Articles | Volume 26, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-1041-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact on cloud properties of reduced-sulphur shipping fuel in the Eastern North Atlantic
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 22 Jan 2026)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 05 Jun 2025)
- Supplement to the preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2075', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2025
- RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2075', Mark Miller, 03 Jul 2025
- AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2075', Gerald Mace, 27 Oct 2025
Peer review completion
AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload
AR by Gerald Mace on behalf of the Authors (27 Oct 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (29 Oct 2025) by Ken Carslaw
ED: Publish as is (17 Nov 2025) by Barbara Ervens (Executive editor)
AR by Gerald Mace on behalf of the Authors (17 Nov 2025)
Post-review adjustments
AA – Author's adjustment | EA – Editor approval
AA by Gerald Mace on behalf of the Authors (06 Jan 2026)
Author's adjustment
Manuscript
EA: Adjustments approved (06 Jan 2026) by Ken Carslaw
Mace et al. are interested in the impact of the shipping sulfur regulations imposed by the MLO in 2020 on cloud properties and the Earth radiation budget. They present a concise and useful analysis of systematic ground-based remote sensing at a maritime observatory station (yet another manifestation of the outstanding usefulness of the American Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Programme that around the world we would very much like to see continued). They complement this with an analysis of satellite retrievals and meteorological reanalyses.
The study is very well written, grounded in a concise and knowledgeable report about the state of the art. The results are diligently discussed. I only have a few minor suggestions for consideration as minor revisions.
l33 Not quite the exact definition of albedo, which rather is the ratio of reflected to incoming solar radiation
l45 This statement is a bit misleading. Diamond et al. estimate the -1 Wm-2 when considering all anthropogenic aerosol sources, not just the ones from shipping.
l88 why not also the unit for EIS in the caption
l92 Surface temperature is of course not a cloud-controlling factor, but it might still be interesting to also show it here. The reason is that warming in between pre and post might explain aspects of the cloud changes, such as the LWP increase
l100 is the change by 19 cm-3 relative to 160 cm-3 not 12%, rather than 18%?
l102 any idea why the change by 50% is much larger than the one for CCN?
l104 maybe it is worth noting this scaling is for vertically uniform droplet size distributions
l106 it might be interesting to examine (e.g. in Fig. 1) the temperature changes. Is perhaps the LWP increase (partly) consistent with an increase in adiabatic liquid water content in response to warming? if so, one might be able attempt to deconvolve the warming from the aerosol aspects
l113 very interesting
l170 just to clarify – this would be the expected signal. The accumulated precipitation over all intensity classes should change only in response to surface and atmospheric energy budget changes.
l173 I am not sure I understand this metric. first of all, where is the time unit, does one not need a rate? Second, why per horizontal cloud fraction and not rather something more related to LWP? Maybe a formula would help. Or maybe this calculation does actually not help the understanding.