapler, K., Weniger, M., Wulfmeyer, V., Zängl, G., Zhang, D., and Quaas, J.: Large‐eddy simulations over Germany using ICON: a comprehensive evaluation, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 143, 69–100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2947" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2947</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Ialongo et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Ialongo, I., Hakkarainen, J., Kivi, R., Anttila, P., Krotkov, N. A., Yang, K., Li, C., Tukiainen, S., Hassinen, S., and Tamminen, J.: Comparison of operational satellite SO2 products with ground-based observations in northern Finland during the Icelandic Holuhraun fissure eruption, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 2279–2289, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2279-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-2279-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Ilyinskaya et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Ilyinskaya, E., Schmidt, A., Mather, T. A., Pope, F. D., Witham, C., Baxter, P., Jóhannsson, T., Pfeffer, M., Barsotti, S., Singh, A., Sanderson, P., Bergsson, B., McCormick Kilbride, B., Donovan, A., Peters, N., Oppenheimer, C., and Edmonds, M.: Understanding the environmental impacts of large fissure eruptions: Aerosol and gas emissions from the 2014–2015 Holuhraun eruption (Iceland), Earth Planet. Sc. Lett., 472, 309–322, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.05.025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2017.05.025</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Inguaggiato et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Inguaggiato, S., Diliberto, I. S., Federico, C., Paonita, A., and Vita, F.: Review of the evolution of geochemical monitoring, networks and methodologies applied to the volcanoes of the Aeolian Arc (Italy), Earth-Sci. Rev., 176, 241–276, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.006</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Inness et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Inness, A., Ades, M., Agustí-Panareda, A., Barré, J., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Dominguez, J. J., Engelen, R., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kipling, Z., Massart, S., Parrington, M., Peuch, V.-H., Razinger, M., Remy, S., Schulz, M., and Suttie, M.: The CAMS reanalysis of atmospheric composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3515–3556, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Khain et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Khain, A. P., BenMoshe, N., and Pokrovsky, A.: Factors determining the impact of aerosols on surface precipitation from clouds: An attempt at classification, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1721–1748, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2515.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2515.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Klocke et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Klocke, D., Brueck, M., Hohenegger, C., and Stevens, B.: Rediscovery of the doldrums in storm-resolving simulations over the tropical Atlantic /704/106/ 704/106/35/ 704/106/35/823 perspective, Nat. Geosci., 10, 891–896,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0005-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0005-4</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Köhler(1936)</label><mixed-citation>
Köhler, H.: The nucleus in and the growth of hygroscopic droplets,
T. Faraday Soc., 32, 1152–1161, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1039/TF9363201152" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1039/TF9363201152</a>, 1936.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Kolzenburg et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Kolzenburg, S., Giordano, D., Thordarson, T., Höskuldsson, A., and
Dingwell, D. B.: The rheological evolution of the 2014/2015 eruption at
Holuhraun, central Iceland, B. Volcanol., 79, 45,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1128-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-017-1128-6</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Kretzschmar et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Kretzschmar, J., Salzmann, M., Mülmenstädt, J., and Quaas, J.: Arctic clouds in ECHAM6 and their sensitivity to cloud microphysics and surface fluxes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 10571–10589, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10571-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10571-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Kretzschmar et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Kretzschmar, J., Stapf, J., Klocke, D., Wendisch, M., and Quaas, J.: Employing airborne radiation and cloud microphysics observations to improve cloud representation in ICON at kilometer-scale resolution in the Arctic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 13145–13165, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13145-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13145-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>Lai et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Lai, R., Teng, S., Yi, B., Letu, H., Min, M., Tang, S., and Liu, C.: Comparison of cloud properties from Himawari-8 and FengYun-4A geostationary
satellite radiometers with MODIS cloud retrievals, Remote Sens., 11, 1703,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11141703" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11141703</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Lebo and Feingold(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Lebo, Z. J. and Feingold, G.: On the relationship between responses in cloud water and precipitation to changes in aerosol, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11817–11831, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11817-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-11817-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Levy et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Munchak, L. A., Remer, L. A., Sayer, A. M., Patadia, F., and Hsu, N. C.: The Collection 6 MODIS aerosol products over land and ocean, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2989–3034, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2989-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Liu and Daum(2002)</label><mixed-citation>
Liu, Y. and Daum, P. H.: Indirect warming effect from dispersion forcing,
Nature, 419, 580–581, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/419580a" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/419580a</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Loeb et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Loeb, N. G., Manalo-Smith, N., Su, W., Shankar, M., and Thomas, S.: CERES top-of-atmosphere earth radiation budget climate data record: Accounting for in-orbit changes in instrument calibration, Remote Sens., 8, 182,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8030182" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8030182</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Luo et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Luo, Y., Xu, K. M., Morrison, H., and McFarquhar, G.: Arctic mixed-phase clouds simulated by a cloud-resolving model: Comparison with ARM observations
and sensitivity to microphysics parameterizations, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 1285–1303, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2467.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2467.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Malavelle et al.(2017)</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., 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.bib38"><label>Mather et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Mather, T. A., Pyle, D. M., and Allen, A. G.: Volcanic source for fixed
nitrogen in the early Earth's atmosphere, Geology, 32, 905–908,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1130/G20679.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1130/G20679.1</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>McCoy et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
McCoy, D. T., Bender, F. A.-M., Grosvenor, D. P., Mohrmann, J. K., Hartmann, D. L., Wood, R., and Field, P. R.: Predicting decadal trends in cloud droplet number concentration using reanalysis and satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2035–2047, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2035-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2035-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Nakajima and King(1990)</label><mixed-citation>
Nakajima, T. and King, M. D.: Determination of the Optical Thickness and
Effective Particle Radius of Clouds from Reflected Solar Radiation
Measurements. Part I: Theory, J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 1878–1893, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047&lt;1878:DOTOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1990)047&lt;1878:DOTOTA&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>NASA Worldview(2022)</label><mixed-citation>
NASA Worldview: <a href="https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/" target="_blank"/>, last access: 2 March 2022.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Pincus and Baker(1994)</label><mixed-citation>
Pincus, R. and Baker, M. B.: Effect of precipitation on the albedo
susceptibility of clouds in the marine boundary layer, Nature, 372,
250–252, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/372250a0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/372250a0</a>, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Pincus et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Pincus, R., Platnick, S., Ackerman, S. A., Hemler, R. S., and Patrick Hofmann, R. J.: Reconciling simulated and observed views of clouds: MODIS,
ISCCP, and the limits of instrument simulators, J. Climate, 25,
4699–4720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00267.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00267.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Platnick et al.(2017a)</label><mixed-citation>
Platnick, S., Meyer, K. G., King, M. D., Wind, G., Amarasinghe, N., Marchant, B., Arnold, G. T., Zhang, Z., Hubanks, P. A., Holz, R. E., Yang, P., Ridgway, W. L., and Riedi, J.: The MODIS Cloud Optical and Microphysical Products: Collection 6 Updates and Examples from Terra and Aqua, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 55, 502–525, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2016.2610522</a>, 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Platnick et al.(2017b)</label><mixed-citation>
Platnick, S., Ackerman, S., King, M. D., Wind, G., Meyer, K., Menzel, P., Frey, R., Holz, R. E., Baum, B., and Yang, P.: MODIS atmosphere L2 cloud product (06_L2), NASA MODIS Adaptive Processing System, Goddard Space Flight Center, USA [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MYD06_L2.061" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MYD06_L2.061</a>, 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Quaas et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Quaas, J., Boucher, O., and Lohmann, U.: Constraining the total aerosol indirect effect in the LMDZ and ECHAM4 GCMs using MODIS satellite data, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 947–955, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-947-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-947-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Robock(1981)</label><mixed-citation>
Robock, A.: A latitudinally dependent volcanic dust veil index, and its effect on climate simulations, J. Volcanol. Geoth. Res., 11,
67–80, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0273(81)90076-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0273(81)90076-7</a>, 1981.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Roh et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Roh, W., Satoh, M., Hashino, T., Okamoto, H., and Seiki, T.: Evaluations of
the thermodynamic phases of clouds in a cloud-system-resolving model using
calipso and a satellite simulator over the southern ocean, J. Atmos. Sci., 77, 3781–3801, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0273.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-19-0273.1</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Rose et al.(2001)</label><mixed-citation>
Rose, W. I., Bluth, G. J. S., Schneider, D. J., Ernst, G. G. J., Riley, C. M., Henderson, L. J., and McGimsey, R. G.: Observations of Volcanic Clouds in Their First Few Days of Atmospheric Residence: The 1992 Eruptions of Crater Peak, Mount Spurr Volcano, Alaska, J. Geol., 109, 677–694,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/323189" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1086/323189</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Sahyoun et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Sahyoun, M., Freney, E., Brito, J., Duplissy, J., Gouhier, M., Colomb, A., Dupuy, R., Bourianne, T., Nowak, J. B., Yan, C., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., Schwarzenboeck, A., Planche, C., and Sellegri, K.: Evidence of  New Particle Formation Within Etna and Stromboli Volcanic Plumes and Its Parameterization From Airborne In Situ Measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 5650–5668, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028882" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028882</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Saponaro et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Saponaro, G., Sporre, M. K., Neubauer, D., Kokkola, H., Kolmonen, P., Sogacheva, L., Arola, A., de Leeuw, G., Karset, I. H. H., Laaksonen, A., and Lohmann, U.: Evaluation of aerosol and cloud properties in three climate models using MODIS observations and its corresponding COSP simulator, as well as their application in aerosol–cloud interactions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 1607–1626, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1607-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-1607-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Sato et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Sato, Y., Goto, D., Michibata, T., Suzuki, K., Takemura, T., Tomita, H., and
Nakajima, T.: Aerosol effects on cloud water amounts were successfully
simulated by a global cloud-system resolving model, Nat. Commun.,
9, 985, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03379-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03379-6</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>Seifert and Beheng(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A. and Beheng, K. D.: A two-moment cloud microphysics
parameterization for mixed-phase clouds. Part 1: Model description,
Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 92, 45–66, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-005-0112-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-005-0112-4</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>Seifert et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A., Köhler, C., and Beheng, K. D.: Aerosol-cloud-precipitation effects over Germany as simulated by a convective-scale numerical weather prediction model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 709–725, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-709-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-709-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>Seifert et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Seifert, A., Heus, T., Pincus, R., and Stevens, B.: Large-eddy simulation of
the transient and near-equilibrium behavior of precipitating shallow
convection, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 7, 1918–1937,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000489" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015MS000489</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>Small et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Small, J. D., Chuang, P. Y., Feingold, G., and Jiang, H.: Can aerosol decrease cloud lifetime?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 1–5,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038888" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL038888</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>Stevens and Feingold(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B. and Feingold, G.: Untangling aerosol effects on clouds and
precipitation in a buffered system, Nature, 461, 607–613,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08281" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08281</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>Stevens et al.(2020)</label><mixed-citation>
Stevens, B., Acquistapace, C., Hansen, A., Heinze, R., Klinger, C., Klocke, D., Rybka, H., Schubotz, W., Windmiller, J., Adamidis, P., Arka, I., Barlakas, V., Biercamp, J., Brueck, M., Brune, S., Buehler, S. A., Burkhardt, U., Cioni, G., Costa-Surós, M., Crewell, S., Crüger, T., Deneke, H., Friederichs, P., Henken, C. C., Hohenegger, C., Jacob, M., Jakub, F., Kalthoff, N., Köhler, M., van LAAR, T. W., Li, P., Löhnert, U., Macke, A., Madenach, N., Mayer, B., Nam, C., Naumann, A. K., Peters, K., Poll, S., Quaas, J., Röber, N., Rochetin, N., Scheck, L., Schemann, V., Schnitt, S., Seifert, A., Senf, F., Shapkalijevski, M., Simmer, C., Singh, S., Sourdeval, O., Spickermann, D., Strandgren, J., Tessiot, O., Vercauteren, N., Vial, J., Voigt, A., and Zängl, G.: The added value of large-eddy and storm-resolving models for simulating clouds and precipitation, J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn., 98, 395–435, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2020-021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2020-021</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>Su et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Su, W., Corbett, J., Eitzen, Z., and Liang, L.: Next-generation angular distribution models for top-of-atmosphere radiative flux calculation from CERES instruments: methodology, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 611–632, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-611-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-611-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>Tiedtke(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Tiedtke, M.: A Comprehensive Mass Flux Scheme for Cumulus Parameterization in Large-Scale Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 1779–1800,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117&lt;1779:ACMFSF&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117&lt;1779:ACMFSF&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>Toll et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Toll, V., Christensen, M., Gassó, S., and Bellouin, N.: Volcano and Ship Tracks Indicate Excessive Aerosol-Induced Cloud Water Increases in a Climate Model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12492–12500,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075280" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075280</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>Twomey(1959)</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: The nuclei of natural cloud formation part II: The supersaturation in natural clouds and the variation of cloud droplet concentration, Geofisica Pura e Applicata, 43, 243–249, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01993560" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01993560</a>, 1959.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>Twomey(1974)</label><mixed-citation>
Twomey, S.: Pollution and the planetary albedo, Atmos. Environ., 8, 1251–1256, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(74)90004-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(74)90004-3</a>, 1974.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>Webb et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., and Watanabe, M.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 359–384, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>West et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
West, R. E. L., Stier, P., Jones, A., Johnson, C. E., Mann, G. W., Bellouin, N., Partridge, D. G., and Kipling, Z.: The importance of vertical velocity variability for estimates of the indirect aerosol effects, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 6369–6393, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6369-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-6369-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>Xue et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Xue, H., Feingold, G., and Stevens, B.: Aerosol effects on clouds, precipitation, and the organization of shallow cumulus convection, J. Atmos. Sci., 65, 392–406, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2428.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2428.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>Yang(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Yang, K.: OMPS-NPP L2 NM Sulfur Dioxide (SO<sub>2</sub>) Total and Tropospheric Column swath orbital V2, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) [data set], <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/A9O02ZH0J94R" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/A9O02ZH0J94R</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>Zängl et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Zängl, G., Reinert, D., Rípodas, P., and Baldauf, M.: The ICON (ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic) modelling framework of DWD and MPI-M: Description of the non-hydrostatic dynamical core, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 141, 563–579, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2378" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2378</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
