<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">AMT</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">AMT</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Meas. Tech.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1867-8548</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/amt-12-5119-2019</article-id><title-group><article-title>Aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from a synergy of
Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) reflectances</article-title><alt-title>OMI and MODIS aerosol direct radiative effect</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{OMI and MODIS aerosol direct radiative effect}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. de Graaf et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name><surname>de Graaf</surname><given-names>Martin</given-names></name>
          <email>martin.de.graaf@knmi.nl</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7948-3292</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Tilstra</surname><given-names>L. Gijsbert</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1282-6582</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name><surname>Stammes</surname><given-names>Piet</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>R&amp;D Satellite Observations Department, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute (KNMI), De Bilt, the Netherlands</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Martin de Graaf (martin.de.graaf@knmi.nl)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>25</day><month>September</month><year>2019</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>9</issue>
      <fpage>5119</fpage><lpage>5135</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>11</day><month>February</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>8</day><month>March</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>13</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>19</day><month>August</month><year>2019</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2019 Martin de Graaf et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2019</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://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019.html">This article is available from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e95">The retrieval of geophysical parameters is increasingly
dependent on synergistic use of satellite instruments. More
sophisticated parameters can be retrieved and the accuracy of retrievals
can be increased when more information is combined. In this paper,
a synergistic application of Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), on the Aura platform, and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), on the Aqua platform, Level 1B reflectances is described, enabling the retrieval of the aerosol direct
radiative effect (DRE) over clouds using the differential aerosol
absorption (DAA) technique. This technique was first developed for
reflectances from the SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for
Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) on the Environmental Satellite (Envisat), which had the unique
capability of measuring contiguous radiances from the ultraviolet (UV)
at 240 to 1750 nm in the shortwave-infrared (SWIR), at a moderate
spectral resolution of 0.2 to 1.5 nm. However, the spatial resolution
and global coverage of SCIAMACHY was limited, and Envisat stopped
delivering data in 2012. In order to continue the DRE data retrieval,
reflectances from OMI and MODIS, flying in formation, were combined from
the UV to the SWIR. This resulted in reflectances at a limited but
sufficient spectral resolution, available at the OMI pixel grid, which
have a much higher spatial resolution and coverage than SCIAMACHY. The
combined reflectance spectra allow the retrieval of cloud microphysical
parameters in the SWIR, and the subsequent retrieval of aerosol DRE over
cloud scenes using the DAA technique. For liquid cloud scenes in the
south-east Atlantic region with cloud fraction (CF) <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the area-averaged instantaneous aerosol DRE over clouds in June to August 2006 was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with a
standard deviation of 30 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The maximum area-averaged
instantaneous DRE from OMI–MODIS in August 2006 was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The new aerosol DRE over-cloud dataset from OMI–MODIS is
compared to the SCIAMACHY dataset for the period 2006 to 2009, showing a
very high correlation. The OMI–MODIS DRE dataset over the Atlantic Ocean
is highly correlated to above-cloud AOT measurements from OMI and MODIS.
It is related to AOT measurements over Ascension Island in 2016, showing
the transport of smoke all the way from its source region in Africa over
the Atlantic to Ascension and beyond.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e173">The radiative effect of aerosols is one of the least certain
components in global climate models <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx47 bib1.bibx16" id="paren.1"/>. This is
mainly due to the aerosol influences on clouds. Aerosols can, for example, influence cloud formation, cloud albedo, and cloud lifetime, through their
role as cloud condensation nuclei, which are called the indirect
effects of aerosols <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx18 bib1.bibx27" id="paren.2"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. But even the
aerosol direct radiative effect (DRE), the component of aerosol
radiative forcing that neglects all influences on clouds, is still
poorly constrained, due to the heterogeneous distribution of aerosol
sources and sinks and the influence of clouds on global observations
of aerosols. In particular, the characterization of aerosol properties
in cloudy scenes has proved challenging. Locally, the aerosol DRE can
be very large and dominate the radiative forcing. The understanding of
aerosol effects and the influence of aerosols on clouds would be
greatly<?pagebreak page5120?> advanced with daily monitoring of aerosol DRE from passive
instruments with global coverage.</p>
      <p id="d1e184">The derivation of aerosol DRE over clouds  is generally achieved by
simultaneous observations of the cloud optical thickness (COT) and
aerosol optical thickness (AOT) in a cloud scene, which is challenging
from satellite observations. AOT is generally small compared to COT
and difficult to establish in a scene with clouds and overlying
aerosols. However, in recent years several methods have been developed
that separate AOT and COT. For example, active lidar measurements have
been used to derive above-cloud AOT and COT and derive the DRE from
the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) lidar
on board the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder
Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx6" id="paren.3"/>. Polarimeter
measurements from the Polarization and Directionality of the Earth's
Reflectance (POLDER) data can be used to simultaneously derive AOT and
COT in a liquid cloud scene, making use of the different effects of
spherical water droplets and irregularly shaped aerosol particles on
the polarization of light <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx44" id="paren.4"/>. Furthermore, several
techniques have been developed using Moderate Resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) measurements
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22 bib1.bibx29 bib1.bibx36" id="paren.5"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref> and Ozone Monitoring
Instrument (OMI) measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx40" id="paren.6"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>.</p>
      <p id="d1e203">The aerosol DRE can be retrieved over cloud scenes without AOT
knowledge, using shortwave reflectance measurements, such as those measured by
the spaceborne spectrometer SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for
Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) on the Environmental Satellite
(Envisat). By determining cloud optical thickness and droplet effective
radius in the shortwave-infrared (SWIR), as opposed to in the visible where absorption due to
aerosols can bias the cloud retrievals <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.7"/>, the aerosol
effect can be determined by comparing the true cloud–aerosol scene
reflectance with a modelled cloud-only scene reflectance
spectrum <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.8"/>. The spectral difference between the scene with
and without aerosols is quantified by the spectral difference which is
attributed to aerosol absorption, hence the name differential aerosol
absorption (DAA).</p>
      <p id="d1e212">While satellite instruments have become increasingly sophisticated,
measuring at higher spatial and spectral resolution and retaining
global coverage in 1 d for most polar orbiting satellites, there
is a demand for synergistic use of instruments. Space agencies have
facilitated the combined use of instruments, by building instruments
with complementary functionality and flying them in formation. The
best example is the Afternoon Constellation (A-Train), currently
flying six satellites within minutes of each other, allowing
near-simultaneous observation of a wide variety of parameters.
Measurements from instruments in the A-Train have been used to assess
the radiative effects of aerosols above clouds
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx32 bib1.bibx45 bib1.bibx14 bib1.bibx25" id="paren.9"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>.  A number of above-cloud AOT
retrievals are compared in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx23" id="text.10"/> using A-Train
observations.</p>
      <p id="d1e224">In this paper, measurements from OMI on board the Aura satellite and
from MODIS on board the Aqua satellite, flying in the A-Train, are
combined in a different way. The (L1B) reflectance measurements are
combined to create a hyperspectral reflectance spectrum and derive a
new aerosol DRE product in cloud scenes using the DAA method. The DRE
is derived over the south-east Atlantic Ocean during the biomass
burning season. Additionally, lidar measurements from CALIOP on
CALIPSO in the A-Train are used here to illustrate the vertical
distribution of aerosols and clouds over the study area. A comparison
is provided with the original retrieval of aerosol DRE over clouds
using SCIAMACHY data.
This paper is organized as follows: Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2"/> describes
the retrieval of the aerosol DRE from hyperspectral reflectance
measurements in the shortwave spectrum domain using DAA.
Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3"/> describes the synergy of OMI and MODIS
reflectances, to create a hyperspectral reflectance spectrum with
sufficient spectral resolution to apply DAA. Section <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4"/>
shows the aerosol DRE over clouds in the south-east Atlantic Ocean
from OMI–MODIS, compared to the aerosol DRE over clouds, derived from
SCIAMACHY hyperspectral measurements from 2006 to 2009. During these
years both instruments produced accurate measurements and the
SCIAMACHY data from these years have been analysed extensively in
previous publications. In Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S5"/>, additional aerosol
DRE data for the years 2016 and 2017 are presented. During those
years aerosol–cloud interactions have been studied using aircraft
measurements over the Atlantic.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Theory</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Differential aerosol absorption technique</title>
      <p id="d1e250">The instantaneous aerosol DRE at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is
defined as the change in net (upwelling minus downwelling) irradiance,
due to the introduction of aerosols in the atmosphere.  Since the
downwelling radiation is simply the incoming solar radiation, and
restricting the discussion to smoke aerosols for which the extinction
in the longwave radiation spectrum is small, the aerosol DRE for a
cloud scene is
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M7" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the shortwave upwelling
irradiance in an aerosol-free cloud scene and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the shortwave upwelling
irradiance of the same scene with both clouds and aerosols.</p>
      <p id="d1e320">The aerosol DRE over clouds is determined from shortwave hyperspectral
measurements of passive imagers, using measured reflectances of cloud
scenes. The Earth reflectance is defined as the quotient of the
upwelling radiance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the downwelling solar irradiance
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M12" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi><mml:mi>I</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the cosine of the solar zenith angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.<?pagebreak page5121?> If
absorbing aerosols are present above the clouds, the measured scene
reflectance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will deviate from an
aerosol-free cloud scene reflectance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
reflectance difference is attributed to radiation absorption by the
aerosols above the clouds, and the resulting direct radiative effect
of these aerosols is quantified by integrating the reflectance
difference over all wavelengths in the shortwave spectrum and all
angles:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M17" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SW</mml:mi></mml:munder><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is a simulated aerosol-free cloud
reflectance, representative of the measured scene with the aerosols
removed. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the anisotropy factor of a scene, which
is a measure of the angular distribution of the reflected radiation
for a scene and used to determine the radiance from a unidirectional
reflectance measurement. This is determined from the modelled cloud
scene and assumed to be unchanged by the aerosols over the clouds.
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> represents all the instrument and retrieval errors of a
single measurement. See Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS3"/> for a derivation of
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) and a comprehensive treatment of all
its components.</p>
      <p id="d1e605">The aerosol DRE follows from the integration of the radiance
difference between the simulated aerosol-free cloud scene and measured
aerosol polluted cloud scene over the solar spectrum. The integration
is over the part of the shortwave spectrum where aerosols
significantly absorb radiation. In case of combined OMI and MODIS
reflectances, the integration limits are from the start of OMI
measurements (about 270 nm) to the first of the MODIS channels that
are used to invert cloud parameters (1246 nm), where the aerosol
absorption is assumed to have become negligible.</p>
      <p id="d1e608">The instantaneous aerosol DRE can also be derived for cloud-free
scenes (substituting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">clear</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>). However, since the
shortwave reflectance can be very small over dark scenes, the DAA
method would produce very small numbers, yielding highly uncertain
DREs. Therefore, the observations presented in this paper are
restricted to cloud scenes only. Aerosol DRE for clear skies should be
determined from observations of AOT in clear skies. Note that the more
general all-sky direct radiative effect of aerosols in both clear and
cloudy scenes is often derived as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">all</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sky</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">clear</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx48 bib1.bibx24" id="paren.11"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Here,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the direct radiative effect of all
aerosols in a completely overcast atmosphere,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">clear</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> the direct radiative effect of all
aerosols in a cloud-free (Rayleigh) atmosphere, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the fraction of clouds. However, the validity of this equation,
known as the independent pixel approximation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx28 bib1.bibx49" id="paren.12"/>, is dependent on pixel size and cloud
homogeneity. The cloud fraction <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  is the fraction of
an area where clouds appear with similar radiative properties. This
may be true for satellites with sufficiently small pixels and
homogeneous cloud fields. However, in this paper the aerosol DRE is
derived from OMI, which has a relatively large footprint. For OMI an
<italic>effective</italic> cloud fraction is derived (the OMCLDO2 product)
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx41" id="paren.13"/>, similar to the Fast Retrieval Scheme for Clouds
from the Oxygen-A band (FRESCO) algorithm <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx42" id="paren.14"/> but using
the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> absorption band at 477 nm, and the DRE is derived for
OMI pixels with an effective CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 to ensure sufficiently clouded
scenes. The effective cloud fraction differs from the geometric cloud
fraction in that it is radiatively equivalent to the brightness of the
scene but assuming a thick cloud with a fixed albedo of 0.8. The
reason is that for large OMI pixels, partial cloudiness and varying
optical thickness cannot be discriminated. Usually, pixels with
CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 are fully covered with clouds. Therefore, COT and cloud
droplet effective radius (CER) are retrieved assuming a completely
clouded scene. Then, the aerosol DRE is computed using those cloud
parameters again assuming complete cloud coverage.  Although this is
common for satellite cloud products, it should be understood that the
OMI aerosol DRE dataset is not equivalent to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> above. A large part of the scenes with
either small (geometrical) cloud fraction or small cloud optical
thickness are not considered by selecting only scenes with effective CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These scenes will have a small positive or negative aerosol
DRE, as aerosol scattering dominates over dark surfaces. Therefore, the average OMI aerosol DRE in this paper is higher than the average
true cloud or all-sky aerosol DRE. However, the dataset can be used to
validate simulations of the aerosol DRE or other observational
datasets where also scenes with CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 are selected. For example,
the SCIAMACHY aerosol DRE over clouds was compared to HadGEM2
simulations, which showed a clear underestimation of the aerosol DRE
simulated by the model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.15"/>. A recent comparison with
POLDER aerosol DRE for pixels with a cloud fraction larger than 0.3
shows that the aerosol effect could be even higher for thick plumes
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.16"/>. The POLDER DRE correlated very well with SCIAMACHY
and OMI–MODIS DRE but was even higher for very large values.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e824">Flow diagram for the differential aerosol absorption
technique. Yellow boxes contain pixel products, green boxes contain
simulated quantities, the yellow-green box is a retrieval for the
cloud pixel, and the light blue box is the end product. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
represents the geometry of the measurements, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the irradiance
spectrum, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the reflectance (spectrum), CF is cloud
fraction, CP is cloud pressure, COT is cloud optical thickness,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is cloud droplet effective radius, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the ozone
profile, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the surface albedo. See text for details.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e899">Spectral cloud reflectance lookup table nodes.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="10">
     <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:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="10" colname="col10" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parameter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry namest="col2" nameend="col6" align="center">Nodes </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Wavelength <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (nm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">295</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">310</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">320</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">330</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">340</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">380</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">430</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">469</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">555</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">610</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">645</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">858</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">867</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1051</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">1240</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1246</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">1640</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">2130</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud optical thickness <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">32</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10">48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Droplet size <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" 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">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud base height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (km)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> column <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Ω</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (DU)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">267</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">334</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">401</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Surface albedo <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Droplet size eff. variance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Number of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col10"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Retrieval</title>
      <p id="d1e1353">An illustration of the DAA technique is given in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F1"/>. The first step is the selection of suitable
scenes, i.e. the selection of scenes with clouds; see above. To
ensure the selection of (low-level) water clouds, only pixels with a
cloud pressure larger than a threshold (e.g. 800 hPa) are selected.
Step two is the determination of a measured scene reflectance
spectrum. For SCIAMACHY this was trivial; the combination of OMI and
MODIS reflectances is treated in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS5"/>. Step
three is the retrieval of the cloud optical thickness and cloud
droplet<?pagebreak page5122?> effective radius, using the SWIR part of the reflectance
determined in step two, (e.g. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.1</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The SWIR part of the lookup table (LUT) of reflectances is inverted to retrieve
COT and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> . The fourth step is the simulation of the cloud
scene reflectances in the ultraviolet (UV), visible, and SWIR part of the spectrum.
This forward step is simplified using the same LUT as before, which
contains reflectances at 18 wavelengths from 295 to 2130 nm; see
Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T1"/>.  Once the simulated and measured cloud scene
reflectances are available, the DRE is computed in step five, using
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>), and a measured or reference solar
irradiance spectrum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1429">A number of alternatives steps can be identified in this scheme.
Firstly, the accuracy of simulating a cloud scene reflectance spectrum
can be determined by adding an extra selection criterion in step one.
The Aerosol UV-absorbing Index (AI) has been identified as a very
good proxy for the presence of UV-absorbing aerosols in a (cloud)
scene <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx45 bib1.bibx46 bib1.bibx1" id="paren.17"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. By filtering for any
cloud scene with a large AI, scenes with UV-absorbing aerosols above
clouds are effectively filtered. If this criterion is added to step
one, the remaining cloud scenes should yield a zero aerosol DRE. The
(average) deviation from zero is a good estimate of the uncertainty in
simulating the cloud scene reflectance. This is treated in
Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS3"/> for OMI–MODIS pixels. Note, however, that
the exact AI threshold value is dependent on the definition of the
AI, which is different for different instruments and AI products
and highly dependent on the calibration of the instrument. In the analysis in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S4.SS3"/> the version 1.2.3.1 OMI Aerosol Product (OMAERO) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx38" id="paren.18"/> AI at 354/388 nm was used, and it was found that a threshold of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
a better threshold for the removal of scenes with absorbing aerosols.</p>
      <p id="d1e1454">Secondly, the determination of COT in step three may be replaced by
more accurate retrievals. In the current set-up, COT and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are retrieved from the measured reflectance spectrum in step three.
The SWIR measurements <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.1</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
are used to avoid biases due to absorption by aerosols, assuming that
small particles do not effectively interact with radiation at those
wavelengths. This works relatively well<?pagebreak page5123?> but is also a source
of uncertainty for very thick plumes and larger particles. If unbiased cloud
parameters can be obtained from other sources, e.g. from collocated
dedicated cloud instruments, the DAA method may be improved,
especially for thick aerosol plumes. It may even be extended to cases
with desert dust above clouds, which are currently unsuitable because
large mineral particles interact with radiation at SWIR wavelengths.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Measured cloud scene reflectance spectra</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>SCIAMACHY</title>
      <p id="d1e1520">Originally, the DAA technique was applied to reflectance spectra from
SCIAMACHY with a FRESCO effective cloud fraction larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>.
SCIAMACHY was part of the payload of Envisat, launched in 2002 into a polar orbit with an Equator crossing
time of 10:00 LT for the descending node. SCIAMACHY was designed to
measure radiation in eight channels from 240 to 2380 nm at a spectral
resolution of 0.2 to 1.5 nm <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx4" id="paren.19"/>. The radiance was
observed in two alternating modes, nadir and limb, yielding data blocks
called states, approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">960</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">480</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in size. A state
was divided into 13 swaths. In nadir mode, SCIAMACHY produced unique
contiguous reflectance spectra from 240 to 1750 nm with an optical
integration time of 1 s, by co-adding. By interpolating the spectra of
pixels with an integration time of 0.25 s, a swath was divided into
16 pixels of approximately <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">60</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. SCIAMACHY stopped
delivering data in 2012.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Instrument synergy using A-Train instruments</title>
      <p id="d1e1584">In order to continue the DRE measurements, a combination of
instruments can be used to determine a contiguous reflectance spectrum
from the UV to the SWIR. A logical choice were instruments in the
A-Train, which consists of several satellite
platforms flying in constellation in a polar-orbiting, sun-synchronous
orbit, crossing the Equator in the ascending node during the local
afternoon (around 13:30 LT). The purpose is to allow the instruments
on board the platforms to observe the same part of the Earth within
minutes of each other. The time difference between the instruments
within the A-Train is controlled by keeping the various satellites
within control boxes, defined as the maximum distances to
which the satellites are allowed to drift before correcting manoeuvres
are executed.</p>
      <p id="d1e1587">The main focus here is the synergistic use of measurements from
instruments on board the Aqua and Aura platforms. Aqua was launched in
2002 and Aura in 2004, following Aqua by about 15 min. A major
orbital manoeuvre in 2008 of Aqua decreased the distance between the
Aura and Aqua control boxes to about 8 min. The scene that is
observed by both instruments is variable to a few minutes due to the
time difference between Aura and Aqua.</p>
      <p id="d1e1590"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>In addition to the combined measurements from Aura and Aqua, a
lidar on board the CALIPSO was used to illustrate the vertical
distribution of the atmosphere. CALIPSO was launched in April
2006 and placed between Aqua and Aura. Therefore, it provides
excellent collocation in time with the OMI and MODIS observations.
The main payload of CALIPSO is CALIOP. It provides vertically resolved
backscatter profiles of the atmosphere. Here, the Level 1B attenuated
backscatter at 532 nm was used, to visualize the vertical distribution
of clouds and aerosols of the atmosphere sampled by OMI and MODIS.
Since the CALIOP across-track swath is very small, the measurements
from CALIOP are representative of the centre of the OMI and MODIS
swaths only. Note that CALIOP measurements are not needed for the DAA
technique.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>OMI</title>
      <p id="d1e1602">OMI <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx26" id="paren.20"/>, on board the Aura satellite,
was designed to monitor trace gases in the Earth atmosphere,
especially ozone. It was built as the successor to the ESA instruments
GOME <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx5" id="paren.21"/> and SCIAMACHY and NASA's TOMS instruments
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx15 bib1.bibx3" id="paren.22"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. GOME and SCIAMACHY were the first
space-borne hyperspectral instruments, measuring the shortwave
spectrum from the UV to SWIR wavelength range (up until 800 nm for GOME), from which multiple trace
gases, clouds, and aerosol parameters can be retrieved simultaneously.
OMI was designed to measure the complete spectrum from the UV to the
visible wavelength range (up to 500 nm) with a high spatial resolution
and daily global coverage. The optical design of OMI is different from
its predecessors, which used scanning mirrors. In OMI, the incoming
radiation is projected onto a two-dimensional charge-coupled device
(CCD). The radiation is split and mapped spectrally in one dimension
of the CCD. In the other dimension, the across-track measurements are
mapped. The across-track swath width is about 2600 km, resulting in
a complete global coverage in 1 d. The spatial resolution of
OMI is typically about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">23.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at nadir to about
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">42</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">126</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for far off-nadir (56<inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) pixels. However,
the exact footprint size is complicated, which will be treated
explicitly in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S3.SS5"/>. Since 2008, OMI suffers
from progressive degradation, especially in far off-nadir pixels,
called the row anomaly.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>MODIS</title>
      <p id="d1e1678">MODIS is an imaging spectroradiometer and a key instrument on board the
Terra (EOS AM) and Aqua (EOS PM) satellites <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx35" id="paren.23"/>. MODIS
acquires data in 36 spectral bands spanning the visible and infrared.
Typical application of MODIS reflectances are measurements of the
surface albedo, ocean colour and phytoplankton content, trace gases,
clouds, and aerosols at a high spatial resolution. In this paper, only
the shortwave spectral bands are used,<?pagebreak page5124?> which typically have a spatial
resolution of 250 to 500 m and a band width of about 20 to 50 nm.  The
spatial and spectral specifications of the MODIS bands that are used in
this paper are given in Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="Ch1.T2"/>.</p>

<table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1688">MODIS spectral and spatial specifications of bands 1 to 7, used
in this paper.</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>

         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" colname="col1" morerows="1">Band</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Central</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Bandwidth</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Spatial</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">wavelength (nm)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(nm)</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">resolution (m)</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">469</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">459–479</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">4</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">555</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">545–565</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">645</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">620–670</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">250</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">858.5</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">841–876</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">250</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">5</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1240</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1230–1250</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">6</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1640</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1628–1652</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>

         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2130</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2105–2155</oasis:entry>

         <oasis:entry colname="col4">500</oasis:entry>

       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1846">Illustration of the computation of the Aerosol DRE from a
combination of one OMI pixel and collocated MODIS pixels. <bold>(a)</bold> Overview of a stratocumulus cloud deck over the south-east Atlantic
Ocean using MODIS RGB and two selected OMI pixels in red and blue on 1 August 2006. <bold>(b)</bold> Close-up of the two selected OMI pixels, with
collocated high-resolution MODIS pixels, coloured by their intensity,
which is determined by the MODIS reflectance, convolved with the OMI
pixel point spread function that is used to weight the contribution of
the individual MODIS pixels. <bold>(c)</bold> Shortwave spectrum from the red OMI
pixel, acquired at 13:30:21 UTC, combined with the average MODIS
reflectance (both in black), acquired around 13:14:15 UTC. The
coloured dots indicate the weight of the individual MODIS pixels.  <bold>(d)</bold> Shortwave spectrum of the blue OMI pixel, acquired at 13:30:15 UTC
(black), and the average of the MODIS pixels, acquired around 13:14:09
(black). The grey curve indicates the OMI spectrum after scaling with
the average MODIS spectrum. See text for details.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>Combining OMI and MODIS reflectances</title>
      <p id="d1e1876">After selection of suitable cloud pixels (step one), a hyperspectral
reflectance spectrum was constructed using collocated OMI/Aura and
MODIS/Aqua pixels. Spectrally, OMI overlaps with MODIS at 459–479 nm
(central wavelength 469 nm), which can be used to match the OMI
reflectances in the visible channel and the MODIS reflectance in band
3. Spatially, the overlap is more complicated, since the OMI footprint
is not uniquely defined due to the use of a polarization scrambler.
The polarization scrambler  projects four depolarized beams onto the
detector CCD, which are slightly shifted with respect to each other,
and therefore only the central point of the OMI footprint is uniquely
defined. Furthermore, since the optics of OMI contain no moving
mirror but project the incoming radiation onto the CCD detector
array directly during a 2 s interval, the spatial response function of
the OMI footprints is not box-shaped but rather Gaussian-shaped in
two dimensions. About 74 % of the radiance received at a detector pixel is
from within the corner coordinates; the rest of the signal is from
outside the pixel corner coordinates. The OMI field of view was
analysed in detail in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx12" id="text.24"/> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx37" id="text.25"/>. A
2-D Gaussian shape is used here to average MODIS reflectances across
the OMI pixel, favouring pixels near the OMI centre and allowing for
overlapping ground pixels.</p>
      <p id="d1e1885">The projections of radiation are slightly different in the two OMI UV
channels and the OMI visible channel, resulting in slightly different
ground pixels and wavelength grids, but these have not been accounted
for. All computations were performed and reported relative to the
wavelength grid and ground pixels of the OMI visible channel.</p>
      <p id="d1e1888">Two examples of OMI pixels tiled with MODIS pixels are shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>. Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>a
shows an overview of the situation: a broken cloud field over the
south-east Atlantic Ocean, west of Africa, with two OMI pixels: one in
the stratocumulus cloud deck (red), and one at the cloud edge (blue).
Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>b shows the MODIS pixels that are
collocated with the OMI pixels, coloured by their weight in the
averaging of the reflectance, which is the reflectivity convolved with
the Gaussian function. Clearly, points close to the OMI pixel centre
are favoured, but pixels beyond the corner coordinates also contribute
to the radiation in the pixel.  The cloud structure clearly has a
large influence on the contributing pixels.</p>
      <p id="d1e1897">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>c shows the combined OMI and MODIS
reflectance of the fully cloudy scene (red), while
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>d shows the combined OMI and MODIS
reflectance of the broken cloud scene (blue). Clearly, there is a
mismatch between OMI and MODIS for the broken cloud scene, which is
caused by changes in the reflectance due to changes in the cloud
fraction in the OMI footprint. The average reflectance of the scene
has changed during the 15 min between overpasses of Aura and Aqua.
The OMCLDO2 effective CF was 0.69 in the red pixel and 0.35 in the
blue pixel. Fifteen minutes earlier, during the MODIS overpass, the
geometric MODIS CF was around 0.99 and 0.98. Note that
effective cloud fraction is generally lower than geometric cloud
fractions. In order to get a contiguous reflectance spectrum, the
average reflectance during the MODIS overpass is taken and OMI was
scaled to match the MODIS average reflectance at 469 nm. Scaling MODIS
to OMI seemed obvious at first, to have all parameters at the OMI grid
and time. However, this resulted in very noisy data because scaled
MODIS reflectances resulted in flawed cloud parameter retrievals at
longer wavelengths and the accuracy of the DRE over clouds depends
strongly on the accuracy of the  cloud parameters. The derivation of
cloud parameters is treated below.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5.SSS1">
  <label>3.5.1</label><title>Cloud retrieval</title>
      <?pagebreak page5125?><p id="d1e1912">In the current implementation, the MODIS reflectances at 1.2
and 2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m are used to derive cloud droplet effective radius and
cloud optical thickness, following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx30" id="text.26"/> (step three).
Using wavelengths in the SWIR, instead of the visible, avoids biases
of cloud parameters due to absorption by overlying
aerosols <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx20" id="paren.27"/>. The cloud parameters retrieved in this way
have a larger uncertainty but can be used for scenes with overlying
aerosols <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.28"/>. Note that the MODIS reflectance at
1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m is not used for the cloud retrieval because of the large
number of bad and dead pixels in the MODIS/Aqua
detector <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.29"/>. The cloud
droplet effective radius and cloud optical thickness are used to
construct an aerosol-free cloud scene reflectance spectrum using radiative transfer model (RTM) simulations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>.) Since the retrieval of the DRE depends so much on the correct cloud parameters and subsequent scene
reflectance, the average MODIS reflectances have to be taken as a
basis and OMI reflectances have to be scaled to MODIS.  The cloud
optical thickness and cloud effective radii are shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>, representing the clouds in the two
OMI pixels during MODIS overpass.</p>
      <p id="d1e1965">The combined, corrected reflectance spectra, as shown for the OMI
pixels in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F2"/>c and d,
are the basis for the retrieval of the aerosol DRE over clouds using
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1974"><bold>(a)</bold> Instantaneous aerosol direct
radiative effect (DRE) over clouds on 10 August 2006 from a
combination of OMI and MODIS reflectances, overlaid on a MODIS RGB
image. The yellow line indicates the track of the backscatter
profile by CALIOP that is shown in <bold>(c)</bold>. The
reflectance spectrum of the pixel indicated by the black arrow is
given in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. <bold>(b)</bold> Aerosol DRE over clouds
from SCIAMACHY, overlaid on a MERIS RGB image. The reflectance
spectrum of the pixel indicated by the blue arrow is given in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. <bold>(c)</bold> CALIOP total attenuated
backscatter at 532 nm on 10 August 2006, for the
yellow track indicated  in <bold>(a)</bold>. The
location of the OMI pixel indicated in <bold>(a)</bold> by the arrow is indicated
by the black vertical lines. The average CALIOP backscatter profile
between the black lines is plotted on the left as a function of
altitude.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f03.png"/>

          </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2008">The differential aerosol absorption technique illustrated
with OMI–MODIS and SCIAMACHY spectra. In black the spectrum measured
by OMI and MODIS is given for the pixel indicated by the black arrow
in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a. In blue the SCIAMACHY
measured spectrum is shown for the blue pixel in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b.  The red solid line shows the
simulated aerosol-free cloud spectrum computed with an RTM for the OMI
pixel. The dashed red line shows the aerosol-free cloud spectrum
simulated with an RTM for the SCIAMACHY pixel.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f04.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Aerosol DRE from combined OMI and MODIS reflectances</title>
      <p id="d1e2038">The aerosol DRE retrieval over clouds is illustrated using a case of
smoke over the south-east Atlantic Ocean in August 2006. Retrieval
results  from both SCIAMACHY and combined OMI–MODIS measurements on 10
August 2006 are shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>.  August
is the peak of the  biomass burning season in southern Africa, and an
extended smoke plume, originating from the African continent, drifts over the ocean in an elevated layer above a stratocumulus
deck in the boundary layer.</p>
      <p id="d1e2043"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>The presence of the smoke can be observed in the RGB images of
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a and b as
a grey haze over the continent, a darkening of the clouds, and high DRE
values due to absorption of radiation by smoke above the stratocumulus
cloud deck. This cloud deck is typical for this part of the ocean due to
upwelling at the east part of the basin, cooling the sea surface. The
stratocumulus cloud deck is persistent in the south and breaks up
towards the Equator.</p>
      <p id="d1e2049">The vertical distribution of the aerosols and clouds is illustrated in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c, using CALIOP attenuated
backscatter at 532 nm along a track shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a. It clearly shows the boundary
layer stratocumulus clouds between 0 and 1 km altitude, rising towards
the Equator, and a thick smoke plume between 1 and 4 km altitude. The
strong returns are the surface at 0 km and cirrus clouds around
12 to 14 km.</p>
      <?pagebreak page5127?><p id="d1e2056">The smoke consists of small particles, which scatter and absorb the
incoming sunlight. Scattering dominates, and over a dark background
like the ocean, the planetary albedo is increased due to the smoke.
This will result in a negative direct radiative effect. However, over
clouds the aerosol direct radiative effect becomes positive because
the cloud optical thickness is large and the aerosols do not
contribute much to the scattering of the sunlight. They do however,
absorb radiation in the visible and UV part of the shortwave spectrum,
reducing the planetary albedo, resulting in a positive aerosol
radiative effect over clouds. This is quantified by the OMI–MODIS
aerosol DRE over clouds (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a).</p>
      <p id="d1e2062">The OMI–MODIS DRE reaches values of up to 100 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" 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 parts where
smoke from the African continent is abundant. The values drop off to
zero over clouds where the smoke plume is thinning and towards the
cloud edges. The high and low values coincide well with concurrent
measurements of SCIAMACHY DRE, shown in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b. This figure shows the SCIAMACHY
DRE overlaid on a MEdium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) RGB image, both on Envisat. Obviously, the
spatial coverage of SCIAMACHY is much lower than OMI and MODIS,
measuring in nadir mode only half of the time and having larger
pixels. Consequently, the OMI–MODIS DRE is smoother with better
coverage.</p>
      <p id="d1e2079">The location of the black OMI pixel (pointed at by the black arrow in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>a), coincides with the blue
SCIAMACHY pixel in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b (indicated by the
blue arrow) and the black lines in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>c. The computation of the DRE using
the DAA technique for these pixels is illustrated in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>.  The OMI reflectance spectrum up to
500 nm of the black pixel is plotted in black, complemented with the
average reflectance from collocated MODIS pixels (black dots). The
variations in the reflectances of the individual MODIS pixels are
shown by grey dots.</p>
      <p id="d1e2090">The retrieved cloud droplet effective radius for this OMI scene was
11.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, and the cloud optical thickness was 6.7.  The
aerosol-free cloud reflectance spectrum for this scene, computed with
these cloud parameters (step four), is shown by the red solid line in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>. By construction, the simulated
reflectances match the MODIS-measured reflectances at 1.2 and
2.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. Note that the average MODIS reflectance at 1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m does
not match the simulated reflectance, due to dead and bad pixels in
this band.</p>
      <p id="d1e2119">Comparing the black and red lines in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>,
differences can be observed between the simulated and measured
reflectances by OMI and MODIS in the visible and UV. This is indicated
by the yellow shaded area. The difference between the measured
reflectance and the simulated scene reflectance is attributed to
aerosol absorption by aerosols above the cloud layer in the real
scene, which is not present in the simulated cloud-only scene, and
used to compute the DRE following Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>)
(step five). The DRE derived for this OMI scene was 75.2 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" 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>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2140">Area-averaged instantaneous aerosol DRE in Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the
region 4 to 18<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–14<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (local overpass
times from about 09:00 to 10:30 UTC) in 2006–2009 (thin lines) and its
7 d running mean (bold lines) in coloured lines for all OMI–MODIS
pixels with CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 and CP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 800 hPa. In bold grey the SCIAMACHY area
averaged aerosol DRE is plotted for CP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3 and CP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 800 hPa, which was
published in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="text.30"/>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e2223">Histograms of SCIAMACHY and OMI–MODIS DRE in June to September
2006 over the south-east Atlantic Ocean (20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N;
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Comparison with SCIAMACHY</title>
      <p id="d1e2276">In the same Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/>, the reflectance measured
by SCIAMACHY is shown in blue, for the pixel indicated by the blue
arrow in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b. This is a scene which
is at the same location as the OMI pixel in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F3"/>b but measured 3 h earlier. As can be seen in the RGB images, the cloud structures have
changed rather considerably during this time, but the reflectance
spectra from SCIAMACHY and OMI–MODIS are still remarkably similar. The
DRE was also retrieved for this scene, using the SCIAMACHY
reflectances at 1.2 and 1.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. The cloud droplet effective
radius during SCIAMACHY overpass was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m and the cloud optical
thickness was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>. The simulated aerosol-free cloud scene reflectance
spectrum for these cloud parameters is shown  in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F4"/> as the red dashed line. The SCIAMACHY
DRE using the reflectance difference between the simulated cloud scene
and the measured scene is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">87.6</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is slightly larger
than observed by OMI. This is mainly due to the higher cloud optical
thickness, for which the DRE is most sensitive.</p>
      <p id="d1e2337">The OMI–MODIS DRE is further compared with SCIAMACHY DRE over the
south-east Atlantic area. SCIAMACHY has been used before to analyse the
impact of<?pagebreak page5128?> smoke during the African biomass burning season on the
radiation budget <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx8 bib1.bibx9" id="paren.31"><named-content content-type="pre">e.g.</named-content></xref>. Very high
area-averaged instantaneous DREs were found in August 2006 of more than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which could not be reproduced by global climate models
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx11" id="paren.32"/>. These high DRE values have since been confirmed by
POLDER measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx31" id="paren.33"/>, which show even higher
instantaneous DRE values than those with SCIAMACHY <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx13" id="paren.34"/>.
The  area-averaged instantaneous DRE over the south-east Atlantic was
also determined from OMI–MODIS combined reflectances, and compared to
the SCIAMACHY DRE (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F5"/>). Only OMI pixels with an OMCLDO2 cloud fraction  larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> were
selected, to ensure a sufficiently clouded scene, and only OMI pixels
with an OMCLDO2 cloud pressure larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">800</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> hPa, to exclude ice
clouds. The maximum area-averaged instantaneous DRE from OMI–MODIS in
August 2006 was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The SCIAMACHY data were
similarly filtered, using a FRESCO cloud fraction <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx43" id="paren.35"/> larger
than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> and FRESCO cloud pressure larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">800</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> hPa. The
comparison is remarkably good, considering the much better OMI spatial
coverage compared to that from SCIAMACHY. Pearson's correlation
coefficient for the 7 d averaged DRE values from SCIAMACHY and
OMI–MODIS is 0.9667. A fit between the two datasets showed that the DRE
from OMI–MODIS was about 5 % lower than that retrieved from SCIAMACHY on
average with an offset of 2.4 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" 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>
      <p id="d1e2444">Histograms of the DRE distribution during June to August 2006 are
presented in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F6"/>. The average aerosol DRE over
clouds was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with a standard deviation of 30 Wm<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>
from OMI–MODIS measurements, while it was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<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> with a
standard deviation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from SCIAMACHY measurements.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2522">Frequency distribution of the apparent aerosol effect of all
OMI aerosol-unpolluted marine water cloud scenes in June–September 2006
over the south-east Atlantic Ocean (20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S to 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N;
10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E). The OMI–MODIS DRE for each pixel with
OMI AI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0, CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3, and CP <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 800 hPa was considered. The offset
(apparent DRE) for these pixels is 7 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is taken as the
bias of the OMI–MODIS DRE method. The standard deviation of the
DRE for these unpolluted scenes is 12 Wm<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>, which is a measure
of the random error of the DRE.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Accuracy assessment</title>
      <p id="d1e2623">In order to provide an error estimate for the OMI–MODIS DRE
measurements, the uncertainty <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in
Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) is analysed in this section.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>4.3.1</label><title>Spectral cloud modelling</title>
      <p id="d1e2642">The most important error
source is the modelling of unpolluted cloud spectra  or the ability to
represent an aerosol-free cloud spectrum by a simulated spectrum. This
assumption can readily be tested by comparing measured aerosol-free
cloud spectra <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to simulated spectra
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sim</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for scenes that are screened for absorbing aerosols,
as explained in Sect. <xref ref-type="sec" rid="Ch1.S2.SS1"/>. The difference
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">meas</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sim</mml:mi></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should ideally be
zero, so the resulting aerosol DRE from these scenes should be zero.
Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> shows the aerosol DRE for aerosol-free cloud
scenes in June to August 2006. Only scenes with an OMCLDO2 effective cloud fraction larger than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.3</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> were considered to ensure a sufficiently clouded scene, and only scenes with an OMCLDO2 cloud pressure higher than 800 hPa were considered to exclude ice clouds. To ensure the absence of absorbing aerosols, only scenes with an OMAERO 354/388 nm AI smaller than 0 were considered, following <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx7" id="text.36"/>.  The average difference in DRE between the
simulated and real scenes was about 7 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and was previously
considered a systematic error of the differential absorption technique
for aerosol-free scenes. However, the exact threshold for AI to
exclude aerosols is not unambiguous, and a test with different AI
thresholds showed that the average DRE for OMI–MODIS aerosol-free
cloud scenes is reduced to only 1 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" 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> when scenes with AI smaller
than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are<?pagebreak page5129?> considered. Therefore, a bias due to cloud modelling may
be much smaller than the 7 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" 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> shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/>.</p>
      <p id="d1e2757">The standard deviation for the apparent DRE between simulated and real
spectra shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F7"/> was 12 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The standard
deviation was not sensitive to a change in AI threshold and can be
considered a random error.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2776">Left-hand side: polar plot of the spectral BRDF of a scene as a
function of viewing zenith angle (range of the polar plot) and
relative azimuth angle (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the polar plot), at 555 nm (left
hemisphere) and 2130 nm (right hemisphere), for different COT and AOT
(given in brackets). From left to right the COT increases, while from
top to bottom the AOT increases. Thus, the top-left plot represents
the spectral BRDF for a Rayleigh atmosphere, while the bottom-right plot shows the spectral BRDF of an atmosphere with a cloud (COT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 32)
and a thick smoke layer above (AOT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.3) at 555 and 2130 nm.
Right-hand side: spectral BRDF change <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (compared to the
aerosol-free case; see Eq. <xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E7"/>) for the different
cloud with smoke scenes, given for 555 nm. The cloud-free cases have
been omitted.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>4.3.2</label><title>Anisotropy factor</title>
      <p id="d1e2829">The effect of assuming an unchanged anisotropy factor between polluted
and unpolluted scenes is treated in the current section, following the
analysis in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="text.37"/>. This thesis describes the maximum
uncertainty that can be expected in aerosol direct radiative effect
using Eq. (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) by simulating a cloud scene with and
without (smoke) aerosols above the cloud.</p>
      <p id="d1e2837">The anisotropy factor B is defined as the
bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) of a scene
normalized by the spectral planetary albedo A, which is defined as
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M136" display="block"><mml:mrow><?xmltex \hack{\hbox\bgroup\fontsize{9}{9}\selectfont$\displaystyle}?><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">π</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munderover><mml:munderover><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:munderover><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><?xmltex \hack{$\egroup}?></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            and
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M137" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            The anisotropy factor of a cloud scene is strongly dependent on
scattering angle, since the BRDF of a cloud scene has some strong
peaks, especially in backscatter conditions (glory) and around
140<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (cloud bow). It can be
shown that the uncertainty in the DRE retrieval is
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M139" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>↑</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DRE</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the DRE when the actual
anisotropy factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used instead
of the aerosol-free anisotropy factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is the relative difference in anisotropy factor:
              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M144" display="block"><mml:mtable class="split" columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">aer</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cld</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>
            In other words, the difference between the “true” DRE and the DRE
derived assuming an unchanging anisotropy factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mi>B</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is proportional
to the change in anisotropy factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">λ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">μ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϕ</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> only.</p>
      <p id="d1e3347">To estimate the uncertainty introduced by the assumption of an unchanging
anisotropy factor, the BRDF for scenes with aerosols and clouds was
simulated for different COT and AOT. For the simulations, a cloud was
placed between 1 and 2 km and an aerosol layer between 2 and 5 km altitude.
The clouds were simulated assuming a single-mode gamma particle size
distribution with effective radius <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m and an
effective variance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ν</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">eff</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. For the aerosols, a bi-modal
log-normal size distribution model was used, based on the “very aged”
(5 d) biomass plume found over Ascension Island during SAFARI 2000.
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx19" id="paren.38"/>. A refractive index  of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.54</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.018</mml:mn><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was used for
all wavelengths longer than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">550</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> nm. However, for the UV spectral
region the imaginary refractive index was modified so that the
absorption Ångström exponent was <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.91</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> in the UV, which fits
satellite observations better <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx21" id="paren.39"/>. The geometric radii
for this haze plume used in the simulations here were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.255</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.117</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m for the coarse and fine
modes, with standard deviations <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. The fine-mode number fraction was
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.9997</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>. These numbers are similar to the numbers
used by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx33" id="text.40"/> and the same as used in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="text.41"/> to
estimate the anisotropy change for SCIAMACHY DRE.</p>
      <p id="d1e3505">The results are summarized in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>. In the left
panel the spectral BRDF is given  for different scenes. The BRDF is
symmetric about the 0–180<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> axis, but here the left side of
each polar plot shows the BRDF at 555 nm and the right side the BRDF
at 2130 nm. The nine plots show the spectral BRDF for scenes with
different AOT and COT, indicated by the (AOT, COT) number pairs above
the figures. The COT increases from left to right from 0 to 4 and 32,
while the AOT changes from top to bottom between 0 and 0.13 and 1.3.
In the top-left plot the BRDF for a Rayleigh atmosphere is shown, the
bottom-right plot show the BRDF for a thick cloud with a thick smoke
plume.</p>
      <p id="d1e3520">The difference between the left side and right side of the polar
plots show that the largest geometrical dependence of the BRDF is
found at smaller wavelengths. The BRDF is more pronounced for 555 nm
compared to 2130 nm. Consequently, the effect of overlying smoke
aerosols on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is small for longer wavelengths. However, at
555 nm the effect is significant. The BRDF of cloud scenes strongly
depends on the scattering angle, with a large concentration of
radiation especially in the backscatter direction and at
140<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. When the AOT of an overlying
aerosol layer increases, these strong peaks are smoothed out, and the
change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is significant. The effect is largest for a thin
cloud and thick aerosol layer (COT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4, AOT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.3).</p>
      <p id="d1e3571">In the right panel of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>, the change in cloud
BRDF due to overlying smoke aerosols <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 555 nm is given
for all the scenes in the left panel with aerosols and clouds (the
scenes with COT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 have been omitted). The same figures can be
given at 2130 nm, but since the changes are much smaller, they are
also omitted. The right panel again shows the largest change in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and thus DRE, for a thin cloud and thick aerosol layer
for geometries in the cloud bow.</p>
      <p id="d1e3609">The maximum DRE change was found for this situation (COT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 4, AOT <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.3,
single scattering angle <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 140<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The DRE changed from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to
3.7 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This is a moderate change, smaller than the uncertainty
estimated above, but due to the low COT the DRE is small, and the DRE
changes sign because of the assumption of an unchanging<?pagebreak page5130?> anisotropy
factor. This underlines the fact that the DAA method is valid only for
sufficiently clouded scenes. Therefore, a minimum cloud fraction of
0.3 is always applied to the scenes to derive the DRE. Consequently,
the derived DRE is always positive. Also note that the scattering
angle of 140<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is a common angle in the measurements,
occurring about 40 % of the time for measurements over the
south-east Atlantic during summer, so low DRE values could easily be
affected by this uncertainty. Furthermore, cloud parameter retrievals can be
biased in these conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx2" id="paren.42"/>, but the effects are small
at SWIR wavelengths (see Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F8"/>) and are neglected
for the cloud retrieval.  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is small for all other
situations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3.SSS3">
  <label>4.3.3</label><title>Accuracy</title>
      <p id="d1e3700">Other uncertainties are the effect of aerosol absorption on cloud
fraction and cloud pressure retrievals and the assumption of zero
aerosol absorption at 1.2 microns. All these uncertainties were found to be
small <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx10" id="paren.43"/>, in the order of about 1 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" 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>. Here, we
assume that the random errors from these error sources are similar to
those for SCIAMACHY and independent, so they can be added using
standard error propagation theory. This way, the uncertainty of the OMI–MODIS
DRE retrievals was found to be about 13 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is almost
twice that of SCIAMACHY DRE. The main reason for this decrease in
accuracy is the combination of measurements from OMI and MODIS, which
do not observe a scene at exactly the same time.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Application to the 2016 and 2017 biomass burning season</title>
      <p id="d1e3742">During the 2016 and 2017 biomass burning season,  several field
campaigns have been performed in the south-east Atlantic region. From
May 2016 until October 2017, an Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mobile Facility was installed and
run on Ascension Island, providing ground-based remote sensing and
in situ measurements of clouds and aerosols <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx51" id="paren.44"/>.
Also in 2016 and 2017,  aircraft measurement campaigns were carried out from Namibia, Ascension Island, and São Tomé to sample
clouds and aerosols microphysical parameters and measure radiation
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx50" id="paren.45"/>.  Here, the aerosol DREs over cloud from combined
OMI–MODIS reflectances during these seasons are presented.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e3753"><bold>(a)</bold> OMI–MODIS aerosol DRE over clouds, averaged over the
Atlantic Ocean
(10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N to 20<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S; 10<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W to 15<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) in
2016 (red) and 2017 (blue). The solid line shows the area-averaged
instantaneous DRE; the dashed line shows a 7 d running mean; <bold>(b)</bold> Above-cloud AOT (ACA) derived from MODIS (solid line) and OMI
(dashed line) measurements during 2016 (red) and 2017 (blue), averaged
over the same area as <bold>(a)</bold>; <bold>(c)</bold> AERONET AOT at 500 nm from Ascension
Island station at 7.98<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 14.42<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W in 2016 (red)
and 2017 (blue). The solid line shows all available level 1.5 data; the dashed line shows a 100 point
running mean. </p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e3830">Aerosol DRE over clouds from OMI–MODIS overlaid on MODIS
RGB images for three consecutive days (5, 6, 7 August), and
backtrajectories from Ascension Island of air parcels ending at 500 m
(red), 1500 m (blue), and 3000 m (green). The position of the air in
the backtrajectories during the satellite overpasses is indicated by
the coloured stars (yellow on 7 August (at Ascension Island), orange on
6 August, and brown on 5 August). </p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://amt.copernicus.org/articles/12/5119/2019/amt-12-5119-2019-f10.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e3840">In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a, the aerosol DRE over clouds, averaged
over the south-east Atlantic Ocean, was computed using combined OMI–MODIS
reflectances from 1 June to 1 October in 2016 and 2017 for pixels with a
cloud fraction larger than 0.3 and cloud pressures higher than 800 hPa.
Area-averaged instantaneous DRE values are shown by the solid line;
the dashed line shows a 7 d running mean. It shows the evolution
of smoke from vegetation fires in Africa over the ocean. In 2016, the
amount of smoke is moderate in all months, except in August, when two
periods of extreme pollution over the ocean can be observed. In 2017,
a gradual increase of the pollution amount is observed from June
onward, until it quickly diminishes halfway September. These
differences can be caused by meteorological differences, controlling
the transport of the smoke from the continent to the ocean and<?pagebreak page5131?> by
differences in the amount of fires, which are in turn also determined
by  meteorological factors (droughts and the onset of the rain
season).</p>
      <p id="d1e3845">Figure <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b shows the above-cloud AOT (ACA) in the
same periods, derived from MODIS <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx29" id="paren.46"/> (solid line) and OMI
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx22" id="paren.47"/> (dashed line) measurements. The correlation between
the above-cloud AOT and aerosol DRE over clouds is very large,
especially for the MODIS ACA. Although the aerosol DRE is mainly
determined by the cloud reflectance of the cloud underneath the
clouds, the correlation can be explained by the persistence of the
marine boundary layer clouds over the Atlantic. These clouds are very
stable, and the change in cloud fraction is small when averaged over
the considered area. The large peaks in August 2016 are also visible
in the ACA data and are clearly caused by the presence of smoke.</p>
      <p id="d1e3856">The high values of the aerosol DRE and ACA in August and September 2016 are also reflected in AOT data collected by the AERosol RObotic
NETwork (AERONET) station on Ascension Island, located at
8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 14.4<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W. The version 2 (V2) level 1.5 AOT at
500 nm over Ascension Island from 1 June to 1 October 2016 and 2017 is
shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>b. It shows AOT higher than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula>
in a few isolated events in August 2016, which were strongly
correlated with episodes of high-aerosol DRE over clouds in the south-east
Atlantic, as shown in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a. On the other hand,
in 2017 the aerosol DRE values were more moderate and do not
correlate clearly with the AOT over Ascension Island. Note that
version 3 (V3) data are also available <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx17" id="paren.48"/>, but the level
1.5 AOT data showed rather different behaviour to the V2 data, and
the V2 data were retained. Level 2.0 data were also available for
2016, but these are almost equal to the level 1.5 data, and for 2017
the level 2.0 data were not yet available. Therefore, V2 level 1.5
data were used in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>c.</p>
      <p id="d1e3894">The peaks in AOT over Ascension Island lag behind the peaks in DRE and ACA
over the Atlantic by 2 d. This is shown for 7 August 2016
(vertical line in Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>) and in
Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>, which presents the aerosol DRE from
OMI–MODIS during 5, 6, and 7 August 2016. On the first day
the aerosol DREs and AOT over the Atlantic Ocean peak
(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>a and b), while during the last day the AOT over
Ascension peaks (Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F9"/>c).</p>
      <p id="d1e3905">In Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>, HYSPLIT backtrajectories
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx34" id="paren.49"/> of air parcels ending over Ascension Island at 500,
1500, and 3000 m altitude are overlaid on each image (same
trajectories in all images). They show the rapid transport of smoke
over the Atlantic originating from Angola and its backcountry. The
coloured stars indicate the time of satellite overpass in each
backtrajectory, which is around 13:00 UTC. On 5 August this is indicated
by the brown stars and on 6 August by orange stars, while on 7 August
this is at Ascension, indicated by the yellow star.</p>
      <p id="d1e3913">The wind direction in the boundary layer (500 m, red) is south-east,
which is very persistent for this area. The air ending at 1500 m
(blue) originates from Angola and beyond, while the air at 3000 m
(green) originated somewhere around the Congo Basin.  All three layers can carry
aerosols and contribute to the high AOT at Ascension Island.</p>
      <?pagebreak page5132?><p id="d1e3917">The boundary layer will likely contain marine aerosols, but the
transport in this layer is very constant, adding to the
background AOT over Ascension of about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Only the 1500 m layer
coincides exactly with the peak DRE over the ocean during 5 and
6 August, as shown by the stars in the different panels.  High values
of DRE travel along the blue 1500 m line, crossing the Atlantic in
only a few days. Interestingly, the altitude of this layer (shown in
the bottom layer of Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="Ch1.F10"/>) is close to the
ground over the continent, quickly rising to above 2000 m at some
point and then gradually declining to 1500 m. This strongly suggests
that the layer is smoke-filled and heated over a fire area, which then
travels over the ocean in a stable elevated layer, as found by
<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bib1.bibx39" id="text.50"/>.  Lastly, the layer ending at 3000 m is at a high
altitude at all times and is not collocated with high DRE values, and
therefore it is less likely that this layer contributes to the high
AOT over Ascension.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e3945">In this paper, the aerosol direct radiative effect product is
presented retrieved from combined Level 1B reflectance measurements
by OMI and MODIS. The synergistic use of multiple instruments was
made possible because the instruments fly in formation in the A-Train.
This presents opportunities which are not otherwise possible or are only possible with
a much lower coverage, depending on the collocation of instruments.</p>
      <p id="d1e3948">The aerosol DRE over clouds can be retrieved from combined OMI–MODIS
reflectance spectra using the DAA technique, as was also done using
SCIAMACHY spectra. MODIS reflectance collocated with
OMI pixels was used to retrieve cloud properties of a cloud scene,
while the combined OMI and MODIS shortwave reflectance spectrum
provides information about the absorption by aerosols in the UV and
visible part of the spectrum.</p>
      <p id="d1e3951">This yields aerosol DREs over clouds which were compared with existing
data from SCIAMACHY, using cloud scenes over the Atlantic Ocean. This
area is known for its strong pollution by smoke during the south
African biomass burning season and can be used to demonstrate the
strong aerosol DRE over clouds.  For liquid cloud scenes with CF <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.3, the area-averaged instantaneous aerosol DRE over clouds in June to August 2006 was
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">25</mml:mn></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with a standard deviation of 30 Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The maximum
area-averaged instantaneous DRE from OMI–MODIS in August 2006 was
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">75.6</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Wm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The OMI–MODIS DRE shows a very good
correlation with SCIAMACHY DRE between 2006 and 2009 and has a much
better resolution and coverage. Furthermore, SCIAMACHY stopped
delivering data in 2012, while OMI and MODIS are still producing high-quality data.</p>
      <p id="d1e4017">The successful combination of OMI and MODIS reflectances demonstrates
the possibility for synergistic use of other instruments as well,
other than combining L2 products. For example, the aerosol DRE over
clouds may also be derived from combined Visible Infrared Radiometer
Suite (VIIRS) and Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS) data, which
could complement the current OMI–MODIS DRE dataset and that derived
with SCIAMACHY, especially since OMI shows progressive instrumental
degradation. These instruments both fly on the Suomi–NPP (SNPP)
spacecraft since 2011, so the collocation will be much better than
between OMI and MODIS. In 2017, another set of VIIRS and OMPS
instruments was launched on board the NOAA20 platform, leading SNPP by
50 min. More identical instruments are planned on NOAA's Joint
Polar Satellite System (JPSS) programme, enabling data generation for
the next 2 decades. Furthermore, the instrument capabilities
continue to grow, so the DRE may be retrieved with higher accuracy at
at higher spectral and spatial resolution.</p>
      <p id="d1e4021">OMI–MODIS DRE data in 2016 and 2017 show the effect of smoke being
transported over the Atlantic all the way to Ascension, 3000 km from
its source, where it coincides with high AOT values measured by
AERONET. A high<?pagebreak page5133?> correlation of the aerosol DRE over clouds was found
with above-cloud AOT, even though the DRE is more strongly dependent
on COT then AOT. This can be explained by the persistence of the
marine boundary layer cloud deck over the south-east Atlantic.
Backtrajectories show that the altitude of the smoke layer was well
above the boundary layer in the free troposphere, as found by several
studies before. The OMI–MODIS DRE can be used to study the aerosol
direct effect but also contribute to understanding more complex
feedback mechanisms between clouds, aerosols, and radiation.</p>
</sec>

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

      <p id="d1e4028">The OMI–MODIS DRE data are freely available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21944/omi-modis-aerosol-direct-effect" ext-link-type="DOI">10.21944/omi-modis-aerosol-direct-effect</ext-link> (de Graaf et al., 2019b) and
from the first author on request.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4037">MdG developed the DAA technique and its application to
OMI–MODIS measurements and created the SCIAMACHY and OMI–MODIS DRE
datasets. LGT provided support for the satellite retrievals and
developed surface reflectance datasets. PS
developed the RTM.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4043">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4049">This article is part of the special issue “New observations and related modelling studies of the aerosol–cloud–climate system in the Southeast Atlantic and southern Africa regions (ACP/AMT inter-journal SI)”. It is not associated with a conference.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4055">Brent Holben is thanked as PI of the AERONET station at
Ascension Island and providing the AOT data. The reviewers and editor
are thanked for their constructive comments and contributions to the
original manuscript.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4060">This research has been supported by the Netherlands Space Office (grant no. ALW-GO/12-32).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4066">This paper was edited by Hiren Jethva and reviewed by Zhibo Zhang and one anonymous referee.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bibx1"><label>Alfaro-Contreras et al.(2014)</label><?label alfaro14?><mixed-citation>Alfaro-Contreras, R., Zhang, J., Campbell, J. R., Holz, R. E., and Reid, J. S.:
Evaluating the impact of aerosol particles above cloud on cloud optical depth
retrievals from MODIS, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
5410–5423, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021270" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD021270</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx2"><label>Benas et al.(2019)</label><?label benas19?><mixed-citation>Benas, N., Meirink, J. F., Stengel, M., and Stammes, P.: Sensitivity of liquid cloud optical thickness and effective radius retrievals to cloud bow and glory conditions using two SEVIRI imagers, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 2863–2879, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2863-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-2863-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx3"><label>Bhartia et al.(2013)</label><?label bhartia13?><mixed-citation>Bhartia, P. K., McPeters, R. D., Flynn, L. E., Taylor, S., Kramarova, N. A., Frith, S., Fisher, B., and DeLand, M.: Solar Backscatter UV (SBUV) total ozone and profile algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2533–2548, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2533-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-2533-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx4"><label>Bovensmann et al.(1999)</label><?label bovensmann99?><mixed-citation>Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Buchwitz, M., Frerick, J., Noël, S.,
Rozanov, V. V., Chance, K. V., and Goede, A. P. H.: SCIAMACHY: Mission
Objectives and Measurement Modes, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 127–150,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx5"><label>Burrows et al.(1999)</label><?label burrows99?><mixed-citation>Burrows, J. P., Weber, M., Buchwitz, M., Rozanov, V., Ladstätter-Weißenmayer, A., Richter, A., DeBeek, R., Hoogen, R., Bramstedt, K., Eichmann,
K.-U., Eisinger, M., and Perner, D.: The Global Ozone Monitoring
Experiment (GOME): Mission Concept and First Scientific Results,
J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 151–175, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469</ext-link>, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx6"><label>Chand et al.(2009)</label><?label chand09?><mixed-citation>Chand, D., Wood, R., Anderson, T. L., Satheesh, S. K., and Charlson, R. J.:
Satellite-derived direct radiative effect of aerosols dependent on cloud
cover, Nat. Geosci., 2, 181–184, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO437" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/NGEO437</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx7"><label>de Graaf et al.(2005)</label><?label graaf05?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Stammes, P., Torres, O., and Koelemeijer, R. B. A.: Absorbing
Aerosol Index: Sensitivity Analysis, application to GOME and comparison with
TOMS, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D01201, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005178" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005178</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx8"><label>de Graaf et al.(2007)</label><?label graaf07?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Stammes, P., and Aben, E. A. A.: Analysis of reflectance spectra
of UV-absorbing aerosol scenes measured by SCIAMACHY, J. Geophys. Res.,
112, D02206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007249" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006JD007249</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx9"><label>de Graaf et al.(2010)</label><?label graaf10?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Tilstra, L. G., Aben, I., and Stammes, P.: Satellite
observations of the seasonal cycles of absorbing aerosols in Africa related
to the monsoon rainfall, 1995–2008, Atmos. Environ., 44, 1274–1283,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.038</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx10"><label>de Graaf et al.(2012)</label><?label graaf12?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Tilstra, L. G., Wang, P., and Stammes, P.: Retrieval of the
aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from spaceborne spectrometry,
J. Geophys. Res., 117, D7, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD017160</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx11"><label>de Graaf et al.(2014)</label><?label graaf14?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Bellouin, N., Tilstra, L. G., Haywood, J., and Stammes, P.:
Aerosol direct radiative effect of smoke over clouds over the southeast
Atlantic Ocean from 2006 to 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 21,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061103" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GL061103</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx12"><label>de Graaf et al.(2016)</label><?label graaf16?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Sihler, H., Tilstra, L. G., and Stammes, P.: How big is an OMI pixel?, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3607–3618, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3607-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-3607-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx13"><label>de Graaf et al.(2019a)</label><?label graaf19b?><mixed-citation>de Graaf, M., Schulte, R., Peers, F., Waquet, F., Tilstra, L. G., and Stammes, P.: Comparison of south Atlantic aerosol direct radiative effect overclouds from SCIAMACHY, POLDER and OMI/MODIS, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-545" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-2019-545</ext-link>, in review, 2019a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>De Graaf, M., Stammes, P., and Tilstra, L. G.:  OMI-MODIS aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds, version 1.0, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21944/omi-modis-aerosol-direct-effect" ext-link-type="DOI">10.21944/omi-modis-aerosol-direct-effect</ext-link>, 2019b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page5134?><ref id="bib1.bibx14"><label>Feng and Christopher(2015)</label><?label feng15?><mixed-citation>Feng, N. and Christopher, S. A.: Measurement-based estimates of direct
radiative effects of absorbing aerosols above clouds, J. Geophys. Res.,
120, 6908–6921, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023252" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023252</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx15"><label>Fleig et al.(1986)</label><?label fleig86?><mixed-citation>Fleig, A. J., Bhartia, P. K., Wellemeyer, C. G., and Silberstein, D. S.: Seven
years of total ozone from the TOMS instrument-A report on data quality,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 13, 1355–1358, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GL013i012p01355" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/GL013i012p01355</ext-link>, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx16"><label>Forster et al.(2007)</label><?label IPCC07?><mixed-citation>
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D. W.,
Haywood, J., Lean, J., Lowe, D. C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga,
G., Schulz, M., and Van Dorland, R.: Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by Solomon, S.,
Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M., and
Miller, H., p. 996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx17"><label>Giles et al.(2019)</label><?label giles19?><mixed-citation>Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx18"><label>Haywood and Boucher(2000)</label><?label haywood00?><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. and Boucher, O.: Estimates of the direct and indirect radiative
forcing due to tropospheric aerosols: A review, Rev. Geophys., 38,
513–543,  2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx19"><label>Haywood et al.(2003)</label><?label haywood03?><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M., Osborne, S. R., Francis, P. N., Neil, A., Formenti, P.,
Andreae, M. O., and Kaye, P. H.: The mean physical and optical properties of
regional haze dominated by biomass burning aerosol measured from the C–130
aircraft during SAFARI 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, D13,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002226" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002226</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx20"><label>Haywood et al.(2004)</label><?label haywood04?><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M., Osborne, S. R., and Abel, S. J.: The effect of overlying
absorbing aerosol layers on remote sensing retrievals of cloud effective
radius and cloud optical depth, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 130, 779–800,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.100" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1256/qj.03.100</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx21"><label>Jethva and Torres(2011)</label><?label jethva11?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H. and Torres, O.: Satellite-based evidence of wavelength-dependent aerosol absorption in biomass burning smoke inferred from Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10541–10551, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10541-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-10541-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx22"><label>Jethva et al.(2013)</label><?label jethva13?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H., Torres, O., Remer, L. A., and Bhartia, P. K.: A Color Ratio Method
for Simultaneous Retrieval of Aerosol and Cloud Optical Thickness of
Above-Cloud Absorbing Aerosols From Passive Sensors: Application to MODIS
Measurements, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 3862–3870,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx23"><label>Jethva et al.(2014)</label><?label jethva14?><mixed-citation>Jethva, H., Torres, O., Waquet, F., Chand, D., and Hu, Y.: How do A-train
Sensors Intercompare in the Retrieval of Above-Cloud Aerosol Optical Depth? A
Case Study-based Assessment, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058405" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013GL058405</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx24"><label>Kacenelenbogen et al.(2019)</label><?label kacenelenbogen19?><mixed-citation>Kacenelenbogen, M. S., Vaughan, M. A., Redemann, J., Young, S. A., Liu, Z., Hu, Y., Omar, A. H., LeBlanc, S., Shinozuka, Y., Livingston, J., Zhang, Q., and Powell, K. A.: Estimations of global shortwave direct aerosol radiative effects above opaque water clouds using a combination of A-Train satellite sensors, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4933–4962, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx25"><label>Lacagnina et al.(2017)</label><?label lacagnina17?><mixed-citation>Lacagnina, C., Hasekamp, O. P., and Torres, O.: Direct radiative effect of
aerosols based on PARASOL and OMI satellite observations, J. Geophys. Res.,
122, 2366–2388, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025706" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016JD025706</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx26"><label>Levelt et al.(2006)</label><?label levelt06?><mixed-citation>
Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H. J., Dobber, M. R., Mälkki, A., Visser,
H., de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O. V., and Saari, H.: The ozone
monitoring instrument, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1093–1101, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx27"><label>Lohmann and Feichter(2005)</label><?label lohmann05?><mixed-citation>Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx28"><label>Marshak et al.(1995)</label><?label marshak95?><mixed-citation>Marshak, A., Davis, A., Wiscombe, W., and Titov, G.: The verisimilitude of the
independent pixel approximation used in cloud remote sensing, Remote Sens.
Environ., 52, 71–78, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(95)00016-T" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0034-4257(95)00016-T</ext-link>,
1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx29"><label>Meyer et al.(2015)</label><?label meyer15?><mixed-citation>Meyer, K., Platnick, S., and Zhang, Z.: Simultaneously inferring above-cloud
absorbing aerosol optical thickness and underlying liquid phase cloud optical
and microphysical properties using MODIS, J. Geophys. Res., 120,
5524–5547, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023128" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023128</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx30"><label>Nakajima and King(1990)</label><?label nakajima90?><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, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx31"><label>Peers et al.(2015)</label><?label peers15?><mixed-citation>Peers, F., Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Dubuisson, P., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Szczap, F., Tanré, D., and Thieuleux, F.: Absorption of aerosols above clouds from POLDER/PARASOL measurements and estimation of their direct radiative effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 4179–4196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx32"><label>Peters et al.(2011)</label><?label peters11?><mixed-citation>Peters, K., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Effects of absorbing aerosols in cloudy skies: a satellite study over the Atlantic Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1393–1404, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1393-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-1393-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx33"><label>Prouty(2016)</label><?label prouty16?><mixed-citation>
Prouty Jr., R. E.: Impact of above-cloud aerosols on the angular distribution
pattern of cloud bidirectional-reflectance and implication for above-cloud
aerosol direct radiative effect, MSc. thesis, ISBN: 9781369654653, University
of Maryland, Maryland, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx34"><label>Rolph et al.(2017)</label><?label rolph17?><mixed-citation>Rolph, G., Stein, A., and Stunder, B.: Real-time Environmental Applications and
Display sYstem: READY, Environ. Modell. Softw., 95, 210–228,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.025</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx35"><label>Salomonson et al.(1989)</label><?label salomonson89?><mixed-citation>Salomonson, V. V., Barnes, W. L., Maymon, P. W., Montgomery, H. E., and
Ostrow, H.: MODIS: advanced facility instrument for studies of the Earth as
a system, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 27, 145–153,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.20292" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1109/36.20292</ext-link>, 1989.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx36"><label>Sayer et al.(2016)</label><?label sayer16?><mixed-citation>Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Lee, J., Redemann, J., Schmid, B.,
and Shinozuka, Y.: Extending “Deep Blue” aerosol retrieval coverage to cases
of absorbing aerosols above clouds: Sensitivity analysis and first case
studies, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 4830–4854, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024729" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD024729</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page5135?><ref id="bib1.bibx37"><label>Sihler et al.(2017)</label><?label sihler17?><mixed-citation>Sihler, H., Lübcke, P., Lang, R., Beirle, S., de Graaf, M., Hörmann, C., Lampel, J., Penning de Vries, M., Remmers, J., Trollope, E., Wang, Y., and Wagner, T.: In-operation field-of-view retrieval (IFR) for satellite and ground-based DOAS-type instruments applying coincident high-resolution imager data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 881–903, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-881-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-10-881-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx38"><label>Stein-Zweers and Veefkind(2012)</label><?label dbfz?><mixed-citation>Stein-Zweers, D. and Veefkind, P.: OMI/Aura Multi-wavelength Aerosol Optical Depth and Single Scattering Albedo 1-orbit L2 Swath <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km V003, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), Accessed: January 2019, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/OMI/DATA2001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5067/Aura/OMI/DATA2001</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx39"><label>Swap et al.(1996)</label><?label swap96?><mixed-citation>Swap, R., Garstang, M., Macko, S. A., Tyson, P. D., Maenhaut, W., Artaxo, P.,
Kållberg, P., and Talbot, R.: The long-range transport of
southern African aerosols to the tropical South Atlantic,
J. Geophys. Res., 101, 23777–23791, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD01049" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95JD01049</ext-link>, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx40"><label>Torres et al.(2011)</label><?label torres11?><mixed-citation>Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Bhartia, P. K.: Retrieval of Aerosol Optical Depth
above Clouds from OMI Observations: Sensitivity Analysis and Case Studies,
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1037–1053, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx41"><label>Veefkind et al.(2016)</label><?label veefkind16?><mixed-citation>Veefkind, J. P., de Haan, J. F., Sneep, M., and Levelt, P. F.: Improvements to the OMI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> operational cloud algorithm and comparisons with ground-based radar–lidar observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 6035–6049, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-6035-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-9-6035-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx42"><label>Wang et al.(2008)</label><?label wang08?><mixed-citation>Wang, P., Stammes, P., van der A, R., Pinardi, G., and van Roozendael, M.: FRESCO+: an improved <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> A-band cloud retrieval algorithm for tropospheric trace gas retrievals, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 6565–6576, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6565-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-8-6565-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx43"><label>Wang et al.(2012)</label><?label wang12?><mixed-citation>Wang, P., Tuinder, O. N. E., Tilstra, L. G., de Graaf, M., and Stammes, P.: Interpretation of FRESCO cloud retrievals in case of absorbing aerosol events, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9057–9077, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9057-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-9057-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx44"><label>Waquet et al.(2013)</label><?label waquet13?><mixed-citation>Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Deuzé, J.-L., Dubovik, O., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Herman, M., Lapyonok, T., Labonnote, L. C., Riedi, J., Tanré, D., Thieuleux, F., and Vanbauce, C.: Retrieval of aerosol microphysical and optical properties above liquid clouds from POLDER/PARASOL polarization measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 991–1016, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-6-991-2013</ext-link>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx45"><label>Wilcox(2012)</label><?label wilcox12?><mixed-citation>Wilcox, E. M.: Direct and semi-direct radiative forcing of smoke aerosols over clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 139–149, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-139-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-139-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx46"><label>Yu and Zhang(2013)</label><?label yu13?><mixed-citation>Yu, H. and Zhang, Z.: New Directions: Emerging satellite observations of
above-cloud aerosols and direct radiative forcing, Atmos. Environ., 72,
36–40, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.02.017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.02.017</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx47"><label>Yu et al.(2006)</label><?label yu06?><mixed-citation>Yu, H., Kaufman, Y. J., Chin, M., Feingold, G., Remer, L. A., Anderson, T. L., Balkanski, Y., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Christopher, S., DeCola, P., Kahn, R., Koch, D., Loeb, N., Reddy, M. S., Schulz, M., Takemura, T., and Zhou, M.: A review of measurement-based assessments of the aerosol direct radiative effect and forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 613–666, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-613-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-613-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx48"><label>Zhang et al.(2016)</label><?label zhang16?><mixed-citation>Zhang, Z., Meyer, K., Yu, H., Platnick, S., Colarco, P., Liu, Z., and Oreopoulos, L.: Shortwave direct radiative effects of above-cloud aerosols over global oceans derived from 8 years of CALIOP and MODIS observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2877–2900, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx49"><label>Zuidema and Evans(1998)</label><?label zuidema98?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P. and Evans, K. F.: On the validity of the independent pixel
approximation for boundary layer clouds observed during ASTEX,
J. Geophys. Res., 103, 6059–6074, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00080" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD00080</ext-link>,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx50"><label>Zuidema et al.(2016)</label><?label zuidema16?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Redemann, J., Haywood, J., Wood, R., Piketh, S., Hipondoka, M.,
and Formenti, P.: Smoke and Clouds above the Southeast Atlantic: Upcoming
Field Campaigns Probe Absorbing Aerosol’s Impact on Climate,
Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 97, 1131–1135, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1</ext-link>,
2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bibx51"><label>Zuidema et al.(2018)</label><?label zuidema18?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Sedlacek III, A. J., Flynn, C., Springston, S., Delgadillo, R.,
Zhang, J., Aiken, A. C., Koontz, A., and Muradyan, P.: The Ascension Island
Boundary Layer in the Remote Southeast Atlantic is Often Smoky,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4456–4465, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076926" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL076926</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from a synergy of Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) reflectances</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>The retrieval of geophysical parameters is increasingly
dependent on synergistic use of satellite instruments. More
sophisticated parameters can be retrieved and the accuracy of retrievals
can be increased when more information is combined. In this paper,
a synergistic application of Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), on the Aura platform, and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), on the Aqua platform, Level 1B reflectances is described, enabling the retrieval of the aerosol direct
radiative effect (DRE) over clouds using the differential aerosol
absorption (DAA) technique. This technique was first developed for
reflectances from the SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for
Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) on the Environmental Satellite (Envisat), which had the unique
capability of measuring contiguous radiances from the ultraviolet (UV)
at 240 to 1750&thinsp;nm in the shortwave-infrared (SWIR), at a moderate
spectral resolution of 0.2 to 1.5&thinsp;nm. However, the spatial resolution
and global coverage of SCIAMACHY was limited, and Envisat stopped
delivering data in 2012. In order to continue the DRE data retrieval,
reflectances from OMI and MODIS, flying in formation, were combined from
the UV to the SWIR. This resulted in reflectances at a limited but
sufficient spectral resolution, available at the OMI pixel grid, which
have a much higher spatial resolution and coverage than SCIAMACHY. The
combined reflectance spectra allow the retrieval of cloud microphysical
parameters in the SWIR, and the subsequent retrieval of aerosol DRE over
cloud scenes using the DAA technique. For liquid cloud scenes in the
south-east Atlantic region with cloud fraction (CF)  &gt; 0.3, the area-averaged instantaneous aerosol DRE over clouds in June to August 2006 was 25&thinsp;Wm<sup>−2</sup> with a
standard deviation of 30&thinsp;Wm<sup>−2</sup>. The maximum area-averaged
instantaneous DRE from OMI–MODIS in August 2006 was 75.6±13&thinsp;Wm<sup>−2</sup>. The new aerosol DRE over-cloud dataset from OMI–MODIS is
compared to the SCIAMACHY dataset for the period 2006 to 2009, showing a
very high correlation. The OMI–MODIS DRE dataset over the Atlantic Ocean
is highly correlated to above-cloud AOT measurements from OMI and MODIS.
It is related to AOT measurements over Ascension Island in 2016, showing
the transport of smoke all the way from its source region in Africa over
the Atlantic to Ascension and beyond.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>Alfaro-Contreras et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Alfaro-Contreras, R., Zhang, J., Campbell, J. R., Holz, R. E., and Reid, J. S.:
Evaluating the impact of aerosol particles above cloud on cloud optical depth
retrievals from MODIS, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119,
5410–5423, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021270" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021270</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>Benas et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Benas, N., Meirink, J. F., Stengel, M., and Stammes, P.: Sensitivity of liquid cloud optical thickness and effective radius retrievals to cloud bow and glory conditions using two SEVIRI imagers, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 2863–2879, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2863-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-2863-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>Bhartia et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Bhartia, P. K., McPeters, R. D., Flynn, L. E., Taylor, S., Kramarova, N. A., Frith, S., Fisher, B., and DeLand, M.: Solar Backscatter UV (SBUV) total ozone and profile algorithm, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 2533–2548, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2533-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-2533-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>Bovensmann et al.(1999)</label><mixed-citation>
Bovensmann, H., Burrows, J. P., Buchwitz, M., Frerick, J., Noël, S.,
Rozanov, V. V., Chance, K. V., and Goede, A. P. H.: SCIAMACHY: Mission
Objectives and Measurement Modes, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 127–150,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1999)056&lt;0127:SMOAMM&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>Burrows et al.(1999)</label><mixed-citation>
Burrows, J. P., Weber, M., Buchwitz, M., Rozanov, V., Ladstätter-Weißenmayer, A., Richter, A., DeBeek, R., Hoogen, R., Bramstedt, K., Eichmann,
K.-U., Eisinger, M., and Perner, D.: The Global Ozone Monitoring
Experiment (GOME): Mission Concept and First Scientific Results,
J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 151–175, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469</a>, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>Chand et al.(2009)</label><mixed-citation>
Chand, D., Wood, R., Anderson, T. L., Satheesh, S. K., and Charlson, R. J.:
Satellite-derived direct radiative effect of aerosols dependent on cloud
cover, Nat. Geosci., 2, 181–184, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO437" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO437</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>de Graaf et al.(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Stammes, P., Torres, O., and Koelemeijer, R. B. A.: Absorbing
Aerosol Index: Sensitivity Analysis, application to GOME and comparison with
TOMS, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D01201, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005178" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005178</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>de Graaf et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Stammes, P., and Aben, E. A. A.: Analysis of reflectance spectra
of UV-absorbing aerosol scenes measured by SCIAMACHY, J. Geophys. Res.,
112, D02206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007249" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007249</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>de Graaf et al.(2010)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Tilstra, L. G., Aben, I., and Stammes, P.: Satellite
observations of the seasonal cycles of absorbing aerosols in Africa related
to the monsoon rainfall, 1995–2008, Atmos. Environ., 44, 1274–1283,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.038" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.12.038</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>de Graaf et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Tilstra, L. G., Wang, P., and Stammes, P.: Retrieval of the
aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds from spaceborne spectrometry,
J. Geophys. Res., 117, D7, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017160</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>de Graaf et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Bellouin, N., Tilstra, L. G., Haywood, J., and Stammes, P.:
Aerosol direct radiative effect of smoke over clouds over the southeast
Atlantic Ocean from 2006 to 2009, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 21,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061103" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061103</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>de Graaf et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Sihler, H., Tilstra, L. G., and Stammes, P.: How big is an OMI pixel?, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 3607–3618, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3607-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-3607-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>de Graaf et al.(2019a)</label><mixed-citation>
de Graaf, M., Schulte, R., Peers, F., Waquet, F., Tilstra, L. G., and Stammes, P.: Comparison of south Atlantic aerosol direct radiative effect overclouds from SCIAMACHY, POLDER and OMI/MODIS, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-545" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-545</a>, in review, 2019a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
De Graaf, M., Stammes, P., and Tilstra, L. G.:  OMI-MODIS aerosol direct radiative effect over clouds, version 1.0, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), <a href="https://doi.org/10.21944/omi-modis-aerosol-direct-effect" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.21944/omi-modis-aerosol-direct-effect</a>, 2019b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>Feng and Christopher(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, N. and Christopher, S. A.: Measurement-based estimates of direct
radiative effects of absorbing aerosols above clouds, J. Geophys. Res.,
120, 6908–6921, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023252" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023252</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>Fleig et al.(1986)</label><mixed-citation>
Fleig, A. J., Bhartia, P. K., Wellemeyer, C. G., and Silberstein, D. S.: Seven
years of total ozone from the TOMS instrument-A report on data quality,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 13, 1355–1358, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/GL013i012p01355" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/GL013i012p01355</a>, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>Forster et al.(2007)</label><mixed-citation>
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D. W.,
Haywood, J., Lean, J., Lowe, D. C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga,
G., Schulz, M., and Van Dorland, R.: Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by Solomon, S.,
Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M., and
Miller, H., p. 996, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>Giles et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Giles, D. M., Sinyuk, A., Sorokin, M. G., Schafer, J. S., Smirnov, A., Slutsker, I., Eck, T. F., Holben, B. N., Lewis, J. R., Campbell, J. R., Welton, E. J., Korkin, S. V., and Lyapustin, A. I.: Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database – automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 12, 169–209, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-12-169-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>Haywood and Boucher(2000)</label><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. and Boucher, O.: Estimates of the direct and indirect radiative
forcing due to tropospheric aerosols: A review, Rev. Geophys., 38,
513–543,  2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>Haywood et al.(2003)</label><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. M., Osborne, S. R., Francis, P. N., Neil, A., Formenti, P.,
Andreae, M. O., and Kaye, P. H.: The mean physical and optical properties of
regional haze dominated by biomass burning aerosol measured from the C–130
aircraft during SAFARI 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 108, D13,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002226" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002226</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>Haywood et al.(2004)</label><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. M., Osborne, S. R., and Abel, S. J.: The effect of overlying
absorbing aerosol layers on remote sensing retrievals of cloud effective
radius and cloud optical depth, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 130, 779–800,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.100" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.03.100</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>Jethva and Torres(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Jethva, H. and Torres, O.: Satellite-based evidence of wavelength-dependent aerosol absorption in biomass burning smoke inferred from Ozone Monitoring Instrument, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 10541–10551, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10541-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-10541-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>Jethva et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Jethva, H., Torres, O., Remer, L. A., and Bhartia, P. K.: A Color Ratio Method
for Simultaneous Retrieval of Aerosol and Cloud Optical Thickness of
Above-Cloud Absorbing Aerosols From Passive Sensors: Application to MODIS
Measurements, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 51, 3862–3870,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2012.2230008</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>Jethva et al.(2014)</label><mixed-citation>
Jethva, H., Torres, O., Waquet, F., Chand, D., and Hu, Y.: How do A-train
Sensors Intercompare in the Retrieval of Above-Cloud Aerosol Optical Depth? A
Case Study-based Assessment, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058405" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058405</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>Kacenelenbogen et al.(2019)</label><mixed-citation>
Kacenelenbogen, M. S., Vaughan, M. A., Redemann, J., Young, S. A., Liu, Z., Hu, Y., Omar, A. H., LeBlanc, S., Shinozuka, Y., Livingston, J., Zhang, Q., and Powell, K. A.: Estimations of global shortwave direct aerosol radiative effects above opaque water clouds using a combination of A-Train satellite sensors, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4933–4962, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4933-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>Lacagnina et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Lacagnina, C., Hasekamp, O. P., and Torres, O.: Direct radiative effect of
aerosols based on PARASOL and OMI satellite observations, J. Geophys. Res.,
122, 2366–2388, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025706" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025706</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>Levelt et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Levelt, P. F., van den Oord, G. H. J., Dobber, M. R., Mälkki, A., Visser,
H., de Vries, J., Stammes, P., Lundell, J. O. V., and Saari, H.: The ozone
monitoring instrument, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 44, 1093–1101, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>Lohmann and Feichter(2005)</label><mixed-citation>
Lohmann, U. and Feichter, J.: Global indirect aerosol effects: a review, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 715–737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-715-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>Marshak et al.(1995)</label><mixed-citation>
Marshak, A., Davis, A., Wiscombe, W., and Titov, G.: The verisimilitude of the
independent pixel approximation used in cloud remote sensing, Remote Sens.
Environ., 52, 71–78, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(95)00016-T" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(95)00016-T</a>,
1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>Meyer et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Meyer, K., Platnick, S., and Zhang, Z.: Simultaneously inferring above-cloud
absorbing aerosol optical thickness and underlying liquid phase cloud optical
and microphysical properties using MODIS, J. Geophys. Res., 120,
5524–5547, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023128" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023128</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><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, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>Peers et al.(2015)</label><mixed-citation>
Peers, F., Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Dubuisson, P., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Szczap, F., Tanré, D., and Thieuleux, F.: Absorption of aerosols above clouds from POLDER/PARASOL measurements and estimation of their direct radiative effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 4179–4196, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-4179-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>Peters et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Peters, K., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Effects of absorbing aerosols in cloudy skies: a satellite study over the Atlantic Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1393–1404, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1393-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1393-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>Prouty(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Prouty Jr., R. E.: Impact of above-cloud aerosols on the angular distribution
pattern of cloud bidirectional-reflectance and implication for above-cloud
aerosol direct radiative effect, MSc. thesis, ISBN: 9781369654653, University
of Maryland, Maryland, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>Rolph et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Rolph, G., Stein, A., and Stunder, B.: Real-time Environmental Applications and
Display sYstem: READY, Environ. Modell. Softw., 95, 210–228,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.025</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>Salomonson et al.(1989)</label><mixed-citation>
Salomonson, V. V., Barnes, W. L., Maymon, P. W., Montgomery, H. E., and
Ostrow, H.: MODIS: advanced facility instrument for studies of the Earth as
a system, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 27, 145–153,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/36.20292" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1109/36.20292</a>, 1989.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>Sayer et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Sayer, A. M., Hsu, N. C., Bettenhausen, C., Lee, J., Redemann, J., Schmid, B.,
and Shinozuka, Y.: Extending “Deep Blue” aerosol retrieval coverage to cases
of absorbing aerosols above clouds: Sensitivity analysis and first case
studies, J. Geophys. Res., 121, 4830–4854, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024729" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024729</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>Sihler et al.(2017)</label><mixed-citation>
Sihler, H., Lübcke, P., Lang, R., Beirle, S., de Graaf, M., Hörmann, C., Lampel, J., Penning de Vries, M., Remmers, J., Trollope, E., Wang, Y., and Wagner, T.: In-operation field-of-view retrieval (IFR) for satellite and ground-based DOAS-type instruments applying coincident high-resolution imager data, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 881–903, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-881-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-881-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>Stein-Zweers and Veefkind(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Stein-Zweers, D. and Veefkind, P.: OMI/Aura Multi-wavelength Aerosol Optical Depth and Single Scattering Albedo 1-orbit L2 Swath 13×24&thinsp;km V003, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), Accessed: January 2019, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/OMI/DATA2001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5067/Aura/OMI/DATA2001</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>Swap et al.(1996)</label><mixed-citation>
Swap, R., Garstang, M., Macko, S. A., Tyson, P. D., Maenhaut, W., Artaxo, P.,
Kållberg, P., and Talbot, R.: The long-range transport of
southern African aerosols to the tropical South Atlantic,
J. Geophys. Res., 101, 23777–23791, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD01049" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95JD01049</a>, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>Torres et al.(2011)</label><mixed-citation>
Torres, O., Jethva, H., and Bhartia, P. K.: Retrieval of Aerosol Optical Depth
above Clouds from OMI Observations: Sensitivity Analysis and Case Studies,
J. Atmos. Sci., 69, 1037–1053, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-11-0130.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>Veefkind et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Veefkind, J. P., de Haan, J. F., Sneep, M., and Levelt, P. F.: Improvements to the OMI O<sub>2</sub>–O<sub>2</sub> operational cloud algorithm and comparisons with ground-based radar–lidar observations, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 6035–6049, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-6035-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-6035-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>Wang et al.(2008)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, P., Stammes, P., van der A, R., Pinardi, G., and van Roozendael, M.: FRESCO+: an improved O<sub>2</sub> A-band cloud retrieval algorithm for tropospheric trace gas retrievals, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 6565–6576, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6565-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-8-6565-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>Wang et al.(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Wang, P., Tuinder, O. N. E., Tilstra, L. G., de Graaf, M., and Stammes, P.: Interpretation of FRESCO cloud retrievals in case of absorbing aerosol events, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9057–9077, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9057-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9057-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>Waquet et al.(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Waquet, F., Cornet, C., Deuzé, J.-L., Dubovik, O., Ducos, F., Goloub, P., Herman, M., Lapyonok, T., Labonnote, L. C., Riedi, J., Tanré, D., Thieuleux, F., and Vanbauce, C.: Retrieval of aerosol microphysical and optical properties above liquid clouds from POLDER/PARASOL polarization measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 6, 991–1016, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-6-991-2013</a>, 2013.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>Wilcox(2012)</label><mixed-citation>
Wilcox, E. M.: Direct and semi-direct radiative forcing of smoke aerosols over clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 139–149, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-139-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-139-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>Yu and Zhang(2013)</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, H. and Zhang, Z.: New Directions: Emerging satellite observations of
above-cloud aerosols and direct radiative forcing, Atmos. Environ., 72,
36–40, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.02.017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.02.017</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>Yu et al.(2006)</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, H., Kaufman, Y. J., Chin, M., Feingold, G., Remer, L. A., Anderson, T. L., Balkanski, Y., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Christopher, S., DeCola, P., Kahn, R., Koch, D., Loeb, N., Reddy, M. S., Schulz, M., Takemura, T., and Zhou, M.: A review of measurement-based assessments of the aerosol direct radiative effect and forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 613–666, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-613-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-613-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>Zhang et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, Z., Meyer, K., Yu, H., Platnick, S., Colarco, P., Liu, Z., and Oreopoulos, L.: Shortwave direct radiative effects of above-cloud aerosols over global oceans derived from 8 years of CALIOP and MODIS observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2877–2900, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2877-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>Zuidema and Evans(1998)</label><mixed-citation>
Zuidema, P. and Evans, K. F.: On the validity of the independent pixel
approximation for boundary layer clouds observed during ASTEX,
J. Geophys. Res., 103, 6059–6074, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00080" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00080</a>,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>Zuidema et al.(2016)</label><mixed-citation>
Zuidema, P., Redemann, J., Haywood, J., Wood, R., Piketh, S., Hipondoka, M.,
and Formenti, P.: Smoke and Clouds above the Southeast Atlantic: Upcoming
Field Campaigns Probe Absorbing Aerosol’s Impact on Climate,
Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 97, 1131–1135, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1</a>,
2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>Zuidema et al.(2018)</label><mixed-citation>
Zuidema, P., Sedlacek III, A. J., Flynn, C., Springston, S., Delgadillo, R.,
Zhang, J., Aiken, A. C., Koontz, A., and Muradyan, P.: The Ascension Island
Boundary Layer in the Remote Southeast Atlantic is Often Smoky,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 4456–4465, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076926" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076926</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
