<?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">ESSD</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Earth System Science Data</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ESSD</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Earth Syst. Sci. Data</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1866-3516</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/essd-12-1649-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Radiative forcing of climate change from the Copernicus reanalysis of
atmospheric composition</article-title><alt-title>Radiative forcing of climate change</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Radiative forcing of climate change}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{N. Bellouin et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Bellouin</surname><given-names>Nicolas</given-names></name>
          <email>n.bellouin@reading.ac.uk</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2109-9559</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Davies</surname><given-names>Will</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4015-8887</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Shine</surname><given-names>Keith P.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2672-9978</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Quaas</surname><given-names>Johannes</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7057-194X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff8">
          <name><surname>Mülmenstädt</surname><given-names>Johannes</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1105-6678</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Forster</surname><given-names>Piers M.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6078-0171</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Smith</surname><given-names>Chris</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0599-4633</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4 aff9">
          <name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>Lindsay</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8029-6328</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Regayre</surname><given-names>Leighton</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2699-929X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Brasseur</surname><given-names>Guy</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6794-9497</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Sudarchikova</surname><given-names>Natalia</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Bouarar</surname><given-names>Idir</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Boucher</surname><given-names>Olivier</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2328-5769</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Myhre</surname><given-names>Gunnar</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4309-476X</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6BB,
UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Institute for Meteorology, Universität Leipzig, 04103 Leipzig,
Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds,
Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, 20146 Hamburg, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, Sorbonne Université/CNRS, Paris
75252, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo
(CICERO), 0318 Oslo, Norway</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff8"><label>a</label><institution>now at: Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division,<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff9"><label>b</label><institution>now at: Department of Engineering and Mathematics, Sheffield Hallam
University, Sheffield, S1 1WB, UK</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Nicolas Bellouin (n.bellouin@reading.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>16</day><month>July</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>12</volume>
      <issue>3</issue>
      <fpage>1649</fpage><lpage>1677</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>27</day><month>December</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>January</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>29</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>16</day><month>June</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e257">Radiative forcing provides an important basis for understanding
and predicting global climate changes, but its quantification has
historically been done independently for different forcing agents, has involved
observations to varying degrees, and studies have not always included a
detailed analysis of uncertainties. The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring
Service reanalysis is an optimal combination of modelling and observations
of atmospheric composition. It provides a unique opportunity to rely on
observations to quantify the monthly and spatially resolved global
distributions of radiative forcing consistently for six of the largest
forcing agents: carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, stratospheric
ozone, aerosol–radiation interactions, and aerosol–cloud interactions. These
radiative-forcing estimates account for adjustments in stratospheric
temperatures but do not account for rapid adjustments in the troposphere.
On a global average and over the period 2003–2017, stratospherically
adjusted radiative forcing of carbon dioxide has averaged <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.89</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" 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>
(5 %–95 % confidence interval: 1.50 to 2.29 W m<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>) relative to 1750 and
increased at a rate of 18 % per decade. The corresponding values for
methane are <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.36 to 0.56) W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" 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 4 % per decade but with
a clear acceleration since 2007. Ozone radiative-forcing averages <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0
to 0.64) W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" 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>, almost entirely contributed by tropospheric ozone since
stratospheric ozone radiative forcing is only <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" 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>. Aerosol
radiative-forcing averages <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
with aerosol–radiation interactions contributing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and
aerosol–cloud interactions contributing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.69</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" 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> to the global
average. Both have been relatively stable since 2003. Taking the six forcing
agents together, there is no indication of a sustained slowdown or acceleration
in the rate of increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing over the period.
These ongoing radiative-forcing estimates will monitor the impact on the
Earth's energy budget of the dramatic emission reductions towards net-zero
that are needed to limit surface temperature warming to the Paris Agreement
temperature targets. Indeed, such impacts should be clearly manifested in
radiative forcing before being clear in the temperature record. In addition,
this radiative-forcing dataset can provide the input distributions needed by
researchers involved in monitoring of climate change, detection and
attribution, interannual to decadal prediction, and integrated assessment
modelling. The data generated by this work are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896" ext-link-type="DOI">10.24380/ads.1hj3y896</ext-link> (Bellouin et al., 2020b).</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<?pagebreak page1650?><sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e461">Human activities have profoundly modified the composition of the Earth's
atmosphere. They have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases, with
concentrations of carbon dioxide increasing from 278 to 407 ppm (an increase
of 46 %) and methane from 722 to 1858 ppb (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">157</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) over the period
1750–2018 (Dlugokencky et al., 2019). Concentrations of aerosols and
tropospheric ozone (Hartmann et al., 2013) are frequently above
pre-industrial levels in many regions, especially those that are the most densely
populated. The stratospheric ozone layer is only beginning its recovery
after being affected by emissions of man-made ozone-depleting substances in
the 1970–1980s (WMO, 2018). Those modifications have important impacts on
human health and prosperity and on natural ecosystems. One of the most
adverse effects of human modification of atmospheric composition is climate
change.</p>
      <p id="d1e474">A perturbation to the Earth's energy budget leads to temperature changes and
further climate responses. The initial top-of-atmosphere imbalance is the
instantaneous radiative forcing. Several decades ago, it was realised that
for comparison of climate change mechanisms the radiative flux change at the
tropopause, or equivalently at the top of the atmosphere after stratospheric
temperatures are adjusted to equilibrium, was a better predictor for the
surface temperature change and defined as radiative forcing (RF)
(Ramanathan, 1975; Shine et al., 1990;
Ramaswamy et al., 2019). The adjustment time in the stratosphere is of the
order of 2 to 3 months and is several orders of magnitude shorter than the
time required for the surface–tropospheric system to equilibrate after a
(time-independent) perturbation. More recently the effective radiative
forcing (ERF) has been defined to include rapid adjustments, where, in addition to
the stratospheric temperature adjustment, these adjustments occur due to
heating or cooling of the troposphere in the absence of a change in the
ocean surface temperature (Boucher et al., 2013; Myhre et al., 2013a;
Sherwood et al., 2015; Ramaswamy et al., 2019). For certain climate change
mechanisms, especially those involving aerosols, the rapid adjustments are
important, but in many cases, notably the well-mixed greenhouse gases, RF is
relatively similar to ERF
(Smith et al., 2018a). In principle, the
ERF is a better predictor of surface temperature change than RF but is less
straightforward to quantify for all forcing mechanisms (see, e.g. Ramaswamy
et al., 2019). The quantification of RF has been a central part of every
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
(Shine et al., 1990; Schimel et al., 1996; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Forster
et al., 2007; Myhre et al., 2013a).</p>
      <p id="d1e477">Carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone exert an RF by absorbing and emitting
longwave (LW), or terrestrial, radiation and absorbing shortwave (SW), or
solar, radiation. Aerosols exert an RF directly by scattering and absorbing
shortwave and longwave radiation, a process called aerosol–radiation
interactions (ari; Boucher et al., 2013). Aerosols also exert an RF
indirectly through their roles as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), which
regulate cloud droplet number concentration and therefore cloud albedo.
Those processes are called aerosol–cloud interactions (aci; Boucher et al.,
2013). Quantifying RF is a difficult task. It strongly depends on the
horizontal and vertical distributions of the forcing agents, which in the
case of ozone and aerosols are very heterogeneous. It depends on the ability
of forcing agents to interact with radiation, which is difficult to
characterise well in the case of chemically diverse species like aerosols
(Bellouin et al., 2020a) or may be incompletely represented in many radiative-transfer codes (e.g. Collins et al., 2006; Etminan et al., 2016). RF is
defined with respect to an unperturbed state, typically representing
pre-industrial (PI) conditions, which is very poorly known for the
short-lived forcing agents like ozone and aerosols (Myhre et al., 2013a;
Carslaw et al., 2013). RF also depends on the ability to understand and
calculate the distributions of radiative fluxes with accuracy (Soden et al.,
2018), including the contributions of clouds and the surface. Those
difficulties translate into persistent uncertainties attached to IPCC
radiative-forcing estimates. Those difficulties are compounded by the lack
of consistent and integrated quantifications across forcing agents. In the
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) (Myhre et al., 2013a), carbon dioxide and
methane radiative forcing were derived from fits to line-by-line radiative-transfer models (Myhre et al., 1998) using global-mean changes in
surface concentrations as input. Aerosol radiative forcing from interactions with
radiation was based on global modelling inter-comparisons (Myhre et al.,
2013b; Shindell et al., 2013a) and observation-based estimates (Bond et al.,
2013; Bellouin et al., 2013). Aerosol radiative forcing from interactions
with clouds was based on many satellite- and model-based studies (Boucher et
al., 2013). Ozone radiative forcing was based on results from the
Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP)
(Stevenson et al., 2013; Conley et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e480">The development of observing and modelling systems able to monitor and
forecast changes in atmospheric composition offers an attractive way to
alleviate some of these difficulties. One of those systems is the reanalysis
routinely run by the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS; Inness
et al., 2019), which crowns more than a decade of scientific endeavours
(Hollingsworth et al., 2008) rendered possible by the impressive increase in
observing capabilities and numerical weather prediction over the past 40 years (Bauer et al., 2015). The CAMS reanalysis combines, in a
mathematically optimal way, many diverse observational data sources (see
Table 2 of Inness et al., 2019) from ground-based and space-borne
instruments, with a numerical weather prediction model (see Table 1 of
Inness et al., 2019) that also<?pagebreak page1651?> represents the sources and sinks of carbon
dioxide and methane and the complex chemistry governing the concentrations
of ozone and aerosols. Reanalysis products therefore give a complete and
consistent picture of the atmospheric composition of the past, covering in
the case of CAMS the period 2003 to the present. Reanalysis products are
therefore a robust basis for estimating RF of climate change.</p>
      <p id="d1e484">This article describes the RF estimates of carbon dioxide, methane, aerosol,
and ozone made as part of the CAMS from its reanalysis of atmospheric
composition. The article starts by describing the methods used to estimate
RF from the reanalysis in Sect. 2, before discussing how the
PI reference state is estimated for the different forcing agents in Sect. 3. Section 4 describes the estimates of uncertainties in CAMS RF. Section 5
presents the results over the period 2003–2017, discussing distributions
and temporal rate of change and comparing these to previous estimates from the
IPCC. Section 6 concludes by describing potential uses for the CAMS
radiative-forcing products and outline further research avenues that would
improve the estimates further.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
      <p id="d1e495">CAMS estimates follow the definitions for instantaneous and
stratospherically adjusted RF given in the IPCC AR5 (Myhre et al., 2013a).
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e500">Instantaneous RF (IRF) is the “instantaneous change in net (down minus up)
radiative flux (shortwave plus longwave; in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" 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>) due to an imposed
change.”</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e516">Stratospherically adjusted RF (hereafter simply referred to as RF) is “the
change in net irradiance at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric
temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, while holding surface and
tropospheric temperatures and state variables such as water vapour and cloud
cover fixed at the unperturbed values”.</p></list-item></list>
The reference state is taken to be the year 1750. CAMS IRF and RF are
quantified in terms of irradiance changes at the top of the atmosphere
(TOA), the surface, and the climatological tropopause for carbon dioxide,
methane, and ozone, although it is noted that RF is necessarily identical at
TOA and tropopause. RF is not estimated for tropospheric aerosol
perturbations because it differs only slightly from IRF at the TOA (Haywood
and Boucher, 2000). CAMS RF estimates are quantified in both “all-sky”
conditions, meaning that the radiative effects of clouds are included in the
radiative-transfer calculations, and “clear-sky” conditions, which are
computed by excluding clouds in the radiative-transfer calculations.</p>
      <p id="d1e520">Figure 1 illustrates the sequence of tasks that produce the CAMS RF
estimates. The source of atmospheric composition data is the CAMS reanalysis
(Inness et al., 2019) performed with the ECMWF Integrated Forecast System
(IFS) (Morcrette et al., 2009) cycle 42r1. The version of IFS used has a
horizontal resolution of 80 km (T255) and 60 hybrid sigma–pressure levels in
the vertical, with the top level at 0.1 hPa. The time step is 30 min,
with output analyses and forecasts produced every 3 h. In addition, the
reanalysis includes assimilation of satellite retrievals of atmospheric
composition, thus improving RF estimates compared to free-running models.
Improvements derive directly from observational constraints on reactive gas
columns and aerosol optical depths (Benedetti et al., 2009) and, for ozone,
vertical profiles. Data assimilation also constrains gaseous and
biomass-burning aerosol emissions, leading to indirect improvements in the
simulation of atmospheric concentrations. The RF production chain therefore
relies primarily on variables tied to observations by the data
assimilation process (gas mixing ratios, total aerosol optical depth).
However, it is not possible to solely rely on assimilated variables because
other characteristics of the model affect RF directly (vertical profiles of
aerosols and gases, speciation of total aerosol mass) or indirectly (cloud
cover and cloud type, surface albedo). Some other variables relevant for the
RF computations (e.g. temperature and moisture profiles) are constrained by
the assimilation of meteorological parameters, which also indirectly affects
the cloud structure and transport in the assimilated state. In addition,
parameters required by the RF estimate but not simulated by the global
reanalysis (e.g. aerosol size distributions) are provided by ancillary
datasets.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e525">Diagram of the radiative-forcing production chain (light orange),
which takes inputs from the CAMS global reanalysis (blue) and produces
radiative-forcing estimates and their uncertainties (dark orange). Green
boxes indicate observational constraints. BB stands for biomass burning, and
AOD stands for aerosol optical depth. ecRad is the radiative-transfer code used by
the ECMWF IFS.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Radiative-transfer calculations</title>
      <p id="d1e542">The radiative-transfer model used is a stand-alone version of the ECMWF IFS
ecRad model (Hogan and Bozzo, 2018), version 0.9.40, configured like in IFS
cycle 43r1. Gaseous optical properties are computed by the Rapid<?pagebreak page1652?> Radiative
Transfer Model – General Circulation Model (GCM) applications (RRTMG)
(Mlawer et al., 1997). The cloud solver is the SPeedy Algorithm for
Radiative TrAnsfer through CloUd Sides (SPARTACUS) (Hogan et al., 2018). The
LW and SW solvers are based on the Monte Carlo Independent Column
Approximation (McICA; Pincus et al., 2003). Surface albedo is calculated by
the CAMS reanalysis based on a snow-free surface albedo over land in the
UV-visible (0.3–0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) and the near-infrared (0.7–5.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m) derived
from a 5-year climatology by the Moderate Resolution Spectral Radiometer
(MODIS) (Schaaf et al., 2002) and over ocean on a fit of aircraft
measurements (Taylor et al., 1996). The albedo also includes the effect of
snow cover and sea ice as simulated by the CAMS reanalysis. LW surface
emissivity is computed by averaging the spectrally constant emissivity of
four surface tiles in proportion to their simulated coverage of each grid
box. Surface window emissivities used in that calculation are listed in
Table 1. Outside the LW window region, the value for sea is used. Cloud
vertical overlap is assumed to be exponential random. Scattering by clouds
and aerosols in the LW spectrum is included. RF is integrated diurnally over
six solar zenith angles, computed as a function of local latitude and day of
the year, and symmetrically distributed around local noon. Radiative fluxes
are calculated at 61 model half-levels, but for RF purposes only three
levels are retained: surface, TOA, and tropopause. The tropopause level is
identified daily according to its thermal definition, adopted by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO), where the tropopause is the lowest
altitude at which lapse rate drops to 2 K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. In its standard
version, ecRad uses fixed values for the effective radius of cloud liquid droplets
and ice crystals at 10 and 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, respectively. The calculations of
radiative fluxes by the radiative-transfer code have been compared against
globally averaged observational estimates (Kato et al., 2013) and found to
be accurate within a few percent.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e584">Values of LW surface emissivity used for the LW atmospheric window
in the radiative-transfer calculations.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Surface type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">LW emissivity</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land (except sand</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.96</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">and snow)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sand</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.93</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sea</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Snow</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.98</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e658">List of variables used by the offline radiative-transfer model
ecRad and their provenance. All variables are set as daily averages.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Provenance</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">Atmospheric and surface state </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Fraction of cloud cover</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Forecast albedo (surface)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis (includes the effect of snow and sea ice cover)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Logarithm of surface pressure</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Specific cloud ice water content</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Specific cloud liquid water content</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Skin temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Snow depth</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soil type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Specific humidity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">Atmospheric composition </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Sea salt (0.03–0.5, 0.50–5.0, 5.0–20.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" 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">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dust (0.03–0.55, 0.55–0.90, 0.90–20.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" 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">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hydrophilic organic matter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hydrophobic organic matter</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hydrophilic black carbon</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hydrophobic black carbon</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ammonium sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Non-abs stratospheric sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">GEMS ozone</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CAMS reanalysis</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric concentrations from CAMS73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric concentrations from CAMS73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">Industrial-era increments </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pre-industrial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Scaled to match IPCC AR5 Table 8.2; see Sect. 3.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pre-industrial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mixing ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Scaled to match IPCC AR5 Table 8.2; see Sect. 3.1</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pre-industrial <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" 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> mixing ratio</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Scaled according to CMIP6 ozone climatology; see Sect. 3.2</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e993">The distributions taken from the CAMS reanalysis as inputs to the CAMS
radiative-transfer calculations are listed in Table 2. The distributions are
used as the mean of four time steps (00:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00 Z) for the reanalysis
dated 00:00 Z daily. The distributions are used at the degraded horizontal
resolution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.0</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.0</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, down from the
original <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution, to reduce
computational cost. That decrease in resolution causes negligible (third
decimal place) changes in globally averaged RF. Daily averaged
concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane are taken from the
data-assimilated, three-dimensional distributions obtained by CAMS
Greenhouse Gases Fluxes (Chevallier et al., 2005; Bergamashi et al., 2013) for carbon dioxide and methane, respectively, with updates to both
documented at <uri>https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu</uri> (last access: 14 July 2020). Nitrous oxide is set to its
pre-industrial mixing ratio of 270 ppb (Myhre et al., 2013a). The inversion
product versions used are v18r2 for carbon dioxide and v17r1 for methane.
Figure 2 shows time series of global monthly total-column averages of
carbon dioxide and methane concentrations. The annually averaged carbon
dioxide concentration in 2017 was 404 ppm, up 8 % from 374 ppm in 2003.
For methane, the concentration for year 2017 was 1804 ppb, up 4 % from
1730 ppb in 2003. Figure 2 also shows equivalent time series for background
surface measurements by the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
(downloaded from <uri>https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_data</uri>, last access: 14 July 2020) for carbon dioxide and by the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases
Experiment (AGAGE, downloaded from <uri>https://agage.mit.edu/data/agage-data</uri>, last access: 14 July 2020) for methane. Surface measurements
are generally higher than the column averages, especially for methane that
decreases with height by oxidation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1047">Time series of globally and monthly averaged concentrations of
<bold>(a)</bold> carbon dioxide (ppm) and <bold>(b)</bold> methane (ppb) over the period
2003–2017. Bold lines show mass-weighted total column averages for the CAMS
Greenhouse Flux Inversion products. Thin lines show background surface
measurements from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory for carbon dioxide
and the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment for methane,
respectively.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=213.395669pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1653?><p id="d1e1062">Adjustment of radiative fluxes to account for changes in stratospheric
temperatures uses the fixed dynamical heating (FDH) method (Ramaswamy et
al., 2001). Convergence is reached when globally averaged changes in heating
rate, RF, and stratospheric temperature become less than 0.05 K d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
0.05 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" 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 0.01 K, respectively. The maximum number of iterations
is also set to 200. Once stratospheric adjustment is complete, the sum of
the SW <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> LW radiative fluxes at the tropopause equals that at the top of the
atmosphere. Methane RF is given in the LW and SW parts of the spectrum,
although it is now known that ecRad – similar to many other radiative-transfer codes used in global models – is unlikely to properly handle
methane absorption bands in the SW part of the spectrum because it does not
have sufficient spectral resolution. Therefore, the CAMS products likely
underestimate methane RF in the SW spectrum, and that underestimate affects
its stratospheric adjustment. The SW contribution may be of the order of
15 % of total methane RF (Etminan et al., 2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Aerosol–radiation interactions</title>
      <p id="d1e1104">To obtain aerosol RF, it is necessary to distinguish between aerosols of
natural origin and aerosols of anthropogenic origin. The ECMWF IFS does not
keep track of the aerosol origin mainly to keep computational cost
reasonable but also due to the following reasons.</p>
      <p id="d1e1107"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?><list list-type="bullet">
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1113">Aerosol origin is not always given in emission inventories.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1119">The same aerosol particle may be an internal mixture with anthropogenic and
natural contributions.</p>
            </list-item>
            <list-item>

      <p id="d1e1125">Data assimilation cannot constrain natural and anthropogenic aerosols
separately.</p>
            </list-item>
          </list>Instead, aerosol origin is obtained using the algorithm described by Bellouin
et al. (2013), where aerosol size is used as a proxy for aerosol origin. The
algorithm identifies four aerosol origins: anthropogenic, mineral dust,
marine, and land-based fine-mode natural aerosol. The latter originates
mostly from biogenic aerosols. The reader is referred to Sect. 3 of
Bellouin et al. (2013) for details of the algorithm. The present paper
describes two updates made to the algorithm since the publication of
Bellouin et al. (2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e1131">The first update is the replacement of continental-wide anthropogenic
fractions used over land surfaces by a fully gridded dataset that includes
seasonal variations. Over land, identification of component aerosol optical
depths (AODs) starts with removing the contribution of mineral dust aerosols
from total AOD. The remaining non-dust AOD, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>non-dust</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, is<?pagebreak page1654?> then
distributed between anthropogenic and fine-mode natural components, referred to as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>fine-mode</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, as follows:

                <disp-formula specific-use="gather" content-type="numbered"><mml:math id="M39" display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E1"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>1</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>non-dust</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E2"><mml:mtd><mml:mtext>2</mml:mtext></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>fine-natural</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mtext>non-dust</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the anthropogenic fraction of the non-dust AOD. In
Bellouin et al. (2013), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was prescribed over broad regions on an
annual basis. Here, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mtext>anth</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is given by monthly distributions on a
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid. This new dataset derives from an
analysis of AeroCom 2 numerical models (Kinne et al., 2013). Its annual
average is shown in Fig. 3. Anthropogenic fractions show a north–south
gradient, as expected from the location of population and industrial
activities. Anthropogenic fractions are larger than 0.8 over most
industrialised regions of North America, Europe, and Asia. The largest
fractions are located over China, where more than 90 % of non-dust AOD is
attributed to anthropogenic aerosols. In the Southern Hemisphere,
anthropogenic fractions are typically smaller than 0.7 on an annual average.
In terms of seasonality, anthropogenic fractions remain larger than 0.7
throughout the year in the Northern Hemisphere, with a peak in winter when
energy consumption is high. In the Southern Hemisphere, seasonality is
driven by biomass-burning aerosols, which are considered purely
anthropogenic in the CAMS Climate Forcing estimates. Anthropogenic fractions
therefore peak in late boreal summer in South America and southern Africa.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1292">Annually averaged anthropogenic fraction of non-dust aerosol
optical depth over land at 0.55 <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.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1309">The second change concerns the fine-mode fraction (FMF) of marine AOD at
0.55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m, which gives the fraction of marine AOD that is exerted by
marine particles with radii smaller than 0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m. In Bellouin et al. (2013), this fraction was set to a fixed value of 0.3. Here, this fraction
is determined by a gridded dataset that includes monthly variations. The
dataset is obtained by applying the method of Yu et al. (2009) to daily
MODIS Collection 6 aerosol retrievals of AOD and FMF. First, the marine
aerosol background is isolated by selecting only ocean-based scenes where
total AOD at 0.55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m is between 0.03 and 0.10. Then, an AOD-weighted
averaged FMF is computed. The analysis has been applied to retrievals from
MODIS instruments on both the Terra (dataset covering 2001–2015) and Aqua
(dataset covering 2003–2015) platforms. Both instruments yield very
similar marine FMF distributions, and the distributions used here are the
multi-annual monthly averages of the two instruments. Figure 4 shows the
marine FMF derived from MODIS/Terra for the months of January and July. It
suggests that marine FMF varies over a wide range of values. Regions of high
wind speeds, around 40–50<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in both hemispheres, are associated
with large FMFs, indicating that the marine aerosol size distribution
includes a sizable fraction of smaller particles there. There are
indications of contamination by fine-mode anthropogenic and mineral dust
aerosols in coastal areas, but the impact on speciated AODs is small because
the aerosol identification algorithm uses broad FMF categories rather than
absolute values. Indeed, anthropogenic AOD decreases only slightly in the
roaring forties in the Southern Ocean and tends to increase slightly in the
northern Atlantic and Pacific oceans. On a global average, the change in
anthropogenic AOD due to the improved specification of marine FMF is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %). Bellouin et al. (2013) estimated the relative
uncertainty in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">anth</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at 18 %. The updates to land-based
anthropogenic fractions and marine FMF described here are not expected to
reduce their large contribution to that uncertainty.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e1379">Fine-mode fraction of marine aerosol optical depth at 0.55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m
as derived from MODIS/Terra Collection 6 aerosol retrievals for the months
of January <bold>(a)</bold> and July <bold>(b)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1402">Radiative effect and forcing of aerosol–radiation interactions are computed
by radiative-transfer calculations that combine the speciated AODs derived
above with prescriptions of aerosol size distribution and single-scattering
albedo. The methods are as described in Sect. 4 of Bellouin et al. (2013)
with one exception: the prescription of single-scattering albedo has been
updated from a few continental-wide numbers to gridded monthly
climatologies. This updated dataset introduces two major improvements
compared to Bellouin et al. (2013). First, the new dataset provides the
monthly cycle of fine-mode absorption. Second, the dataset is provided on a
finer, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid. The method used to produce
the dataset is described in Kinne et al. (2013). First, distributions of
fine-mode extinction and absorption AODs are<?pagebreak page1655?> obtained from a selection of
global aerosol numerical models that participated in the AeroCom simulations
using a common set of aerosol and precursor emissions for present-day
conditions (Kinne et al., 2006). To include an observational constraint,
those modelled distributions are then merged with retrievals of aerosol
single-scattering albedo (SSA) for the period 1996–2011 at more than 300
AERONET sites. The merging is based on a subjective assessment of the
quality of the measurements at each of the AERONET sites used, along with
their ability to represent aerosols in a wider region around the site
location. The main impact of merging observed SSAs is to make aerosols in
Africa and South Asia more absorbing than numerical models predicted. The
distribution of annual and column-averaged aerosol SSA is shown in Fig. 5. The dataset represents the local maximum of absorption over California
and the change in absorption as biomass-burning aerosols age during
transport, which is visible over the south-eastern Atlantic. Over Asia,
Europe, and South America, absorption is also larger near source regions,
with less absorption elsewhere.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e1427">Annually averaged distribution of column-averaged
single-scattering albedo at 0.55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m used to characterise absorption of
anthropogenic aerosols.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=199.169291pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1445">It is worth noting that the SSA distribution characterises absorption of
fine-mode aerosols but is used to provide the absorption of anthropogenic
aerosols, which is not fully consistent. The inconsistency is, however,
mitigated by two factors. First, fine-mode aerosols are the main proxy for
anthropogenic aerosols in the Bellouin et al. (2013) algorithm that
identifies aerosol origin, and their distributions are broadly similar.
Second, regions where natural aerosols such as marine and mineral dust may
contaminate the fine-mode AOD often correspond to minima in anthropogenic
AOD.</p>
      <p id="d1e1448">Like in Bellouin et al. (2013), the RF of aerosol–radiation interactions
(RFari) is estimated in clear-sky (cloud-free sky) then scaled by the
complement of the cloud fraction in each grid box to represent all-sky
conditions, thus assuming that cloudy-sky aerosol–radiation interactions are
zero. Experimental estimates of cloudy-sky RF have been done but are based
on a simplified account of cloud albedo, which limits their usefulness. For
the year 2003, globally averaged above-cloud anthropogenic and mineral dust
AODs weighted by cloud fraction are 0.005 and 0.003, respectively, or 8 %
of their clear-sky counterparts. Above-cloud marine and fine-mode natural
AODs are negligible. Above-cloud anthropogenic aerosols exert a positive
radiative effect because of their absorbing nature and the high reflectance
of clouds. Those radiative effects commonly reach <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" 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>
locally during the biomass-burning season that lasts from late August to
October over the south-eastern Atlantic stratocumulus deck. However, this only
translates into a cloudy-sky anthropogenic RFari of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" 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 agreement with AeroCom-based estimates, which span the range
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" 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> (Myhre et al., 2019). Studies based on the
Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) estimate that
all-sky radiative effects of present-day above-cloud aerosols range between
0.1 and 0.7 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" 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> on an annual average over 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S to
60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (Oikawa et al., 2018; Kacenelenbogen et al., 2019), but only a
fraction of that radiative effect contributes to RFari because of
compensations from pre-industrial biomass-burning aerosols. Neglecting
above-cloud aerosols therefore introduces a small uncertainty into the global
average but leads to larger errors regionally and seasonally.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Aerosol–cloud interactions</title>
      <p id="d1e1570">The algorithm that estimates the RF of aerosol–cloud interactions (RFaci) is
the same as that used in Bellouin et al. (2013). It is based on
satellite-derived cloud susceptibilities to aerosol changes, which are given
seasonally and regionally. Statistics of satellite retrievals of liquid
clouds are poor at high latitudes (Grosvenor et al., 2018), so cloud
susceptibilities are not available poleward of 60<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and RFaci is
not estimated there. Aerosol changes are obtained by the anthropogenic AOD
derived in Sect. 2.2. The cloud susceptibilities are applied to low-level
(warm) clouds only.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Pre-industrial state</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Carbon dioxide and methane</title>
      <p id="d1e1598">The three-dimensional distributions of carbon dioxide and methane derived
for present-day (PD) strongly benefit from data assimilation of surface
measurements and satellite retrievals, which partly offset the biases of the
chemistry model. That, however, creates the difficulty that estimating PI
concentrations by running the chemistry model with PI emissions would be
biased with respect to the data-assimilated, present-day distributions.
Instead, daily PI mixing ratios of carbon dioxide and methane are scaled
from daily CAMS Greenhouse Gas Flux mixing ratios in each grid box and at
each model level using the following equation:</p>
      <?pagebreak page1656?><p id="d1e1601"><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M66" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PI</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PD</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="〈" close="〉"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PI</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">surface</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AR</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="〉" open="〈"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PD</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">surface</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes the mixing ratio of carbon dioxide or
methane, and angle brackets denote annual averaging. All variables are taken
from the CAMS Greenhouse Gas Flux inversions, except for PI surface mixing
ratios, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="〉" open="〈"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mi>X</mml:mi><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PI</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">surface</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">AR</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
which come from footnote <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of Table 8.2 of Myhre et al. (2013a), 278 ppm for
carbon dioxide and 772 ppb for methane. The scaling factors are calculated
at the surface because this is the level where PI concentrations are given
in Myhre et al. (2013a): the whole profile is scaled like the surface level,
which is justified by the relatively well-mixed nature of both gases. By
construction, the scaled PI distribution has the same global, annual average
value at the surface as given in Myhre et al. (2013a) but inherits the
horizontal, vertical, and temporal variabilities of the PD distribution.
Using this scaling method replicates the PD amplitude of the seasonal cycle
of carbon dioxide and methane concentrations. For carbon dioxide, there is a
suggestion from modelling studies that the amplitude of the seasonal cycle
may have increased since PI (Lindsay et al., 2014). Replicating the PD
amplitude would therefore cause a small underestimate of the forcing.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Ozone</title>
      <p id="d1e1730">Like carbon dioxide and methane, ozone distributions in the CAMS reanalysis
are strongly affected by data assimilation of ozone profiles and total and
partial columns (Inness et al., 2015). Consequently, it is also not
advisable to simply simulate PI ozone concentrations by running the
chemistry model with PI emissions, as that would introduce biases between a
data-assimilated PD and a free-running PI. Instead, daily PI ozone mixing
ratios are scaled in each grid box and at each model level from daily CAMS
reanalysis mixing ratios as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M70" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PI</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:msub><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PD</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="〉" open="〈"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:msubsup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PI</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CMIP</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="〉" open="〈"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:msubsup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PD</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CMIP</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes ozone mixing ratios and angle brackets
denote monthly averaging. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close="〉" open="〈"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:msubsup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PD</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CMIP</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="〈" close="〉"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><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:msubsup><mml:mo>]</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PI</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CMIP</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are taken from the three-dimensional CMIP6 input4MIPs ozone
concentration dataset of Hegglin et al. (2016), briefly described by
Checa-Garcia et al. (2018), for the years 2008–2012 for PD and 1850–1899 for
PI. The Hegglin et al. (2016) dataset was obtained by merging 10-year
running-averaged simulated ozone distributions by the Canadian Middle
Atmosphere Model (CMAM) and the Whole Atmosphere Chemistry Climate Model
(WACCM), both driven by CMIP5 historical emissions (Lamarque et al., 2010).
The models resolve the chemistry and dynamics of the troposphere and
stratosphere, allowing for mutual influence. Historical stratospheric ozone
reflects the effects of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, and methane in a physically and chemically consistent way. The
interannual variability, including the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, is
included. The CMAM pre-industrial control configuration uses precursor and
greenhouse gas emissions for the year 1850 in a 40-year simulation, with the
last 10 years used to create the mean ozone field. The WACCM pre-industrial
control configuration averages precursor and greenhouse gas emissions over
the 1850–1859 period. The reference spectral and total irradiances are
derived from averages over the period 1834–1867 (solar cycles 8–10), but the
11-year solar cycle is not considered.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e1885"><bold>(a)</bold> Monthly averaged zonal cross sections of ratios of
present-day (2008–2014) to pre-industrial (1850–1900) ozone mass-mixing
ratios from the CMIP6 input4MIPs climatology. Surface ozone volume
mixing ratios (in ppb) in <bold>(b)</bold> the CMIP6 input4MIPs climatology and
<bold>(c)</bold> scaled from the CAMS reanalysis using the ratios shown on the left.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1902">Figure 6 shows the monthly cross sections of the PD-to-PI ratios used to
scale CAMS reanalysis ozone mixing ratios following the equation above. The
ratios exhibit a strong hemispheric contrast. In the Northern Hemisphere,
ratios are typically larger than 1.5 throughout the year and can be around 2
in the lower troposphere above polluted regions. In the Southern Hemisphere,
ratios are closer to 1.2 and are below 1 in the upper tropospheric
Antarctic ozone hole, where the ozone layer has been diminished since PI
conditions. Figure 6 also compares surface ozone volume mixing ratios in the
Hegglin et al. (2016) dataset for the year 1850 to those resulting from
scaling CAMS reanalysis ozone concentrations, averaged over the period
2003–2016. CAMS PI surface ozone is about 1.7 larger than in the Hegglin et
al. (2016) dataset. The global distribution of PI ozone concentrations is
poorly known due to a lack of measurements in different regions of the
world, but ACCMIP models (Young et al., 2013) and the isotopic analysis of
Yeung et al. (2019) suggest that the PI ozone levels in the Northern
Hemisphere were of the order of 20 to 30 ppbv in the Northern Hemisphere and
10 to 25 ppbv in the Southern Hemisphere. CAMS estimates are higher, probably
because of overestimations of surface ozone in the CAMS reanalysis,
especially in the Tropics and Northern Hemisphere (Inness et al., 2019), which
propagate to the PI estimates. Although it will be good to reduce those
biases in future versions of the dataset, the fact that both PI and PD ozone
concentrations are similarly biased should not have a large impact on
tropospheric ozone RF, which mostly depends on the PI to PD increment in
ozone concentrations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Aerosols</title>
      <p id="d1e1913">The anthropogenic AOD (Sect. 2.2), which is then used to estimate RFari
and RFaci, is defined with respect to PD natural aerosols, which is a
different reference to PI (1750) so a correction is required (Bellouin et
al., 2008). That correction factor is taken from Bellouin et al. (2013) and
is equal to 0.8; i.e. RFari and RFaci defined with respect to PI are 80 %
of RFari and RFaci defined with respect to PD natural aerosols.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1657?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d1e1926">Model uncertainty can be structural or parametric in nature. The structural
uncertainty relates to methodological and parameterisation choices in the
characterisation of the radiative forcing. It is known to be influenced by
the atmospheric time step used in evaluating the radiative forcing (Colman
et al., 2001), the effect of any climatological averaging
(Mülmenstädt et al., 2019) and for IRF or RF, the definition of
tropopause (Collins et al., 2006). Parametric uncertainty relates to choices
of the value of the parameters within the parameterisations. As radiation
calls are expensive, in climate reanalysis or general circulation models the
SW and LW parts of the spectrum are divided into a small number of bands
that exhibit similar scattering and absorption properties. This
parameterisation error can be significant (Collins et al., 2006; Pincus et
al., 2015). Different radiative-transfer solvers divide the bands in
different ways, and the choice of radiative-transfer code contributes
structural uncertainty (as there are methodological differences in how the
radiative-transfer equation is solved) in addition to parametric
uncertainty. Parametric uncertainty is also present from the choices of which
refractive index to use for calculating aerosol scattering and absorption
processes.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Uncertainty from methodological choices</title>
      <p id="d1e1936">All experiments in this section are performed using the CAMS reanalysis
dataset for the year 2003. Greenhouse gas concentrations for carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide but also for CFC-11, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CCl</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 2003 and 1850 are taken from the Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCP) historical dataset (Meinshausen et al., 2011).
Although these forcings do not comprise the totality of anthropogenic
greenhouse gas RF, 98 % of the well-mixed greenhouse gas RF is included
from these species according to Table 8.2 of Myhre et al. (2013a), which is
for the year 2011.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<?pagebreak page1658?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>4.1.1</label><title>Time stepping and averaging</title>
      <p id="d1e1958">Uncertainty relating to time stepping comes from both the resolution of the
climatology (the effect of averaging or sampling frequency of the input
data), as well as the frequency of the radiation calls. Table 3 summarises
the nine time-stepping and climatological-averaging experiments undertaken to
quantify that uncertainty. In the IFS, full radiation calls are only made
every 3 simulated hours, with reduced radiation calls made on intermediate
model time steps (30 min), to mitigate against the high cost of radiative-transfer calculations. Alongside using 3 h instantaneous data, reanalysis
data are prepared as both daily and monthly means with a range of
reduced-frequency radiation call methodologies. In the SW this requires an
appropriate choice of solar zenith angle. Alongside the standard case of 6
representative solar zenith angles per day, we investigate 6 and 20
representative zenith angles for monthly averaged climatologies. The impact
of averaged climatologies is also isolated by using 3 h solar zenith
angles with daily and monthly climatologies. In addition, an experiment
using instantaneous 3-hourly reanalysis in which we retain every seventh
model output time step (i.e. interval of 21 h) is performed. This
experiment does not introduce bias from averaging the underlying reanalysis
data while reducing the number of radiation calls. A 21 h sampling
frequency is chosen to preserve the diurnal and seasonal insolation
cycles, as recommended in partial radiative perturbation studies (Colman et
al., 2001). The approximations introduced by using a 3-hourly effective
zenith angle are compared by using the same underlying reanalysis data with
a 1-hourly effective zenith angle. At periods of 1 h or less, the
effective and instantaneous zenith angles are very similar in most grid
points.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1964">Time-stepping and climatological-averaging experiments.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Label</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Reanalysis data</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Solar zenith angle</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col4" nameend="col6" align="center">Radiation calls per year  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">SW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">LW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Total</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3hr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3-hourly instantaneous</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 h effective</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2920</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2920</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5840</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3hr_1hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3-hourly instantaneous</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 h effective</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8760</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">2920</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">11 680</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3hr_21hr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3-hourly instantaneous,</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 h effective, every</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">418</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">418</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">836</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">every 7th model time step</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7th model time step</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">day_3hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">daily mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 h effective</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2920</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">365</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">3285</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">day_3gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">daily mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 representative Gaussian</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1095</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">365</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1460</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_1hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">monthly mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1 h effective</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8760</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">8772</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_3hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">monthly mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 h effective</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2920</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">2932</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_10gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">monthly mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10 representative Gaussian</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">120</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">132</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_3gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">monthly mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3 representative Gaussian</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Top-of-atmosphere flux imbalance</title>
      <p id="d1e2248">Although the focus of this work is the accuracy of the RF, it is useful to
explore the dependency of the present-day simulation of TOA irradiances on
the time-stepping. Figure 7 shows the results from the time-stepping
experiment, and root-mean-squared errors (RMSEs) for the simulated data
versus observations from the Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System,
Energy Balanced and Filled dataset (CERES EBAF TOA Ed4.0) (Loeb et al.,
2018) are given in Table 4. The CERES data assumes a nominal TOA height of
20 km, which is well above the cloud layer, so radiative fluxes are not
significantly different to those at the top level of the model. Figure 7a
shows that accuracy in the SW upwelling TOA radiation is compromised by
using climatological averaging. Monthly averaging is 3 to 4 times
less accurate than daily averaging, whereas 3-hourly instantaneous
climatologies agree well with observations. This result agrees with
Mülmentstädt et al. (2019). Figure 7b shows the corresponding fluxes
for LW outgoing radiation. Again, 3-hourly instantaneous climatologies
perform better than daily, which in turn perform better than monthly.
Agreement with observations is less good with the 3-hourly instantaneous
radiative fluxes in the LW than in the SW. Figure 7c shows net TOA
radiation. Again, 3 h instantaneous climatologies agree better with
observations than daily means, which are in turn better than monthly means.
Biases with mean climatologies add rather than cancel, as upwelling
radiation is underestimated in both the LW and the SW for daily and monthly
means. Note that Fig. 7 and Table 4 suggest that the effect of
climatological averaging dominates over the frequency of SW radiation calls.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e2253">Radiative fluxes calculated by ecRad using 2003 CAMS reanalysis
data for the nine time-stepping experiments described in Table 3 (coloured
lines): <bold>(a)</bold> top-of-atmosphere shortwave upwelling radiative flux, <bold>(b)</bold> top-of-atmosphere longwave upwelling radiative flux, <bold>(c)</bold> top-of-atmosphere
net downwelling radiation. The black line shows the observed radiation
fluxes for CERES EBAF.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=298.753937pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f07.png"/>

          </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Table 4</label><caption><p id="d1e2274">Root-mean-square error (RMSE, in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" 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>) of monthly
top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation compared to CERES-EBAF for 2003.</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 colname="col1">Experiment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SW TOA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">LW TOA</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Net TOA</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">RMSE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">RMSE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">RMSE</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3hr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.79</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3hr_1hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.02</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.48</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">3hr_21hr</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1.91</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.74</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">day_3gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.78</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.23</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">day_3hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.77</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">7.18</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_10gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">11.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">21.55</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_1hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">11.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">21.57</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_3gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">11.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">21.54</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">mon_3hrzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10.34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">10.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">20.65</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Radiative forcing at top-of-atmosphere and tropopause</title>
      <p id="d1e2481">Here, IRF is estimated by comparing all-sky net fluxes at the tropopause and
at the TOA for 2003 and 1850. A simplified definition of the tropopause is
employed for this comparison, defined as the 29th model level in the
CAMS reanalysis, the level closest to 200 hPa. Alternative tropopause
assumptions are investigated below. For the purpose of these experiments,
the 1850 atmosphere is created by adjusting the concentrations of the eight
greenhouse gases included in the ecRad code to 1850 levels following
Meinshausen et al. (2011). Mixing ratios of ozone and aerosol species are
prescribed using a gridded PI to PD ratio. Meteorology (temperature, water
vapour, and cloud variables) is fixed at 2003 levels in all experiments.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e2486">Global-mean instantaneous radiative forcing for the year 2003 (in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" 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>) at the tropopause and top of atmosphere for 3-hourly solar zenith
angle time steps for 3-hourly, daily, and monthly climatologies.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f08.png"/>

          </fig>

      <p id="d1e2507">Figure 8 shows the results for the 3hr, day_3hrzen and
mon_3hrzen experiments. In the absence of PI observations,
the RF calculated in the 3hr experiment is assumed to be closest to the
truth, given the better agreement to CERES TOA fluxes than the daily or
monthly averaged reanalysis data. Corresponding time-stepping experiments
for different solar zenith time steps give almost identical results. SW IRF
is deficient when using averaged climatology, with TOA mon_3hrzen disagreeing in sign with 3hr. The errors introduced in the LW by
climatological averaging are relatively small, amounting to about 6 % at
the tropopause and 10 % at the TOA for mon_3hrzen compared
to 3hr. Although LW forcing dominates, the errors in the SW forcing are of
larger magnitude, so the net climatological averaging effect is 15 % at
the tropopause and 21 % at the TOA. The error in net IRF is 0.21 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" 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> at the tropopause for day_3hrzen (and
day_3gzen, not shown) compared to 3hr. This is used as our
uncertainty range in the CAMS reanalysis RF product, which is calculated
using a day_3gzen methodology.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>4.1.2</label><title>Spatial resolution of reanalysis data</title>
      <?pagebreak page1660?><p id="d1e2530">To determine whether the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> grid
resolution for RF calculation introduces additional error, the 2003 TOA
fluxes were analysed using the 3hr_21hr methodology at the
native model resolution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Only
minor differences are found in the TOA radiative fluxes: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
in the SW and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the LW, resulting in a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" 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> net difference. As the pre-industrial ratios of ozone and aerosol
precursors are not available on this higher-resolution grid, IRF cannot be
calculated using the finer grid, but IRF errors are likely to be even
smaller because taking the difference in TOA (or tropopause) fluxes is
expected to result in smaller errors than the absolute TOA difference. The
spatial resolution error is assessed to be 0.05 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" 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>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS3">
  <label>4.1.3</label><title>Tropopause definition</title>
      <p id="d1e2660">Figure 8 shows that TOA IRF differs significantly from tropopause IRF – in
fact the difference, which is mostly due to carbon dioxide, explains the
need for stratospheric temperature adjustment. But regardless of whether IRF or RF is
estimated, there is a need to define the tropopause and quantify the impact
of that definition on estimated RF (Forster and Shine, 1997). The uncertainty
analysis is done on tropopause IRF because of the large number of radiation
calls needed to produce an FDH estimate of RF. Experiment 3hr_21hr is used as a basis to investigate the uncertainty in the tropopause
definition for IRF.</p>
      <p id="d1e2663">The default definition of the tropopause used in CAMS RF estimates is the
WMO definition of the lowest altitude at which lapse rate drops to 2 K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, providing the lapse rate in the 2 km above this level does not
exceed 2 K km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The tropopause level is calculated daily. Alternative
definitions used here are as follows:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <?pagebreak page1661?><p id="d1e2692">the 200 hPa level, calculated by interpolating ecRad-calculated fluxes on
model levels in logarithm of pressure, this level is used as a proxy for the
tropopause from model results in the RF inter-comparison of Collins et al. (2006);</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2696">level 29 of the CAMS reanalysis grid, which is closest to 200 hPa at most
locations and easy to obtain;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2700">a linearly varying tropopause, from 100 hPa at the Equator to 300 hPa at the
poles, as used by Soden et al. (2008);</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2704">100 hPa from the Equator to 39<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N/S, where it drops abruptly to 189 hPa and is then linear in latitude to 300 hPa at the poles, as used by
Hansen et al. (1997);</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e2717">the CAMS model-defined tropopause but calculated from instantaneous 3 h
fields instead of daily.</p></list-item></list>
Results are presented in Table 5. The WMO definition gives the largest net
IRF at 2.57 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the tropopause, whereas the CAMS definition of the
tropopause results in a net IRF of 2.46 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" 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>, giving a difference of
5 %. In determining the tropopause level uncertainty, equal weight is
assigned to the WMO, CAMS, Soden et al. (2008), and Hansen et al. (1997)
definitions. A weighting of 0.5 is assigned to the level 29 and 200 hPa
definitions, as they are measuring the same quantity. The CAMS and WMO
definitions are considered sufficiently different to be treated as
independent. Using these weights, the uncertainty for the choice of
tropopause level is assessed as 0.15 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" 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 the 5 % to 95 %
confidence interval of the estimates taking into account weighting.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T5"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Table 5</label><caption><p id="d1e2761">Shortwave, longwave, and net instantaneous radiative forcings (in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" 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>) calculated with different tropopause definitions.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Definition</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">SW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">LW</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Net</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Level 29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.33</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">200 hPa</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.31</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hansen, 1997</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.98</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.52</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Soden, 2008</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.40</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">WMO</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.57</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">CAMS</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.46</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1.SSS4">
  <label>4.1.4</label><title>Radiative-transfer code</title>
      <p id="d1e2958">Structural uncertainty is introduced by the reduction of both the solar and
thermal radiation into a small number of spectral bands. This reduction is
required to facilitate rapid run time of radiation schemes in GCM and
reanalysis schemes, as radiative-transfer codes with higher spectral
resolution are too computationally expensive. Structural uncertainty also
arises from the choices of approximations and numerical methods used in the
actual solving of the radiative-transfer equation. Parameterisation
uncertainty arises from the treatment of scattering and absorption of gases,
clouds, and aerosols. Further uncertainty is introduced by use of a
two-stream radiative-transfer model, which is standard in most GCMs, as well
as in ecRad, again for reasons of efficiency. This component of uncertainty
is not quantified here, but, in the case of RFari, Randles et al. (2013) found
biases of both signs due to two-stream models, depending on aerosol
single-scattering albedo and solar zenith angle. They also noted that
compensation of errors and the mitigating effect of delta scaling reduce
two-stream biases of globally and annually averaged RFari compared to
regional and seasonal estimates.</p>
      <p id="d1e2961">IRF calculated by ecRad is compared against the Suite Of Community Radiative
Transfer codes based on Edwards and Slingo (SOCRATES), as configured in the
UK Met Office's GA3.1 configuration (Manners et al., 2017) optimised for use
in the HadGEM3 family of GCMs. In this configuration, SOCRATES uses a
Delta-Eddington two-stream solver with 6 SW and 9 LW radiation bands. In
comparison, ecRad uses 16 bands in the LW and 14 in the SW. Owing to the
differences in how aerosols are specified between the ecRad and SOCRATES
interfaces, comparisons are performed in aerosol-free cases. Aerosols may
contribute further uncertainties, although Zhang et al. (2020) only found a
small dependence of aerosol radiative effects on the spectral resolution of
radiative-transfer calculations. All-sky and clear-sky cases are compared
between ecRad and SOCRATES, but it should also be noted that methodological
differences between the two codes, including the scattering and absorption
profiles of cloud droplets and treatment of cloud overlap, may preclude a
direct comparison of all-sky cases.</p>
      <?pagebreak page1662?><p id="d1e2964">For the IRF calculations, full-year 3hr_21hr calculations
with 2003 CAMS reanalysis are again used but with GHGs set to 1850 levels in
the 1850 simulation. The simulations are run only with the greenhouse gases
common to both codes (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, CFC11, CFC12, and
HCFC22). A global effective radius of 10 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m is set for liquid water
cloud droplets and 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m for ice crystals. The net GHG-only
tropopause (level 29) IRF is 2.71 W m<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> in ecRad and 2.97 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" 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
SOCRATES, whereas clear-sky IRF is 3.17 W m<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> in ecRad and 3.44 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in SOCRATES. SOCRATES therefore calculates a stronger IRF by about
10 %, which is not reduced by the inclusion of clouds.</p>
      <p id="d1e3067">One further comparison against a narrow-band calculation in the libRadtran
implementation of DISORT (Mayer and Kylling, 2005) is
performed for a global reference profile using the Representative Wavelength
parameterisation (REPTRAN; Gasteiger et al., 2014) with a spectral resolution
of 15 cm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The reanalysis data from 21 March 2003 at 15:00 Z is
selected for clear-sky conditions only.</p>
      <p id="d1e3083">This comparison against the reference profile results in an IRF of 2.85 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in libRadtran, 3.13 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" 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 ecRad and 3.34 W m<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> in
SOCRATES. The error due to radiation parameterisation is estimated to be
0.33 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at the 5 % to 95 % level from these three estimates. The
radiation code inter-comparison planned by the Radiative Forcing Model
Intercomparison Project (RFMIP; Pincus et al., 2016) will further quantify
uncertainties in GCM radiation codes.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Uncertainty from aerosol optical properties and climatology</title>
      <p id="d1e3143">In addition to the parametric uncertainty discussed in Sect. 4.1, there is
parametric uncertainty from the base climate state unrelated to any
climatological averaging. Meteorological reanalysis is not perfect since
limited and spatially incomplete observations are used to drive an
atmospheric model (Dee et al., 2011). Additionally, the SW, and to a lesser
extent LW, transmission and reflectivity of the atmosphere is heavily
dependent on aerosol optical properties, which are not well constrained from
observations (Regayre et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e3146">To quantify those uncertainties, a 240-member perturbed parameter ensemble
(PPE) is built by sampling uncertainty in 24 input variables, including
aerosol and greenhouse gas emission and composition parameters, using a
Latin hypercube approach (Lee et al., 2011) according to assumed prior
distributions (Table 6). For each sample set, a pair of 2003 and 1850
simulations is performed, using the 2003 reanalysis data as before. Prior
distributions of each parameter are informed from literature ranges and
other modelling studies. In many cases the prior distributions in Table 6
differ from those used in referenced studies. Our prior distributions are
informed by the references but are adapted to account for known information
about the default parameter combinations used in ecRad, which produce a 2003
IRF estimate that is well within the expected range (see Sect. 4.1.1). For
example, the geometric standard deviation of the sulfate size distribution
is modified from the prior used in Lee at al. (2013) of 1.2–1.8 to account
for the fact that the IFS by default uses a relatively small size
distribution mean radius of 35 nm with a larger geometric standard deviation
of 2.0 than used in Lee et al. (2013). The prior for mean sulfate size
distribution used in the PPE admits values that are mostly larger than 35 nm, so the geometric standard deviation is reduced to compensate.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Table 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3152">Variables perturbed and their ranges for use in the 240-member
perturbed parameter ensemble.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.96}[.96]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="4.5cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="2.6cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="3cm"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="justify" colwidth="2.9cm"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Variable</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">How it is perturbed</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling or</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Range</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Distribution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Basis of prior</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean of sulfate size distribution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30 to 100 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Asmi et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Geometric standard deviation of <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>sulfate size distribution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.5 to 2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Lee et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean of OC size distribution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">30 to 100 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Asmi et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Geometric standard deviation of <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>OC size distribution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.5 to 2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Lee et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean of BC size distribution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">10 to 80 nm<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Asmi et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Geometric standard deviation of <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.5 to 2.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Lee et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean of sea salt size distribution  <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>(fine mode)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">100 to 200 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Dubovik et al. (2002)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Geometric standard deviation of sea salt size distribution (fine mode)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.2 to 1.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Lee et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mass mixing ratio of hydrophilic <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Log-uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013b)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mass mixing ratio of sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Log-uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013b)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mass mixing ratio of sea spray</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Log-uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Lee et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud updraft speed (covering all <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>cloud types)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">CDNC namelist</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.1 to 1.2 m s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Regayre et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Cloud fraction, specific cloud liquid content, and specific cloud ice content</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.9 to 1.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Bellouin et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Scattering coefficient of BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol optical <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10 to 0.28 at 550 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Bond et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Absorption coefficient of BC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol optical <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.4 to 18.6 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>550 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013b)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Scattering coefficient of OC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol optical <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.887 to 0.947 at <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>550 nm and 75 % RH</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Feng et al. (2013)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Absorption coefficient of OC</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Aerosol optical <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2.5 to 12.6 m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> g<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>550 nm</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Feng et al. (2013), <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>Myhre et al. (2013b)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature (vertical profile)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> K</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Dee et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Specific humidity</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.8 to 1.2</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Dee et al. (2011)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Forecast/surface albedo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Absolute</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Maclaurin et al. (2016)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" 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> concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.5 to 1.5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Uniform</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013a)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003: 0.9986 to 1.0014 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1850: 0.9684 to 1.0316</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Normal<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013a)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003: 0.9996 to 1.0004 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1850: 0.9930 to 1.0070</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Normal<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013a)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Atmospheric profile</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Scaling</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">2003: 0.9997 to 1.0003 <?xmltex \hack{\hfill\break}?>1850: 0.9745 to 1.0254</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Normal<inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Myhre et al. (2013a)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e3155"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Assumed to be lower than OC. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" 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> forcing presumed to scale linearly with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" 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> concentration. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CH</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">O</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> use the same relative uncertainty compared
to the<?xmltex \hack{\\}?>best-estimate concentrations for 1850 and 2003 simulations.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e4059">In this section, tropopause IRF is calculated on level 29, and a
3hr_21hr time-stepping methodology is used. The distribution
of the global mean tropopause IRF for the year 2003 in the 240-member PPE
using ecRad is shown in Fig. 9. The distribution of RF is positively
skewed and well-represented by a lognormal distribution (red curve in Fig. 9). This contrasts with the anthropogenic forcing assessment in the IPCC AR5,
which shows a mild negative skew (Myhre et al., 2013a), mostly due to the
influence of the asymmetric uncertainty in AR5-assessed aerosol forcing. It
should be noted, however, that the two different methods of arriving at
distributions of radiative forcing are not equivalent and have different
approaches to quantify sources of uncertainty.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e4064">Probability density function for the global annual mean
instantaneous radiative forcing (W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" 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 year 2003, resulting
from the CAMS Climate Forcing Perturbed Parameter Ensemble. A lognormal fit
to the distribution is shown in red.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=227.622047pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4085">The mean (5 %–95 %) IRF from the 240-member ensemble is 2.44 (1.67 to 3.42) W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" 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 stronger than the 2.33 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" 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> arising from
using default ecRad parameters (Sect. 4.1.1). The mean (5 %–95 %) IRF from
the lognormal curve fit is 2.44 (1.67 to 3.40) W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" 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>. Due to the good
agreement between the sample and distribution fit, the mean and uncertainty
range from the lognormal curve fit to the PPE are used in our overall
uncertainty assessment for computational ease.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page1664?><sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Combined uncertainty</title>
      <p id="d1e4133">The individual sources of uncertainty from Sect. 4.1 and 4.2 are combined
to produce an overall uncertainty estimate (Table 7). To produce the
combined uncertainty, each individual source of uncertainty is assumed to be
uncorrelated with the others. A million Monte Carlo samples were drawn
from each distribution, corresponding to the individual sources of
uncertainty listed in Table 7. This approach is taken as it is not
straightforward to add non-symmetric uncertainties in quadrature. The
combined uncertainty in IRF represents a range of 64 % to 143 % of the mean.
This range is used to evaluate the RF uncertainty of the CAMS RF estimates,
assuming that the uncertainty range calculated for the IRF in 2003 applies
to all years.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Table 7</label><caption><p id="d1e4139">Combined parametric and structural uncertainty in net tropopause
instantaneous radiative forcing for 2003.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Source of forcing error</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Uncertainty or forcing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Distribution</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">estimate (W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Grid resolution</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Gaussian</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tropopause definition</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Gaussian</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Radiative-transfer parameterisation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Gaussian</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Time stepping (CAMS day_3gzen</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Gaussian</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">versus 3hr_21hr)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Parametric, i.e. atmospheric reanalysis</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.44 (1.67 to 3.40)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Lognormal</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">and aerosol optical properties</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.44 (1.55 to 3.48)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Estimates for the period 2003–2017</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>Overview</title>
      <p id="d1e4334">Figure 10 shows RF time series and average distributions over the CAMS
reanalysis period 2003–2017. Over that period, RF of carbon dioxide and
methane have increased by 26 % and 6 %, respectively, because their
atmospheric concentrations have increased. Ozone and aerosol radiative
forcing do not show significant trends over the period. In terms of
distributions, carbon dioxide and methane RF peak in the Tropics and have a
good degree of symmetry between the two hemispheres. Tropospheric ozone RF
is also maximum in the Tropics but is larger in the Northern Hemisphere,
where tropospheric pollution is larger, than in the Southern Hemisphere.
Stratospheric ozone RF peaks at high latitudes. It is positive in the high
latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere because of influences from the
troposphere (see Sect. 5.3) and negative in the high latitudes of the
Southern Hemisphere because of stratospheric ozone depletion, in good
agreement with Checa-Garcia et al. (2018). RFari follows the distribution of
anthropogenic aerosols, which are located over and downwind of polluted and
wildfire regions. RFari is negative over most of the globe, except small
areas of high-albedo desert regions where anthropogenic absorption switches
the sign to positive. Recall that above-cloud RFari is neglected in those
calculations, so areas of positive RF from biomass-burning aerosols
overlying clouds (e.g. Zuidema et al., 2016) are not represented. RFaci is
also heterogeneously distributed, with large RF exerted by aerosol
perturbations to mid-latitude Northern Hemisphere clouds and stratocumulus
decks.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e4339">Annual and global-mean time series and average distribution for
the CAMS reanalysis period 2003–2017 of the stratospherically adjusted
radiative forcing (relative to 1750 in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" 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>) of carbon dioxide,
methane, tropospheric ozone, stratospheric ozone, aerosol–radiation
interactions, and aerosol–cloud interactions. Radiative forcing is given for
shortwave plus longwave, except for aerosols where it is given for shortwave
only.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{11}?><label>Figure 11</label><caption><p id="d1e4362">As in Fig. 10 but for cloud-free conditions. Note that radiative
forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions is undefined in the absence of clouds,
so is not shown here.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f11.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4372">Clouds exert a sizable modulation of RF. Figure 11 shows the RF time series
and average distributions in cloud-free conditions. This is estimated by
setting cloud amounts to zero in radiative-transfer calculations but keeping
other variables, in particular water vapour, fixed. Results suggest that
RF would generally be stronger, in terms of absolute magnitude, in the
absence of clouds. Alternatively, the results can be formulated as clouds
masking a fraction of cloud-free RF. Clouds mask 14 % of carbon dioxide
and methane RF. That estimate is similar to the previous estimate of 13 %
for carbon dioxide by Myhre et al. (1998) but smaller than the estimate of
29 % given for methane by Minschwaner et al. (1998). Clouds mask 17 % of
tropospheric ozone RF and switch the sign of global-mean stratospheric ozone
RF, which, however, remains weak. Clouds mask at least 70 % of RFari, this
value being a lower bound because the CAMS estimate excludes a small
contribution from above-cloud aerosol absorption. Interestingly, the net
effect of clouds is to weaken total aerosol RF since RFaci is weaker than
the fraction of RFari masked by clouds. Clouds have little effect on trends.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F12" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{12}?><label>Figure 12</label><caption><p id="d1e4377"><bold>(a)</bold> Time series of global annually averaged total
stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing in the shortwave and longwave
spectra (W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" 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 period 2003–2017. Total radiative forcing
is defined here as the sum of the radiative-forcing components shown in
Fig. 10. <bold>(b)</bold> Rate of change in total radiative forcing, calculated as
the change in total radiative forcing from a given year to the next
(in mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). <bold>(c)</bold> Distribution of total stratospherically
adjusted radiative forcing, averaged over the period 2003–2017 (in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f12.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4443">Figure 12 shows the time evolution, average distribution, and rate of change
of total RF over the period 2003–2017. Here, the rate of change is
calculated as the change in total RF from one year to the next. Total RF is
obtained by adding the CAMS estimates of the RF of carbon dioxide, methane,
ozone, and aerosols. Total RF is estimated at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.17</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" 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 2003 and
has increased to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.77</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" 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 2017. The fact that total RF has
become more positive over the period indicates driving of further increases
in surface temperatures. Total RF is positive over most of the globe, with
peaks in the Tropics, where carbon dioxide, methane, and tropospheric ozone
RF peak. RF is also large at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere for
two reasons. First, this is where both tropospheric and stratospheric ozone
contribute large positive RF. Second, this is where RFaci is not estimated
because the satellite retrievals on which the estimate relies are biased due
to large solar zenith angles (see Sect. 2.3). There are a few regions
where aerosol RF more than offsets the RF of the other forcing agents,
leading to a negative total RF. This happens in the North Pacific and over
China but also off the coast of biomass-burning regions in West Africa and
the Maritime Continent, although neglecting above-cloud RFari may exaggerate
the offset. Rates of change in total RF have varied over the period but
generally remained between 20 and 70 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The years 2012, 2014,
and 2015 have slower rates, less than 10 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> because of a
slowdown in methane RF increase and a large aerosol RF, respectively. The years
2013 and 2017 have rates above 90 mW m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" 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> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> because of a weaker
aerosol RF combined, for 2017, with a strong methane forcing. Note that
Fig. 12 and its analysis does not account for the contribution of, and
changes in, radiative-forcing agents that are not estimated in CAMS, notably
nitrous oxide and halocarbons, surface albedo and land use changes, and
solar and volcanic RF.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Table 8</label><caption><p id="d1e4566">Comparison of best estimate and 5 %–95 % confidence ranges for stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing (in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) as assessed by the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; Sect. 8.3.2 and Table 8.6 of Myhre et al., 2013a) and
obtained by this study, both for 2011 relative to 1750. AR5 estimates for
aerosol–cloud interactions are for the effective radiative forcing.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Radiative-forcing agent</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">IPCC AR5 estimate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">This study</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Carbon dioxide</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.82</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (1.63 to 2.01)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.91</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (1.51 to 2.31)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Methane</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.43 to 0.53)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.36 to 0.56)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Tropospheric ozone</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.20 to 0.60)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.01 to 0.59)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Stratospheric ozone</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.05)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.00 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.20)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol–radiation interactions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.23</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Aerosol–cloud interactions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to 0.0)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.14</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?pagebreak page1667?><p id="d1e4872">Our more consistent treatment of forcing agents led to CAMS Climate Forcing
estimates and uncertainties within previously assessed ranges but with
noticeable differences for aerosols. In CAMS, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> uncertainty range
for carbon dioxide and methane forcing is estimated at 13 %, slightly
larger than the 10 % uncertainty generally assumed in IPCC Assessment
Reports. The uncertainty ranges for ozone and aerosols are larger, at 50 %
for tropospheric ozone, 100 % for stratospheric ozone, and 38 % for
total aerosol radiative forcing. The IPCC AR5 provides estimates for the
year 2011, so they are compared to the same year from the CAMS dataset (Table 8).
CAMS best estimates are close to those made at the time of the AR5, with the
exception of RFari and RFaci, which are 60 % stronger in CAMS than in AR5,
although these are still within assessed uncertainty ranges. RFari and RFaci are also
consistent with the recent assessment by Bellouin et al. (2020a). CAMS
uncertainty ranges are wider (although not greatly so) than assessed in AR5
because we have assessed a much more comprehensive set of uncertainty
sources than AR5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Carbon dioxide and methane</title>
      <p id="d1e4893">The CAMS estimates of RF by carbon dioxide and methane are based on the
three-dimensional distributions of CAMS greenhouse gas flux inversions. Most
previous estimates are either based on radiative-transfer calculations that
assume a uniform mixing ratio of these gases or use simplified expressions,
especially those by Myhre et al. (1998), obtained by fitting the
calculations of radiative-transfer models of varying spectral resolution.
Figure 13 compares the CAMS estimates to calculations using the same methods
and input datasets, except that carbon dioxide and methane are now
prescribed uniformly as measured by the ESRL and AGAGE networks (see Sect. 2.1 and Fig. 2). The year 2017 is not included in that comparison because
calculations with uniform concentrations have only been done for the period
2003–2016. Pre-industrial concentrations are set to 278 ppm for carbon
dioxide and 722 ppb for methane, like in Sect. 3.1. Also included in the
comparison are estimates from the simplified expressions in Table 3 of Myhre
et al. (1998), calculated using annually averaged mass-weighted atmospheric
concentrations from the CAMS greenhouse gas flux inversions. Calculations
assume the same pre-industrial concentrations as above and in addition assume a
pre-industrial concentration of 270 ppb for nitrous oxide (again from Table 8.2 of Myhre et al., 2013a), which is a required input for the methane
forcing calculation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{13}?><label>Figure 13</label><caption><p id="d1e4898">Comparison of stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing (in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" 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>) of carbon dioxide <bold>(a)</bold> and methane <bold>(b)</bold> based on either the
three-dimensional distributions produced by CAMS Greenhouse Gas Flux or the
surface measurements of the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory for carbon
dioxide and the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment for methane.
Corresponding concentration time series are shown in Fig. 2. Panels on the left
show time series for 2003–2016, with radiative forcing from
three-dimensional distributions shown as a solid line, from uniform
concentrations as a dashed line, and from the simplified expressions of
Myhre et al. (1998) as a dotted–dashed line. Maps show, from left to right,
the distributions from three-dimensional distributions, from uniform
concentrations, and their difference.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f13.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4925">Three-dimensional distributions yield a slightly larger RF than uniform
distributions, but the differences are only within 1 % to 2 %. Such small
differences agree with past studies done on methane RF (Freckleton et al.,
1998; Minschwaner et al., 1998), although they did not include shortwave
effects and so obtained a different sign for the difference. Differences are
likely due to saturation of RF as concentrations increase: RF has a
logarithmic dependence on concentrations for carbon dioxide and a square-root dependence for methane, and concentrations are effectively lower in the
three-dimensional case (Fig. 2). The increase in RF is contributed by land
surfaces, where distributions depart most from uniformity because of local
anthropogenic and natural sources. Three-dimensional distributions yield a
stronger carbon dioxide RF but a weaker methane RF than simplified
expressions, but again differences are small compared to overall
uncertainties.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Ozone</title>
      <p id="d1e4936">Although we presented tropospheric and stratospheric ozone forcing
separately in Sect. 5.1, based on our tropopause definition, we recognise
that there is some artificiality in the separation. Although stratospheric
ozone change is primarily driven by ozone-depleting substances (ODS),
modelling studies indicate a compensatory increase in stratospheric ozone
due to emissions of gases conventionally regarded as tropospheric ozone
precursors (carbon monoxide, methane and nitrous oxides). Similarly, ODS
affect tropospheric ozone, mostly via changes in stratosphere-troposphere
exchange. Søvde et al. (2011, 2012), for 1850–2000, and Shindell et al. (2013b), for 1850–2005, estimate that the precursors offset about 35 %–40 %
of the negative stratospheric RF due to ODS, while about 15 % of the
positive tropospheric ozone forcing due to precursors is offset by ODS. For
the total ozone RF, ODS offset about half of the positive forcing due to the
precursors.</p>
      <p id="d1e4939">In that context, it is interesting to look at total ozone RF, the sum of
tropospheric and stratospheric ozone RFs. Figure 14 shows time series and
distributions of total ozone RF for the period 2003–2017. After an increase
from 2003<?pagebreak page1668?> to 2005, dominated by an increase in tropospheric ozone
concentrations, total ozone RF has been stable around 0.32 W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" 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
terms of distribution, ozone RF is positive over most of the globe, with a
maximum in the tropical Northern Hemisphere. The high latitudes of the
Southern Hemisphere are, however, associated with a negative ozone RF, due to
stratospheric ozone depletion.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F14"><?xmltex \currentcnt{14}?><label>Figure 14</label><caption><p id="d1e4956">Annual and global-mean time series and average distribution for
the CAMS reanalysis period (2003–2017) of the stratospherically adjusted
radiative forcing of ozone (relative to 1750 and in W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" 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>), calculated
as the sum of tropospheric and stratospheric ozone radiative forcing.
Radiative forcing is given for shortwave plus longwave.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f14.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <label>5.4</label><title>Aerosols</title>
      <p id="d1e4985">Because aerosols have short residence times in the troposphere, on the order
of 1 week, distributions of trends in their concentrations and radiative
forcing are driven by changes in aerosol primary and precursor emissions,
which are themselves driven by air quality policy and economic decisions, at
least over industrial regions. Figure 15 shows deseasonalised trends in
anthropogenic AOD as estimated by the aerosol origin identification
algorithm described in Sect. 3.3 applied to the CAMS reanalysis for the
period 2003–2017. Although globally averaged anthropogenic AOD shows
essentially no trend over the period, this hides very large regional trends.
According to the CAMS reanalysis, total AOD has decreased over the eastern
United States, Europe, South America, and China and increased over India
and Siberia (Rémy et al., 2019). As shown in Fig. 15, the aerosol
origin identification algorithm attributes those trends to anthropogenic
aerosols, except for the Siberian trends, despite the Siberian trends being most
probably caused by an increase in wildfires in the region. Decreasing aerosol
amounts in China after about 2010 are confirmed by analyses of satellite
aerosol retrievals<?pagebreak page1669?> and ground-based sun photometers (Filonchyk et al., 2019)
and air quality monitoring (Zheng et al., 2018). Both studies detect the
start of the decrease in 2013 and attribute it to the implementation of
China's Clean Air Action. Over South America, Aragão et al. (2018)
report a decrease in deforestation rates over 2003–2015, which is expected
to be associated with a decreasing trend in biomass-burning aerosol
emissions. Over India, analyses of ground-based remote sensing measurements
confirm the increasing trend and attribute it to an increase in
anthropogenic emissions (Babu et al., 2013; Satheesh et al., 2017). Figure 15 also shows wide oceanic regions, especially in the southern Pacific and
Southern Ocean, associated with small but statistically significant
positive trends. Those trends may not be real, as they are smaller than the
0.001 yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> drift in AOD that may affect the MODIS Collection 6.1
retrievals (Levy et al., 2018) that are assimilated in the CAMS reanalysis.
Those trends could also reveal shortcomings of the aerosol identification
algorithm or be real trends caused by biomass-burning aerosols transported
from the Maritime Continent, South America, and Africa. The confidence in
those trends and in the associated RFari and RFaci in these regions is
therefore low.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F15" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{15}?><label>Figure 15</label><caption><p id="d1e5002">Linear trends (yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) in anthropogenic aerosol optical
depth at 0.55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>m over the period 2003–2017 according to the CAMS
Climate Forcing aerosol origin identification algorithm. Regions where
trends are statistically insignificant are masked in white. Right-hand-side
plots show time series of anthropogenic aerosol optical depth (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">anth</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; solid lines) and their linear fits (dashed lines) in
selected regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/1649/2020/essd-12-1649-2020-f15.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <label>6</label><title>Data availability</title>
      <p id="d1e5051">Copernicus Climate Forcings data are available for download at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896" ext-link-type="DOI">10.24380/ads.1hj3y896</ext-link> (Bellouin et al., 2020b). Copernicus
data are free and open access.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>7</label><title>Uses and planned developments</title>
      <p id="d1e5065">Monthly distributions of CAMS RF at the surface, tropopause, and TOA and
in clear- and all-sky conditions are available for download at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896" ext-link-type="DOI">10.24380/ads.1hj3y896</ext-link> (Bellouin et al., 2020b). Monthly distributions of
anthropogenic AOD and aerosol radiative effects for mineral dust, marine,
anthropogenic, and land-based fine-mode aerosols are also available. The
availability of RF estimates resolved in space and time is rare, so the CAMS
RF dataset has the potential to serve several categories of climate
researchers. Some of the needs can be readily satisfied with the current
products, while others will require further co-construction with the users.
We have identified a number of areas where the CAMS RF are already in use or
could be used.
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e5073">Monitoring climate forcings is a key element in monitoring the climate
system. The CAMS RF estimates are now routinely included in the AMS State of
the Climate reports published each year in the BAMS (see <uri>https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/</uri>, last access: 14 July 2020).
Other regular climate assessments (IPCC, WMO) could also benefit from the
CAMS products.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e5080">Many scientists, governments, intergovernmental bodies, and non-governmental
organisations are monitoring the evolution of climate change, the progress
of international climate mitigation towards carbon neutrality, and the
implications for the remaining carbon budget. Present-day radiative forcing
for non-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> greenhouse gases and aerosols and its year-to-year
evolution are key knowledge elements for estimating the remaining carbon
budget, the year when carbon neutrality needs to be achieved, and asymptotic
permissible emissions if and when the climate is stabilised.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e5095">Detection and attribution of climate change relies on the observed climate
record (typically surface temperature), the modelled patterns of climate
change response to the most relevant climate forcings (well-mixed greenhouse
gases, ozone, aerosols, land-use change, etc.), a priori estimates
of the temporal evolution of these forcings, and appropriate statistical
methods. The regional dimension to such attribution studies is becoming
increasingly important (see, e.g. Stott et al., 2010). Knowledge of the
climate sensitivity is hindered by the lack of knowledge on RFs (in
particular aerosol RF) and vice versa (Forest, 2018). Such
attribution studies are now being extended to extreme events (Otto et al.,
2016) with similar requirements on climate forcings when it comes to model
the climate response. An improved knowledge of anthropogenic RFs is
therefore highly relevant for detection and attribution of climate change.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e5099">Decadal prediction has emerged as a new concept in climate science and lies
between seasonal to interannual forecasting and longer-term (typically
centennial) climate projections. The focus is on regional climate conditions
over the next 10–30 years because of the importance of this timescale for
adaptation to climate change<?pagebreak page1670?> (e.g. planning of infrastructure, management
of water resources). Both internally generated variability and external
radiative forcings contribute to decadal timescale climate change, and skill
has been shown to arise from both factors. Knowledge of radiative forcings,
especially at the regional scale and for the recent past, is therefore key
to identifying future near-term trends in forcings that may provide
predictability at the interannual to decadal timescales (Bellucci et al.,
2015). In this context, up-to-date aerosol radiative forcing could prove a
very useful resource for initialising the models used for decadal
prediction.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e5103">Integrated assessment models (IAM) seek to integrate knowledge from both
climate and socio-economic modelling in order to design and analyse future
socio-economic pathways that comply with specific objectives (in particular
climate objectives). IAM usually rely on simplified climate models and need
to calibrate their estimates of radiative forcings. Earth System Models of
Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) and compact models such as FaIR (Smith et
al., 2018b) or OSCAR (Gasser et al., 2017) also have the same requirement
and could possibly be further calibrated and/or evaluated using recent
trends in radiative forcings.</p></list-item></list>
Note that many of the uses listed above require RF estimates for a more
comprehensive list of climate forcing agents than is currently available from
CAMS. Adding missing gases, such as nitrous oxide and halocarbons, and
mechanisms, such as stratospheric water vapour, are possible future
extensions to the service.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><label>Table 9</label><caption><p id="d1e5110">Global, multi-annual mean top-of-atmosphere instantaneous radiative
forcing (IRF), rapid adjustments (RA), and scaling factor for the rapid
adjustments from PDRMIP models (Myhre et al., 2018).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <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="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Carbon</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Methane</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Sulfate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Black carbon</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">dioxide</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">aerosol–radiation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">aerosol–radiation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">interactions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">interactions</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Perturbation</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">IRF (W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.61</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">RA (W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.09</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.25</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Scaling factor (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><label>Table 10</label><caption><p id="d1e5433">Radiative forcing of aerosol–cloud interactions and cloud
fraction and liquid water path adjustments, estimated using satellite
retrieval statistics by Gryspeerdt et al. (2019). The scaling factors for
each rapid adjustment and the total rapid adjustment are also provided.
Values are for all present-day anthropogenic aerosols.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <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:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Radiative</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Cloud fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Liquid water</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Cloud fraction</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Liquid water</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Total rapid</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">forcing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">adjustment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">path adjustment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">adjustment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">path adjustment</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">adjustment</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(W m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">scaling factor (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">scaling factor (–)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">scaling factor (–)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.33</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.61</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.21</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e5617">The CAMS project estimates IRF and RF, but doe not yet estimate ERF. ERF involves
adjustments in atmospheric temperature, moisture, and cloudiness, which are
not easy to quantify using offline radiative-transfer calculations. One
possibility is to estimate rapid adjustments from scaling factors derived
from simulations by the Precipitation Driver-Response Model Intercomparison
Project (PDRMIP; Myhre et al., 2017). The scaling factors (SF) would be
calculated as the ratio of rapid adjustments (RA) to IRF, where instantaneous
means that stratospheric adjustments are not included:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M220" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SF</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">RA</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IRF</mml:mi><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        ERF would then be calculated as follows:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M221" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ERF</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">IRF</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">SF</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
        Table 9 lists potential scaling factors, taken from Smith et al. (2018a) and
Myhre et al. (2018). Rapid adjustments for carbon dioxide are mostly exerted
by adjustments to stratospheric temperature. Tropospheric rapid adjustments
are virtually zero, as also found by Vial et al. (2013) using models
participating in the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). So
the CAMS RF estimates would not need to be corrected further. Methane does
not exert substantial rapid adjustments on a global average. However, its
scaling<?pagebreak page1671?> factor is more uncertain (as discussed in Smith et al., 2018a)
because the subset of PDRMIP models that include methane shortwave
absorption have a different scaling factor to those that only simulate
methane absorption in the longwave. The adjustments exerted by aerosol
species are essentially located in the troposphere and are large compared to
the IRF. For absorbing black carbon aerosols, rapid adjustments offset half
of the positive IRF. It is not possible to use global climate models to
estimate rapid adjustments from aerosol–cloud interaction because they are
unable to properly represent the relevant physical processes (Toll et al.,
2017). Global statistics of satellite aerosol and cloud retrievals would be
used instead. For aerosol–cloud interactions, two aspects of rapid
adjustments need to be considered: the response of cloud liquid water path
and of cloud fraction. For these, the statistical approach of Gryspeerdt et
al. (2016) and the scaling factors derived by Gryspeerdt et al. (2019) could
be used, as summarised in Table 10. There is, however, currently no
literature on rapid adjustments in the troposphere for ozone RF.</p>
      <p id="d1e5662">There are also plans to explore uncertainties further. The pre-industrial
state is an important contributor to RF uncertainty, especially for aerosols
(Carslaw et al., 2013), so using multiple realisations of it would improve
the quantification of the associated uncertainty. A range of credible pre-industrial states could be achieved with IFS simulations using (1) CMIP6 emissions, where pre-industrial wildfires are scaled down  from present-day according to population changes; (2) present-day Global Fire Assimilation System emissions, where biomass-burning could be assumed to have been unchanged over the industrial
era; and (3) emissions from Hamilton et al. (2018), which correspond to a pre-industrial state where wildfires
were more widespread than represented in CMIP6. Finally, the current assessment of uncertainty combines a PPE, where
aerosol optical properties and atmospheric state variables were varied
within their prescribed uncertainty ranges, and a structural uncertainty
analysis from climatological averaging, selection of radiation code,
tropopause definition, and grid spacing. Some uncertain sources will have
been neglected by only perturbing 24 parameters, and a more robust
quantification of the uncertainty could be achieved if more parameters were
perturbed. In addition, future work will perform a variance-based
sensitivity analysis on the perturbed parameter ensemble to determine which
components of the PPE contribute most to the variance in IRF.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5669">NB leads CAMS Climate Forcings and coordinated the writing of the
manuscript. NB, WD, JQ, JM, CS, and NS contributed to sections of the
manuscript. All authors commented on draft versions of the manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5675">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5681">The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) is operated by the
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European
Commission as part of the Copernicus Programme (<uri>http://copernicus.eu</uri>, last access: 14 July 2020). The authors thank Vincent-Henri Peuch, Richard Engelen, and Johannes Flemming for their leadership of CAMS.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <?pagebreak page1672?><p id="d1e5689">This research has been supported by the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (grant no. ECMWF/COPERNICUS/2016/CAMS_74_UoR).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5695">This paper was edited by David Carlson and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aragão, L. E. O. C., Anderson, L. O., Fonseca, M. G., Rosan, T. M., Vedovato, L. B., Wagner, F. H., Silva, C. V. J., Silva Jr., C. H. L., Arai, E., Aguiar, A. P., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Deeter, M. N., Domingues, L. G., Gatti, L., Gloor, M., Malhi, Y., Marengo, J. A., Miller, J. B., Phillips, O. L., and Saatchi, S.: 21st Century
drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon
emissions, Nat. Commun., 9, 536, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Asmi, A., Wiedensohler, A., Laj, P., Fjaeraa, A.-M., Sellegri, K., Birmili, W., Weingartner, E., Baltensperger, U., Zdimal, V., Zikova, N., Putaud, J.-P., Marinoni, A., Tunved, P., Hansson, H.-C., Fiebig, M., Kivekäs, N., Lihavainen, H., Asmi, E., Ulevicius, V., Aalto, P. P., Swietlicki, E., Kristensson, A., Mihalopoulos, N., Kalivitis, N., Kalapov, I., Kiss, G., de Leeuw, G., Henzing, B., Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D., O'Dowd, C., Jennings, S. G., Flentje, H., Weinhold, K., Meinhardt, F., Ries, L., and Kulmala, M.: Number size distributions and seasonality of submicron particles in Europe 2008–2009, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5505–5538, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5505-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-5505-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Babu, S. S., Manoj, M. R., Moorthy, K. K., Gogoi, M. M., Nair, V. S., Kompalli, S. K.,
Satheesh, S. K., Niranjan, K., Ramagopal, K.,  Bhuyan, P. K., and Singh, D.: Trends in aerosol optical depth over Indian region:
Potential causes and impact indicators, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11794–11806,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020507" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013JD020507</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical
weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature14956</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellouin, N., Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Christopher, S. A.: Updated estimate of aerosol direct radiative forcing from satellite observations and comparison against the Hadley Centre climate model, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D10205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009385" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JD009385</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Morcrette, J.-J., and Boucher, O.: Estimates of aerosol radiative forcing from the MACC re-analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2045–2062, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P.,
Watson-Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau,
A.-L., Dufresne, J.-L., Feingold, G., Fiedler, S., Forster, P., Gettelman,
A., Haywood, J.M., Lohmann, U., Malavelle, F., Mauritsen, T., McCoy, D.T.,
Myhre, G., Muelmenstaedt, J., Neubauer, D., Possner, A., Rugenstein, M.,
Sato, Y., Schulz, M., Schwartz, S. E., Sourdeval, O., Storelvmo, T., Toll,
V., Winker, D., and Stevens, B.: Bounding global aerosol radiative forcing
of climate change, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000660. <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019RG000660</ext-link>, 2020a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellouin, N., Davies, W., Shine, K. P., Quaas, J., Mülmenstädt, J.,
Forster, P. M., Smith, C., Lee, L., Regayre, L., Brasseur, G., Sudarchikova,
N., Bouarar, I., Boucher, O., and Myhre, G.: Supplemental Data of Radiative
forcing of climate change from the Copernicus reanalysis of atmospheric
composition, ECMWF Data catalogue, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896" ext-link-type="DOI">10.24380/ads.1hj3y896</ext-link>, 2020b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bellucci, A., Haarsma, R., Bellouin, N., Booth, B., Cagnazzo, C., Hurk, B.,
Keenlyside, N., Koenigk, T., Massonnet, F., Materia, S., and Weiss, M.: Advancements in
decadal climate predictability: The role of non-oceanic drivers, Rev.
Geophys., 53, 165–202, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000473" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014RG000473</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Benedetti, A., Morcrette, J.‐J., Boucher, O., Dethof, A., Engelen, R. J., Fisher, M., Flentje, H., Huneeus, N., Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S., Mangold, A., Razinger, M., Simmons, A. J., and Suttie, M.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: 2. Data
assimilation, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011115</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bergamaschi, P., Houweling, S., Segers, A.,  Krol, M., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A., Dlugokencky, E., Wofsy, S. C., Kort, E. A., Sweeney, C., Schuck, T., Brenninkmeijer, C., Chen, H., Beck, V., and Gerbig, C.: Atmospheric CH4 in the first decade of the 21st
century: Inverse modeling analysis using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals and
NOAA surface measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7350–7369,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50480" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50480</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne, S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,  Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S.,  Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K., Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z.,  Lohmann, U., Schwarz, J. P.,  Shindell, D.,  Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C. S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system:
A scientific assessment, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 5380–5552,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50171</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P.,   Bretherton, C.,  Feingold, G.,  Forster, P.,   Kerminen, V.-M.,  Kondo, Y.,  Liao, H.,    Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh, S. K.,  Sherwood, S., Stevens, B., and Zhang, X. Y.: Clouds and aerosols, in: Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.
K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 571–658, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Carslaw, K. S., Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Rap, A., Forster, P. M., Mann, G. W., Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Regayre, L. A., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty
in indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 7474, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nature12674</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Checa-Garcia, R., Hegglin, M. I., Kinnison, D., Plummer, D. A., and Shine,
K. P.: Historical tropospheric and stratospheric ozone radiative
forcing using the CMIP6 database, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 3264–3273, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076770" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL076770</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chevallier, F., Fisher, M., Peylin, P., Serrar, S., Bousquet, P., Bréon,
F.-M., Chédin, A., and Ciais, P.: Inferring <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">CO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> sources and sinks
from satellite observations: Method an<?pagebreak page1673?>d application to TOVS data, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, D24309, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006390" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006390</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Collins, W. D., Ramaswamy, V.,  Schwarzkopf, M. D., Sun, Y., Portmann, R. W., Fu, Q., Casanova, S. E. B., Dufresne, J.‐L., Fillmore, D. W., Forster, P. M. D., Galin, V. Y., Gohar, L. K., Ingram, W. J., Kratz, D. P., Lefebvre, M.‐P., Li, J., Marquet, P., Oinas, V., Tsushima, Y., Uchiyama, T., and Zhong, W. Y.: Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases:
Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J. Geophys. Res., 111, D14317,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006713" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005JD006713</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Colman, R., Fraser, J., and Rotstayn, L.: Climate feedbacks in a general circulation model
incorporating prognostic clouds, Clim. Dynam., 18, 103–122,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820100162" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s003820100162</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Conley, A. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Vitt, F., Collins, W. D., and Kiehl, J.: PORT, a CESM tool for the diagnosis of radiative forcing, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 469–476, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-469-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-6-469-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge‐Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.‐J., Park, B.‐K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.‐N., and Vitart, F. : The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance
of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.828</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dlugokencky, E. J., Hall, B. D., Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G.,
Mühle, J., and Elkins, J. W.: Long-lived greenhouse gases, in:
State of the Climate in 2018, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100,
S48–S50, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y. J., King, M. D., Tanré, D., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of Absorption and Optical Properties of Key
Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 590–608,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Etminan, M., Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J., and Shine, K. P.: Radiative forcing
of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the
methane radiative forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12614–12623,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071930" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL071930</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Feng, Y., Ramanathan, V., and Kotamarthi, V. R.: Brown carbon: a significant atmospheric absorber of solar radiation?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8607–8621, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Filonchyk, M., Yan, H., Zhang, Z., Yang, S., Li, W., and Li, Y.: Combined use of
satellite and surface observations to study aerosol optical depth in
different regions of China, Sci, Rep., 9, 6174,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42466-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41598-019-42466-6</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Forest, C. E.: Inferred net aerosol forcing based on historical climate
changes: a review, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 4, 11–22,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0085-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s40641-018-0085-2</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D.,
Haywood, J., Lean, J., Lowe, D. C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M., and Van Dorland, R.: Changes in Atmospheric Constituentsand in
Radiative Forcing, in:  Climate change 2007: The
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and  Miller, H. L., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA,
130–234, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Forster, P. M. D. and Shine, K. P.: Radiative forcing and temperature trends from stratospheric ozone changes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 10841–10855, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Freckleton, R. S., Highwood, E. J., Shine, K. P., Wild, O., Law, K. S., and Sanderson, M. G.: Greenhouse gas radiative forcing: Effects of averaging and inhomogeneities in trace gas distribution, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 124, 2099–2127, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712455014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.49712455014</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Boucher, O., Quilcaille, Y., Tortora, M., Bopp, L., and Hauglustaine, D.: The compact Earth system model OSCAR v2.2: description and first results, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 271–319, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-271-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-10-271-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gasteiger, J., Emde, C., Mayer, B.,  Buras, R., Buehler, S. A., and Lemke, O.: Representative wavelengths absorption parameterization
applied to satellite channels and spectral bands, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 148, 99–115, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2014.06.024" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2014.06.024</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Grosvenor, D. P., Sourdeval, O., Zuidema, P., Ackerman, A., Alexandrov, M. D., Bennartz,
R., Boers, R., Cairns, B., Chiu, C., Christensen, M., Deneke, H.,
Diamond, M., Feingold, G., Fridlind, A., Hünerbein, A., Knist, C., Kollias, P., Marshak,
A., McCoy, D., Merk, D., Painemal, D., Rausch, J., Rosenfeld, D.,
Russchenberg, H., Seifert, P., Sinclair, K., Stier, P., Van Diedenhoven, B.,
Wendisch, M., Werner, F., Wood, R., Zhang, Z., and Quaas, J.: Remote sensing of
cloud droplet number concentration in warm clouds: A review of the current
state of knowledge and perspectives, Rev. Geophys., 56, 409–453,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000593" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2017RG000593</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gryspeerdt, E., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud fraction,
J. Geophys. Res., 121, 3566–3583, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023744" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JD023744</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., Sourdeval, O., Quaas, J., Mülmenstädt, J., Dipu, S., Unglaub, C., Gettelman, A., and Christensen, M.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 5331–5347, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hamilton, D. S., Hantson, S., Scott, C. E., Kaplan, J. O., Pringle, K. J., Nieradzik, L. P.,  Rap, A., Folberth, G. A., Spracklen, D. V., and  Carslaw, K. S.: Reassessment of pre-industrial fire emissions
strongly affects anthropogenic aerosol forcing, Nat. Commun., 9,
3182, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05592-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41467-018-05592-9</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hansen, J., Sato, M., and Ruedy, R.: Radiative forcing and climate response, J. Geophys. Res.,
102, 6831–6864, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03436" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/96JD03436</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Hartmann, D. L., Klein Tank, A. M. G., Rusticucci, M., Alexander, L. V.,
Brönnimann, S., Charabi, Y., Dentener, F. J., Dlugokencky, E. J.,
Easterling, D. R., Kaplan, A., Soden, B. J., Thorne, P. W., Wild, M., and Zhai, P. M.:
Observations: Atmosphere and Surface, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.
K.<?pagebreak page1674?>, Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK and New York, NY, USA, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><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, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG000078" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/1999RG000078</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hegglin, M., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J.-F.,  and Plummer, D.: CCMI ozone in support
of CMIP6 – version 1.0, Earth System Grid Federation,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115" ext-link-type="DOI">10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hogan, R. J. and Bozzo, A.: A flexible and efficient radiation scheme for
the ECMWF model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1990–2008,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001364" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018MS001364</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Hollingsworth, A., Engelen, R. J., Textor, C., Benedetti, A., Boucher, O.,
Chevallier, F., Dethof, A., Elbern, H., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Granier, C.,
Kaiser, J. W., Morcrette, J., Rayner, P., Peuch, V., Rouil, L., Schultz, M. G., and
Simmons, A. J.: Toward A Monitoring And Forecasting System For Atmospheric
Composition, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 1147–1164,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2355.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2008BAMS2355.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Inness, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Crepulja, M., Engelen, R. J., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Gaudel, A., Hendrick, F., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J., Katragkou, E., Keppens, A., Langerock, B., de Mazière, M., Melas, D., Parrington, M., Peuch, V. H., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Wagner, A., and Zerefos, C.: Data assimilation of satellite-retrieved ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide with ECMWF's Composition-IFS, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5275–5303, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Inness, A., Ades, M., Agustí-Panareda, A., Barré, J., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Dominguez, J. J., Engelen, R., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kipling, Z., Massart, S., Parrington, M., Peuch, V.-H., Razinger, M., Remy, S., Schulz, M., and Suttie, M.: The CAMS reanalysis of atmospheric composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3515–3556, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Johnson, J. S., Regayre, L. A., Yoshioka, M., Pringle, K. J., Lee, L. A., Sexton, D. M. H., Rostron, J. W., Booth, B. B. B., and Carslaw, K. S.: The importance of comprehensive parameter sampling and multiple observations for robust constraint of aerosol radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13031–13053, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13031-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-13031-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><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.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., Rose, F. G.,  Doelling, D. R., Rutan, D. A., Caldwell, T. E., Yu, L., and Weller, R. A.: Surface Irradiances Consistent with CERES-Derived
Top-of-Atmosphere Shortwave and Longwave Irradiances, J. Climate, 26,
2719–2740, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00436.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00436.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kinne, S., Schulz, M., Textor, C., Guibert, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T. F., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Collins, W., Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Herzog, M., Horowitz, L., Isaksen, I., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Lesins, G., Liu, X., Lohmann, U., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, O., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: An AeroCom initial assessment – optical properties in aerosol component modules of global models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1815–1834, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Kinne, S., O'Donnel, D., Stier, P., Kloster, S., Zhang, K., Schmidt, H., Rast, S.,
Giorgetta, M., Eck, T. F., and Stevens, B.: MAC-v1: A new global aerosol climatology for climate
studies, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 704–740, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jame.20035</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D., Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M., Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7017–7039, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, L. A., Carslaw, K. S., Pringle, K. J., Mann, G. W., and Spracklen, D. V.: Emulation of a complex global aerosol model to quantify sensitivity to uncertain parameters, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 12253–12273, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12253-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-12253-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lee, L. A., Pringle, K. J., Reddington, C. L., Mann, G. W., Stier, P., Spracklen, D. V., Pierce, J. R., and Carslaw, K. S.: The magnitude and causes of uncertainty in global model simulations of cloud condensation nuclei, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8879–8914, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8879-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-8879-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Sawyer, V., Shi, Y., Colarco, P. R., Lyapustin, A. I., Wang, Y., and Remer, L. A.: Exploring systematic offsets between aerosol products from the two MODIS sensors, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 4073–4092, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4073-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/amt-11-4073-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Lindsay, K., Bonan, G. B., Doney, S. C., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Long, M. C., Mahowald,
N. M., Keith Moore, J., Randerson, J. T., and Thornton, P. E.:
Preindustrial-Control and Twentieth-Century Carbon Cycle Experiments with
the Earth System Model CESM1(BGC), J. Climate, 27, 8981–9005, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G.,
Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth's Radiant
Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere
(TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product, J. Climate,, 31, 895–918,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Maclaurin, G., Sengupta, M., Xie, Y., and Gilroy, N.: Development of a MODIS-Derived Surface Albedo Data
Set: An Improved Model Input for Processing the NSRDB. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-67306, Golden, CO, USA, 23 pp., 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Manners, J., Edwards, J. M., Hill, P., and Thelen, J. C.: SOCRATES Technical Guide: Suite Of Community RAdiative Transfer Codes Based on Edwards and Slingo, Technical Report, Met Office, Exeter, UK, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1675?><ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mayer, B. and Kylling, A.: Technical note: The libRadtran software package for radiative transfer calculations – description and examples of use, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1855–1877, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1855-2005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-5-1855-2005</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Meinshausen, M.,  Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., Thomson, A.,  Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their
extensions from 1765 to 2300, Climatic Change, 109, 213,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Minschwaner, K., Carver, R. W., Briegleb, B. P., and Roche, A. E.: Infrared
radiative forcing and atmospheric lifetimes of trace species based on
observations from UARS, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 23243–23253,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD02116" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98JD02116</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., and Clough, S. A.: Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM,
a validated correlated-k model for the longwave, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 16663–16682,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00237" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/97JD00237</ext-link>, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O., Jones, L., Salmond, D., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A., Benedetti, A., Bonet, A., Kaiser, J. W., Razinger, M., Schulz,
M., Serrar, S., Simmons, A. J., Sofiev, M., Suttie, M., Tompkins, A. M., and
Untch, A.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF integrated forecast
system: forward modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011235" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011235</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mülmenstädt, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Salzmann, M., Ma, P.-L., Dipu, S., and Quaas, J.: Separating radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions and rapid cloud adjustments in the ECHAM–HAMMOZ aerosol–climate model using the method of partial radiative perturbations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 15415–15429, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15415-2019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-19-15415-2019</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre G., Highwood, E. J., Shine, K. P., and Stordal, F.: New estimates of
radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2715–271,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL01908" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/98GL01908</ext-link>, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J.,
Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B.,  Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G.,  Takemura, T., and Zhang, H.: Anthropogenic and natural
radiative forcing, in: Climate change 2013: The
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.
K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 659–740, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018</ext-link>, 2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T. K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J., Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije, T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H., Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</ext-link>, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., Samset, B. H., Hodnebrog, Ø., Sillmann, J., Aalbergsjø, S. G., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Iversen, T., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Olivié, D., Richardson, T. B., Shindell, D., Shine, K. P.,  Stjern, C. W., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., and
Zwiers, F.: PDRMIP: A Precipitation Driver and Response Model
Intercomparison Project–Protocol and Preliminary Results, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 1185–1198, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0019.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0019.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Kramer, R. J., Smith, C. J.,  Hodnebrog, Ø., Forster, P., Soden, B. J., Samset, B. H., Stjern, C. W., Andrews, T.,  Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Kasoar, M. , Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.‐F., Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Shindell, D.,  Stier, P., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., and
Watson‐Parris, D.: Quantifying the importance of rapid adjustments for
global precipitation changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11399–11405,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079474" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018GL079474</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Mohr, C. W., Alterskjær, K., Balkanski, Y., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Haywood, J., Hodnebrog, Ø., Kinne, S., Lin, G., Lund, M. T., Penner, J. E., Schulz, M., Schutgens, N., Skeie, R. B., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Zhang, K.: Cloudy sky contributions to the direct aerosol effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1051" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-2019-1051</ext-link>, in review, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oikawa, E., Nakajima, T., and Winker, D.: An evaluation of the shortwave
direct aerosol radiative forcing using CALIOP and MODIS observations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 1211–1233, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027247" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017JD027247</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Otto, F. E. L., van Oldenborgh, G. L., Eden, J., Stott, P. A., Karoly, D. J., and Allen,
M. R.: The attribution question, Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 813–816, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3089" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate3089</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pincus, R., Barker, H. W., and Morcrette, J.-J.: A fast, flexible, approximate technique for computing
radiative transfer in inhomogeneous cloud fields, J. Geophys. Res., 108,
4376, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003322" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD003322</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pincus, R., Mlawer, E. J., Oreopoulos, L., Ackerman, A. S., Baek, S., Brath, M.,  Buehler, S. A., Cady‐Pereira, K. E., Cole, J. N. S., Dufresne, J. L., Kelley, M., Li, J., Manners, J., Paynter, D. J., Roehrig, R., Sekiguchi, M., and Schwarzkopf, D. M.: Radiative flux and forcing parameterization error in
aerosol-free clear skies, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 5485–5492,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064291" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL064291</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Pincus, R., Forster, P. M., and Stevens, B.: The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3447–3460, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ramanathan, V.: Greenhouse Effect Due to Chlorofluorocarbons: Climatic
Implications, Science, 190, 50–52, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4209.50" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.190.4209.50</ext-link>,
1975.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., Hauglustaine, D., Haywood, J., Myhre, G., Nakajima,
T., Shi, G. Y., and Solomon, S.: Radiative forcing of climate change, in: Climate change 2001: Working Group I: The
Scientific Basis, edited by: Houghton,  J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J.,  Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X.,  Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A., 351–416, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Ramaswamy, V., Collins, W., Haywood, J., Lean, J., Mahowald, N., Myhre, G.,
Naik, V., Shine, K., Soden, B., Stenchikov, G., and Storelvmo, T.: Radiative Forcing
of Climate: The Historica<?pagebreak page1676?>l Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the
Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications, Meteor.
Mon., 59, 14.1–14.101, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Randles, C. A., Kinne, S., Myhre, G., Schulz, M., Stier, P., Fischer, J., Doppler, L., Highwood, E., Ryder, C., Harris, B., Huttunen, J., Ma, Y., Pinker, R. T., Mayer, B., Neubauer, D., Hitzenberger, R., Oreopoulos, L., Lee, D., Pitari, G., Di Genova, G., Quaas, J., Rose, F. G., Kato, S., Rumbold, S. T., Vardavas, I., Hatzianastassiou, N., Matsoukas, C., Yu, H., Zhang, F., Zhang, H., and Lu, P.: Intercomparison of shortwave radiative transfer schemes in global aerosol modeling: results from the AeroCom Radiative Transfer Experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2347–2379, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2347-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2347-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Regayre, L. A., Pringle, K. J., B. Booth, B. B., Lee, L. A., Mann, G. W.,
Browse, J., Woodhouse, M. T., Rap, A., Reddington, C. L., and Carslaw, K.
S.: Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over
recent decades, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 9040–9049,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062029" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014GL062029</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Regayre, L. A., Johnson, J. S., Yoshioka, M., Pringle, K. J., Sexton, D. M. H., Booth, B. B. B., Lee, L. A., Bellouin, N., and Carslaw, K. S.: Aerosol and physical atmosphere model parameters are both important sources of uncertainty in aerosol ERF, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 9975–10006, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9975-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-9975-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rémy, S., Bellouin, N., Kipling, Z., Ades, M., Benedetti, A., and
Boucher, O.: Aerosols, in: “State of the Climate in 2018”, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, S52–S54, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Satheesh, S. K., Suresh Babu, S., Padmakumari, B., Pandithurai, G., and
Soni, V. K.: Variability of Atmospheric Aerosols Over India. Observed Climate
Variability and Change over the Indian Region, edited by: Rajeevan, M. N. and Nayak, S., Springer Singapore, 221–248,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2531-0_13" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/978-981-10-2531-0_13</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaaf, C. B., Gao, F., Strahler, A. H., Lucht, W., Li, X., Tsang, T.,
Strugnell, N. C., Zhang, X., Jin, Y., Muller, J.-P., Lewis, P., Barnsley, M., Hobson, P., Disney,
M., Roberts, G., Dunderdale, M., Doll, C., d'Entremont, R. P., Hu, B.,
Liang, S., Privette, J. L., and Roy, D.: First operational BRDF, albedo nadir
reflectance products from MODIS, Remote Sens. Environ., 83, 135–148, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00091-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00091-3</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Schimel, D., Alves, D., Entling, I., Heimann, M., Joos, F., Raynaud, D.,
Wigley, T., Prather, M., Derwent, R., Ehhalt, D., Fraser, P., Sanhueza, E., Zhou, X., Jonas, P., Charlson, R., Rodhe, H., Sadasivan, S., Shine, K. P., Fouquart, Y., Ramaswamy, V., Solomon, S., Srinivasan, J., Albritton, D., Derwent, R., Isaksen, I., Lal, M., and Wuebbles, D.: Radiative forcing of climate change, in: Climate change 1995: The science of climate change.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by:
Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenburg, A., and Maskell,
K., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 69–131, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S., Boucher, O., Bretherton, C., Forster, P. M.,
Gregory, J. M., and Stevens, B.: Adjustments in the Forcing-Feedback Framework for
Understanding Climate Change, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 217–228,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shindell, D. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Schulz, M., Flanner, M., Jiao, C., Chin, M., Young, P. J., Lee, Y. H., Rotstayn, L., Mahowald, N., Milly, G., Faluvegi, G., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W. J., Conley, A. J., Dalsoren, S., Easter, R., Ghan, S., Horowitz, L., Liu, X., Myhre, G., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., Yoon, J.-H., and Lo, F.: Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2939–2974, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013</ext-link>, 2013a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Nazarenko, L., Bowman, K., Lamarque, J. F.,
Voulgarakis, A., Schmidt, G. A., Pechony, O., and Ruedy, R.: Attribution of
historical ozone forcing to anthropogenic emissions, Nat. Clim. Chang., 3,
567–570, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1835" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1835</ext-link>, 2013b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Shine, K., Derwent, R. G., Wuebbles, D. J., Morcrette, J.-J., Apling, A. J.,
Blanchet, J. P., Charlson, R. J., Crommelynck, D., Grassl, H., Husson, N., Jenkins, G. J., Karol,
I., King, M. D., Ramanathan, V., Rodhe, H., Shi, G.-Y., Thomas, G.,
Wang, W.-C., Wigley, T. M. L., Yamanouchi, T.: Radiative forcing of climate, in: Climate Change: The IPCC
Scientific Assessment, edited by:
Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., and Ephraums, J. J., 45–68, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,
NY, USA, 1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., Soden, B. J., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D.,  Hodnebrog, Ø., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V.,  Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.‐F., Mülmenstädt, J., Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Samset, B. H.,  Shindell, D., Stier, P., Takemura, T.,  Voulgarakis, A., and Watson‐Parris, D.: Understanding rapid adjustments to diverse forcing
agents, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12023–12031, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079826" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018GL079826</ext-link>,
2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smith, C. J., Forster, P. M., Allen, M., Leach, N., Millar, R. J., Passerello, G. A., and Regayre, L. A.: FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2273–2297, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., Colman, R., Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields, C. A.: Quantifying Climate Feedbacks Using Radiative Kernels,
J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Soden, B. J., Collins, W. D., and Feldman, D. R.: Reducing uncertainties in climate
models, Science, 361, 326–327, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1864" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aau1864</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Søvde, O. A., Hoyle, C. R., Myhre, G., and Isaksen, I. S. A.: The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HNO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forming branch of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reaction: pre-industrial-to-present trends in atmospheric species and radiative forcings, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 8929–8943, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-8929-2011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-11-8929-2011</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Søvde, O. A., Hoyle, C. R., Myhre, G., and Isaksen, I. S. A.: Corrigendum to “The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HNO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> forming branch of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">HO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reaction: pre-industrial-to-present trends in atmospheric species and radiative forcings” published in Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 8929–8943, 2011, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7725–7725, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7725-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-12-7725-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stevenson, D. S., Young, P. J., Naik, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Voulgarakis, A., Skeie, R. B., Dalsoren, S. B., Myhre, G., Berntsen, T. K., Folberth, G. A., Rumbold, S. T., Collins, W. J., MacKenzie, I. A., Doherty, R. M., Zeng, G., van Noije, T. P. C., Strunk, A., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Plummer, D. A.<?pagebreak page1677?>, Strode, S. A., Horowitz, L., Lee, Y. H., Szopa, S., Sudo, K., Nagashima, T., Josse, B., Cionni, I., Righi, M., Eyring, V., Conley, A., Bowman, K. W., Wild, O., and Archibald, A.: Tropospheric ozone changes, radiative forcing and attribution to emissions in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3063–3085, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Stott, P. A., Gillett, N. P., Hegerl, G. C., Karoly, D. J., Stone, D. A., Zhang, X.,
and Zwiers, F.: Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional
perspective, WIREs Climate Change, 1, 192–211, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.34" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wcc.34</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Taylor, J. P., Edwards, J. M., Glew, M. D., Hignett, P., and Slingo, A.:
Studies with a flexible new radiation code. II: Comparisons with aircraft
short-wave observations, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 122, 839–862, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Toll, V., Christensen, M., Gassó, S., and  Bellouin, N.: Volcano and ship tracks indicate excessive aerosol-induced
cloud water increases in a climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
12492–12500, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075280" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL075280</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vial, J., Dufresne, J. L., and Bony, S.: On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5
climate sensitivity estimates, Clim. Dynam., 41, 3339,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Executive Summary: Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project–Report No. 58, Geneva, Switzerland, 67 pp., 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yeung, L. Y., Murray, L. T., Martinerie, P., Witrant, E., Hu, H., Banerjee, A., Orsi, A., and Chappellaz, J.: Isotopic constraint on the
twentieth-century increase in tropospheric ozone, Nature, 570, 224–227,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1277-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41586-019-1277-1</ext-link>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Young, P. J., Archibald, A. T., Bowman, K. W., Lamarque, J.-F., Naik, V., Stevenson, D. S., Tilmes, S., Voulgarakis, A., Wild, O., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Cionni, I., Collins, W. J., Dalsøren, S. B., Doherty, R. M., Eyring, V., Faluvegi, G., Horowitz, L. W., Josse, B., Lee, Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima, T., Plummer, D. A., Righi, M., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R. B., Shindell, D. T., Strode, S. A., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., and Zeng, G.: Pre-industrial to end 21st century projections of tropospheric ozone from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2063–2090, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Yu, H., Chin, M., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Bellouin, N., Bian, H., and Diehl, T.: Variability of marine aerosol fine‐mode fraction and estimates of anthropogenic aerosol component over cloud‐free oceans from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D10206, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010648" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD010648</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zhang, H., Zhu, S., Zhao, S., and Wei, X.: Establishment of High-resolution
Aerosol Parameterization and Its Influence on Radiation Calculations, J.
Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 243, 106802, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106802" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106802</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zheng, B., Tong, D., Li, M., Liu, F., Hong, C., Geng, G., Li, H., Li, X., Peng, L., Qi, J., Yan, L., Zhang, Y., Zhao, H., Zheng, Y., He, K., and Zhang, Q.: Trends in China's anthropogenic emissions since 2010 as the consequence of clean air actions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14095–14111, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14095-2018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-18-14095-2018</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Zuidema, P., Redemann, J., Haywood, J., Wood, R., Piketh, S., Hipondoka, M.,
and Formenti, P.: Smoke and clouds above the southeast Atlantic: Upcoming
field campaigns probe absorbing aerosol's impact on climate, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 97, 1131–1135, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Radiative forcing of climate change from the Copernicus reanalysis of atmospheric composition</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Radiative forcing provides an important basis for understanding
and predicting global climate changes, but its quantification has
historically been done independently for different forcing agents, has involved
observations to varying degrees, and studies have not always included a
detailed analysis of uncertainties. The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring
Service reanalysis is an optimal combination of modelling and observations
of atmospheric composition. It provides a unique opportunity to rely on
observations to quantify the monthly and spatially resolved global
distributions of radiative forcing consistently for six of the largest
forcing agents: carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, stratospheric
ozone, aerosol–radiation interactions, and aerosol–cloud interactions. These
radiative-forcing estimates account for adjustments in stratospheric
temperatures but do not account for rapid adjustments in the troposphere.
On a global average and over the period 2003–2017, stratospherically
adjusted radiative forcing of carbon dioxide has averaged +1.89&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup>
(5&thinsp;%–95&thinsp;% confidence interval: 1.50 to 2.29&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup>) relative to 1750 and
increased at a rate of 18&thinsp;% per decade. The corresponding values for
methane are +0.46 (0.36 to 0.56)&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup> and 4&thinsp;% per decade but with
a clear acceleration since 2007. Ozone radiative-forcing averages +0.32 (0
to 0.64)&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup>, almost entirely contributed by tropospheric ozone since
stratospheric ozone radiative forcing is only +0.003&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup>. Aerosol
radiative-forcing averages −1.25 (−1.98 to −0.52)&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup>,
with aerosol–radiation interactions contributing −0.56&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup> and
aerosol–cloud interactions contributing −0.69&thinsp;W&thinsp;m<sup>−2</sup> to the global
average. Both have been relatively stable since 2003. Taking the six forcing
agents together, there is no indication of a sustained slowdown or acceleration
in the rate of increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing over the period.
These ongoing radiative-forcing estimates will monitor the impact on the
Earth's energy budget of the dramatic emission reductions towards net-zero
that are needed to limit surface temperature warming to the Paris Agreement
temperature targets. Indeed, such impacts should be clearly manifested in
radiative forcing before being clear in the temperature record. In addition,
this radiative-forcing dataset can provide the input distributions needed by
researchers involved in monitoring of climate change, detection and
attribution, interannual to decadal prediction, and integrated assessment
modelling. The data generated by this work are available at <a href="https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896</a> (Bellouin et al., 2020b).</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aragão, L. E. O. C., Anderson, L. O., Fonseca, M. G., Rosan, T. M., Vedovato, L. B., Wagner, F. H., Silva, C. V. J., Silva Jr., C. H. L., Arai, E., Aguiar, A. P., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Deeter, M. N., Domingues, L. G., Gatti, L., Gloor, M., Malhi, Y., Marengo, J. A., Miller, J. B., Phillips, O. L., and Saatchi, S.: 21st Century
drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon
emissions, Nat. Commun., 9, 536, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Asmi, A., Wiedensohler, A., Laj, P., Fjaeraa, A.-M., Sellegri, K., Birmili, W., Weingartner, E., Baltensperger, U., Zdimal, V., Zikova, N., Putaud, J.-P., Marinoni, A., Tunved, P., Hansson, H.-C., Fiebig, M., Kivekäs, N., Lihavainen, H., Asmi, E., Ulevicius, V., Aalto, P. P., Swietlicki, E., Kristensson, A., Mihalopoulos, N., Kalivitis, N., Kalapov, I., Kiss, G., de Leeuw, G., Henzing, B., Harrison, R. M., Beddows, D., O'Dowd, C., Jennings, S. G., Flentje, H., Weinhold, K., Meinhardt, F., Ries, L., and Kulmala, M.: Number size distributions and seasonality of submicron particles in Europe 2008–2009, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 5505–5538, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5505-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-5505-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Babu, S. S., Manoj, M. R., Moorthy, K. K., Gogoi, M. M., Nair, V. S., Kompalli, S. K.,
Satheesh, S. K., Niranjan, K., Ramagopal, K.,  Bhuyan, P. K., and Singh, D.: Trends in aerosol optical depth over Indian region:
Potential causes and impact indicators, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11794–11806,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020507" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020507</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical
weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14956</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Christopher, S. A.: Updated estimate of aerosol direct radiative forcing from satellite observations and comparison against the Hadley Centre climate model, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D10205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009385" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009385</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Morcrette, J.-J., and Boucher, O.: Estimates of aerosol radiative forcing from the MACC re-analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2045–2062, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P.,
Watson-Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau,
A.-L., Dufresne, J.-L., Feingold, G., Fiedler, S., Forster, P., Gettelman,
A., Haywood, J.M., Lohmann, U., Malavelle, F., Mauritsen, T., McCoy, D.T.,
Myhre, G., Muelmenstaedt, J., Neubauer, D., Possner, A., Rugenstein, M.,
Sato, Y., Schulz, M., Schwartz, S. E., Sourdeval, O., Storelvmo, T., Toll,
V., Winker, D., and Stevens, B.: Bounding global aerosol radiative forcing
of climate change, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000660. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660</a>, 2020a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bellouin, N., Davies, W., Shine, K. P., Quaas, J., Mülmenstädt, J.,
Forster, P. M., Smith, C., Lee, L., Regayre, L., Brasseur, G., Sudarchikova,
N., Bouarar, I., Boucher, O., and Myhre, G.: Supplemental Data of Radiative
forcing of climate change from the Copernicus reanalysis of atmospheric
composition, ECMWF Data catalogue, <a href="https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.24380/ads.1hj3y896</a>, 2020b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Bellucci, A., Haarsma, R., Bellouin, N., Booth, B., Cagnazzo, C., Hurk, B.,
Keenlyside, N., Koenigk, T., Massonnet, F., Materia, S., and Weiss, M.: Advancements in
decadal climate predictability: The role of non-oceanic drivers, Rev.
Geophys., 53, 165–202, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000473" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000473</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Benedetti, A., Morcrette, J.‐J., Boucher, O., Dethof, A., Engelen, R. J., Fisher, M., Flentje, H., Huneeus, N., Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S., Mangold, A., Razinger, M., Simmons, A. J., and Suttie, M.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the European Centre
for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Integrated Forecast System: 2. Data
assimilation, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D13205, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011115</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Bergamaschi, P., Houweling, S., Segers, A.,  Krol, M., Frankenberg, C., Scheepmaker, R. A., Dlugokencky, E., Wofsy, S. C., Kort, E. A., Sweeney, C., Schuck, T., Brenninkmeijer, C., Chen, H., Beck, V., and Gerbig, C.: Atmospheric CH4 in the first decade of the 21st
century: Inverse modeling analysis using SCIAMACHY satellite retrievals and
NOAA surface measurements, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 7350–7369,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50480" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50480</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne, S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,  Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S.,  Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K., Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z.,  Lohmann, U., Schwarz, J. P.,  Shindell, D.,  Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender, C. S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system:
A scientific assessment, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 5380–5552,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P.,   Bretherton, C.,  Feingold, G.,  Forster, P.,   Kerminen, V.-M.,  Kondo, Y.,  Liao, H.,    Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh, S. K.,  Sherwood, S., Stevens, B., and Zhang, X. Y.: Clouds and aerosols, in: Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.
K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 571–658, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Carslaw, K. S., Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., Pringle, K. J., Rap, A., Forster, P. M., Mann, G. W., Spracklen, D. V., Woodhouse, M. T., Regayre, L. A., and Pierce, J. R.: Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty
in indirect forcing, Nature, 503, 7474, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12674</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Checa-Garcia, R., Hegglin, M. I., Kinnison, D., Plummer, D. A., and Shine,
K. P.: Historical tropospheric and stratospheric ozone radiative
forcing using the CMIP6 database, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 3264–3273, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076770" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076770</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Chevallier, F., Fisher, M., Peylin, P., Serrar, S., Bousquet, P., Bréon,
F.-M., Chédin, A., and Ciais, P.: Inferring CO<sub>2</sub> sources and sinks
from satellite observations: Method and application to TOVS data, J.
Geophys. Res., 110, D24309, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006390" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006390</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Collins, W. D., Ramaswamy, V.,  Schwarzkopf, M. D., Sun, Y., Portmann, R. W., Fu, Q., Casanova, S. E. B., Dufresne, J.‐L., Fillmore, D. W., Forster, P. M. D., Galin, V. Y., Gohar, L. K., Ingram, W. J., Kratz, D. P., Lefebvre, M.‐P., Li, J., Marquet, P., Oinas, V., Tsushima, Y., Uchiyama, T., and Zhong, W. Y.: Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases:
Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J. Geophys. Res., 111, D14317,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006713" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006713</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Colman, R., Fraser, J., and Rotstayn, L.: Climate feedbacks in a general circulation model
incorporating prognostic clouds, Clim. Dynam., 18, 103–122,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820100162" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820100162</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Conley, A. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Vitt, F., Collins, W. D., and Kiehl, J.: PORT, a CESM tool for the diagnosis of radiative forcing, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 469–476, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-469-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-469-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge‐Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.‐J., Park, B.‐K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.‐N., and Vitart, F. : The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance
of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Dlugokencky, E. J., Hall, B. D., Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G.,
Mühle, J., and Elkins, J. W.: Long-lived greenhouse gases, in:
State of the Climate in 2018, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100,
S48–S50, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Dubovik, O., Holben, B., Eck, T. F., Smirnov, A., Kaufman, Y. J., King, M. D., Tanré, D., and Slutsker, I.: Variability of Absorption and Optical Properties of Key
Aerosol Types Observed in Worldwide Locations. J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 590–608,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059&lt;0590:VOAAOP&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Etminan, M., Myhre, G., Highwood, E. J., and Shine, K. P.: Radiative forcing
of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the
methane radiative forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 12614–12623,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071930" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071930</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Feng, Y., Ramanathan, V., and Kotamarthi, V. R.: Brown carbon: a significant atmospheric absorber of solar radiation?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8607–8621, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8607-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Filonchyk, M., Yan, H., Zhang, Z., Yang, S., Li, W., and Li, Y.: Combined use of
satellite and surface observations to study aerosol optical depth in
different regions of China, Sci, Rep., 9, 6174,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42466-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42466-6</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Forest, C. E.: Inferred net aerosol forcing based on historical climate
changes: a review, Curr. Clim. Change Rep., 4, 11–22,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0085-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0085-2</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D.,
Haywood, J., Lean, J., Lowe, D. C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M., and Van Dorland, R.: Changes in Atmospheric Constituentsand in
Radiative Forcing, in:  Climate change 2007: The
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and  Miller, H. L., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA,
130–234, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Forster, P. M. D. and Shine, K. P.: Radiative forcing and temperature trends from stratospheric ozone changes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 10841–10855, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Freckleton, R. S., Highwood, E. J., Shine, K. P., Wild, O., Law, K. S., and Sanderson, M. G.: Greenhouse gas radiative forcing: Effects of averaging and inhomogeneities in trace gas distribution, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 124, 2099–2127, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712455014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712455014</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Boucher, O., Quilcaille, Y., Tortora, M., Bopp, L., and Hauglustaine, D.: The compact Earth system model OSCAR v2.2: description and first results, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 271–319, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-271-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-271-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Gasteiger, J., Emde, C., Mayer, B.,  Buras, R., Buehler, S. A., and Lemke, O.: Representative wavelengths absorption parameterization
applied to satellite channels and spectral bands, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 148, 99–115, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2014.06.024" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2014.06.024</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Grosvenor, D. P., Sourdeval, O., Zuidema, P., Ackerman, A., Alexandrov, M. D., Bennartz,
R., Boers, R., Cairns, B., Chiu, C., Christensen, M., Deneke, H.,
Diamond, M., Feingold, G., Fridlind, A., Hünerbein, A., Knist, C., Kollias, P., Marshak,
A., McCoy, D., Merk, D., Painemal, D., Rausch, J., Rosenfeld, D.,
Russchenberg, H., Seifert, P., Sinclair, K., Stier, P., Van Diedenhoven, B.,
Wendisch, M., Werner, F., Wood, R., Zhang, Z., and Quaas, J.: Remote sensing of
cloud droplet number concentration in warm clouds: A review of the current
state of knowledge and perspectives, Rev. Geophys., 56, 409–453,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000593" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2017RG000593</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Gryspeerdt, E., Quaas, J., and Bellouin, N.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud fraction,
J. Geophys. Res., 121, 3566–3583, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023744" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023744</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Gryspeerdt, E., Goren, T., Sourdeval, O., Quaas, J., Mülmenstädt, J., Dipu, S., Unglaub, C., Gettelman, A., and Christensen, M.: Constraining the aerosol influence on cloud liquid water path, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 5331–5347, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5331-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Hamilton, D. S., Hantson, S., Scott, C. E., Kaplan, J. O., Pringle, K. J., Nieradzik, L. P.,  Rap, A., Folberth, G. A., Spracklen, D. V., and  Carslaw, K. S.: Reassessment of pre-industrial fire emissions
strongly affects anthropogenic aerosol forcing, Nat. Commun., 9,
3182, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05592-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05592-9</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Hansen, J., Sato, M., and Ruedy, R.: Radiative forcing and climate response, J. Geophys. Res.,
102, 6831–6864, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03436" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03436</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Hartmann, D. L., Klein Tank, A. M. G., Rusticucci, M., Alexander, L. V.,
Brönnimann, S., Charabi, Y., Dentener, F. J., Dlugokencky, E. J.,
Easterling, D. R., Kaplan, A., Soden, B. J., Thorne, P. W., Wild, M., and Zhai, P. M.:
Observations: Atmosphere and Surface, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.
K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK and New York, NY, USA, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</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, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG000078" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/1999RG000078</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Hegglin, M., Kinnison, D., Lamarque, J.-F.,  and Plummer, D.: CCMI ozone in support
of CMIP6 – version 1.0, Earth System Grid Federation,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/input4MIPs.1115</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Hogan, R. J. and Bozzo, A.: A flexible and efficient radiation scheme for
the ECMWF model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1990–2008,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001364" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001364</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Hollingsworth, A., Engelen, R. J., Textor, C., Benedetti, A., Boucher, O.,
Chevallier, F., Dethof, A., Elbern, H., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Granier, C.,
Kaiser, J. W., Morcrette, J., Rayner, P., Peuch, V., Rouil, L., Schultz, M. G., and
Simmons, A. J.: Toward A Monitoring And Forecasting System For Atmospheric
Composition, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 1147–1164,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2355.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2355.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Inness, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Crepulja, M., Engelen, R. J., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Gaudel, A., Hendrick, F., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kapsomenakis, J., Katragkou, E., Keppens, A., Langerock, B., de Mazière, M., Melas, D., Parrington, M., Peuch, V. H., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Suttie, M., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Wagner, A., and Zerefos, C.: Data assimilation of satellite-retrieved ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide with ECMWF's Composition-IFS, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 5275–5303, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-5275-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Inness, A., Ades, M., Agustí-Panareda, A., Barré, J., Benedictow, A., Blechschmidt, A.-M., Dominguez, J. J., Engelen, R., Eskes, H., Flemming, J., Huijnen, V., Jones, L., Kipling, Z., Massart, S., Parrington, M., Peuch, V.-H., Razinger, M., Remy, S., Schulz, M., and Suttie, M.: The CAMS reanalysis of atmospheric composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 3515–3556, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-3515-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Johnson, J. S., Regayre, L. A., Yoshioka, M., Pringle, K. J., Lee, L. A., Sexton, D. M. H., Rostron, J. W., Booth, B. B. B., and Carslaw, K. S.: The importance of comprehensive parameter sampling and multiple observations for robust constraint of aerosol radiative forcing, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13031–13053, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13031-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13031-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</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.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., Rose, F. G.,  Doelling, D. R., Rutan, D. A., Caldwell, T. E., Yu, L., and Weller, R. A.: Surface Irradiances Consistent with CERES-Derived
Top-of-Atmosphere Shortwave and Longwave Irradiances, J. Climate, 26,
2719–2740, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00436.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00436.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Kinne, S., Schulz, M., Textor, C., Guibert, S., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Berntsen, T., Berglen, T. F., Boucher, O., Chin, M., Collins, W., Dentener, F., Diehl, T., Easter, R., Feichter, J., Fillmore, D., Ghan, S., Ginoux, P., Gong, S., Grini, A., Hendricks, J., Herzog, M., Horowitz, L., Isaksen, I., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Kloster, S., Koch, D., Kristjansson, J. E., Krol, M., Lauer, A., Lamarque, J. F., Lesins, G., Liu, X., Lohmann, U., Montanaro, V., Myhre, G., Penner, J., Pitari, G., Reddy, S., Seland, O., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Tie, X.: An AeroCom initial assessment – optical properties in aerosol component modules of global models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 6, 1815–1834, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-6-1815-2006</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Kinne, S., O'Donnel, D., Stier, P., Kloster, S., Zhang, K., Schmidt, H., Rast, S.,
Giorgetta, M., Eck, T. F., and Stevens, B.: MAC-v1: A new global aerosol climatology for climate
studies, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 5, 704–740, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20035</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D., Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M., Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7017–7039, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, L. A., Carslaw, K. S., Pringle, K. J., Mann, G. W., and Spracklen, D. V.: Emulation of a complex global aerosol model to quantify sensitivity to uncertain parameters, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 12253–12273, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12253-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-12253-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Lee, L. A., Pringle, K. J., Reddington, C. L., Mann, G. W., Stier, P., Spracklen, D. V., Pierce, J. R., and Carslaw, K. S.: The magnitude and causes of uncertainty in global model simulations of cloud condensation nuclei, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8879–8914, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8879-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-8879-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Levy, R. C., Mattoo, S., Sawyer, V., Shi, Y., Colarco, P. R., Lyapustin, A. I., Wang, Y., and Remer, L. A.: Exploring systematic offsets between aerosol products from the two MODIS sensors, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 4073–4092, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4073-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4073-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Lindsay, K., Bonan, G. B., Doney, S. C., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Long, M. C., Mahowald,
N. M., Keith Moore, J., Randerson, J. T., and Thornton, P. E.:
Preindustrial-Control and Twentieth-Century Carbon Cycle Experiments with
the Earth System Model CESM1(BGC), J. Climate, 27, 8981–9005, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Loeb, N. G., Doelling, D. R., Wang, H., Su, W., Nguyen, C., Corbett, J. G.,
Liang, L., Mitrescu, C., Rose, F. G., and Kato, S.: Clouds and the Earth's Radiant
Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere
(TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product, J. Climate,, 31, 895–918,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Maclaurin, G., Sengupta, M., Xie, Y., and Gilroy, N.: Development of a MODIS-Derived Surface Albedo Data
Set: An Improved Model Input for Processing the NSRDB. National Renewable
Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-67306, Golden, CO, USA, 23 pp., 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Manners, J., Edwards, J. M., Hill, P., and Thelen, J. C.: SOCRATES Technical Guide: Suite Of Community RAdiative Transfer Codes Based on Edwards and Slingo, Technical Report, Met Office, Exeter, UK, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Mayer, B. and Kylling, A.: Technical note: The libRadtran software package for radiative transfer calculations – description and examples of use, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 5, 1855–1877, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1855-2005" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-5-1855-2005</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Meinshausen, M.,  Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., Thomson, A.,  Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their
extensions from 1765 to 2300, Climatic Change, 109, 213,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Minschwaner, K., Carver, R. W., Briegleb, B. P., and Roche, A. E.: Infrared
radiative forcing and atmospheric lifetimes of trace species based on
observations from UARS, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 23243–23253,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD02116" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD02116</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J., and Clough, S. A.: Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM,
a validated correlated-k model for the longwave, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 16663–16682,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00237" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD00237</a>, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Morcrette, J.-J., Boucher, O., Jones, L., Salmond, D., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A., Benedetti, A., Bonet, A., Kaiser, J. W., Razinger, M., Schulz,
M., Serrar, S., Simmons, A. J., Sofiev, M., Suttie, M., Tompkins, A. M., and
Untch, A.: Aerosol analysis and forecast in the ECMWF integrated forecast
system: forward modeling, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D06206,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011235" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011235</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Mülmenstädt, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Salzmann, M., Ma, P.-L., Dipu, S., and Quaas, J.: Separating radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions and rapid cloud adjustments in the ECHAM–HAMMOZ aerosol–climate model using the method of partial radiative perturbations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 15415–15429, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15415-2019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15415-2019</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre G., Highwood, E. J., Shine, K. P., and Stordal, F.: New estimates of
radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2715–271,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL01908" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL01908</a>, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J.,
Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B.,  Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G.,  Takemura, T., and Zhang, H.: Anthropogenic and natural
radiative forcing, in: Climate change 2013: The
physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.
K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 659–740, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.018</a>, 2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S., Berntsen, T. K., Bian, H., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Feichter, J., Ghan, S. J., Hauglustaine, D., Iversen, T., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Lin, G., Liu, X., Lund, M. T., Luo, G., Ma, X., van Noije, T., Penner, J. E., Rasch, P. J., Ruiz, A., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Xu, L., Yu, H., Yu, F., Yoon, J.-H., Zhang, K., Zhang, H., and Zhou, C.: Radiative forcing of the direct aerosol effect from AeroCom Phase II simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1853–1877, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-1853-2013</a>, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., Samset, B. H., Hodnebrog, Ø., Sillmann, J., Aalbergsjø, S. G., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Iversen, T., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Olivié, D., Richardson, T. B., Shindell, D., Shine, K. P.,  Stjern, C. W., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., and
Zwiers, F.: PDRMIP: A Precipitation Driver and Response Model
Intercomparison Project–Protocol and Preliminary Results, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 98, 1185–1198, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0019.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0019.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Kramer, R. J., Smith, C. J.,  Hodnebrog, Ø., Forster, P., Soden, B. J., Samset, B. H., Stjern, C. W., Andrews, T.,  Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Kasoar, M. , Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.‐F., Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Shindell, D.,  Stier, P., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., and
Watson‐Parris, D.: Quantifying the importance of rapid adjustments for
global precipitation changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11399–11405,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079474" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079474</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation>
Myhre, G., Samset, B. H., Mohr, C. W., Alterskjær, K., Balkanski, Y., Bellouin, N., Chin, M., Haywood, J., Hodnebrog, Ø., Kinne, S., Lin, G., Lund, M. T., Penner, J. E., Schulz, M., Schutgens, N., Skeie, R. B., Stier, P., Takemura, T., and Zhang, K.: Cloudy sky contributions to the direct aerosol effect, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1051" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1051</a>, in review, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation>
Oikawa, E., Nakajima, T., and Winker, D.: An evaluation of the shortwave
direct aerosol radiative forcing using CALIOP and MODIS observations, J.
Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 1211–1233, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027247" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027247</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation>
Otto, F. E. L., van Oldenborgh, G. L., Eden, J., Stott, P. A., Karoly, D. J., and Allen,
M. R.: The attribution question, Nat. Clim. Chang., 6, 813–816, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3089" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3089</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Pincus, R., Barker, H. W., and Morcrette, J.-J.: A fast, flexible, approximate technique for computing
radiative transfer in inhomogeneous cloud fields, J. Geophys. Res., 108,
4376, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003322" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003322</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation>
Pincus, R., Mlawer, E. J., Oreopoulos, L., Ackerman, A. S., Baek, S., Brath, M.,  Buehler, S. A., Cady‐Pereira, K. E., Cole, J. N. S., Dufresne, J. L., Kelley, M., Li, J., Manners, J., Paynter, D. J., Roehrig, R., Sekiguchi, M., and Schwarzkopf, D. M.: Radiative flux and forcing parameterization error in
aerosol-free clear skies, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 5485–5492,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064291" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064291</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation>
Pincus, R., Forster, P. M., and Stevens, B.: The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3447–3460, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation>
Ramanathan, V.: Greenhouse Effect Due to Chlorofluorocarbons: Climatic
Implications, Science, 190, 50–52, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4209.50" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4209.50</a>,
1975.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation>
Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., Hauglustaine, D., Haywood, J., Myhre, G., Nakajima,
T., Shi, G. Y., and Solomon, S.: Radiative forcing of climate change, in: Climate change 2001: Working Group I: The
Scientific Basis, edited by: Houghton,  J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J.,  Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X.,  Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A., 351–416, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib76"><label>76</label><mixed-citation>
Ramaswamy, V., Collins, W., Haywood, J., Lean, J., Mahowald, N., Myhre, G.,
Naik, V., Shine, K., Soden, B., Stenchikov, G., and Storelvmo, T.: Radiative Forcing
of Climate: The Historical Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the
Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications, Meteor.
Mon., 59, 14.1–14.101, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib77"><label>77</label><mixed-citation>
Randles, C. A., Kinne, S., Myhre, G., Schulz, M., Stier, P., Fischer, J., Doppler, L., Highwood, E., Ryder, C., Harris, B., Huttunen, J., Ma, Y., Pinker, R. T., Mayer, B., Neubauer, D., Hitzenberger, R., Oreopoulos, L., Lee, D., Pitari, G., Di Genova, G., Quaas, J., Rose, F. G., Kato, S., Rumbold, S. T., Vardavas, I., Hatzianastassiou, N., Matsoukas, C., Yu, H., Zhang, F., Zhang, H., and Lu, P.: Intercomparison of shortwave radiative transfer schemes in global aerosol modeling: results from the AeroCom Radiative Transfer Experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2347–2379, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2347-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2347-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib78"><label>78</label><mixed-citation>
Regayre, L. A., Pringle, K. J., B. Booth, B. B., Lee, L. A., Mann, G. W.,
Browse, J., Woodhouse, M. T., Rap, A., Reddington, C. L., and Carslaw, K.
S.: Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over
recent decades, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 9040–9049,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062029" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062029</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib79"><label>79</label><mixed-citation>
Regayre, L. A., Johnson, J. S., Yoshioka, M., Pringle, K. J., Sexton, D. M. H., Booth, B. B. B., Lee, L. A., Bellouin, N., and Carslaw, K. S.: Aerosol and physical atmosphere model parameters are both important sources of uncertainty in aerosol ERF, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 9975–10006, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9975-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9975-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib80"><label>80</label><mixed-citation>
Rémy, S., Bellouin, N., Kipling, Z., Ades, M., Benedetti, A., and
Boucher, O.: Aerosols, in: “State of the Climate in 2018”, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, S52–S54, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2019BAMSStateoftheClimate.1</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib81"><label>81</label><mixed-citation>
Satheesh, S. K., Suresh Babu, S., Padmakumari, B., Pandithurai, G., and
Soni, V. K.: Variability of Atmospheric Aerosols Over India. Observed Climate
Variability and Change over the Indian Region, edited by: Rajeevan, M. N. and Nayak, S., Springer Singapore, 221–248,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2531-0_13" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2531-0_13</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib82"><label>82</label><mixed-citation>
Schaaf, C. B., Gao, F., Strahler, A. H., Lucht, W., Li, X., Tsang, T.,
Strugnell, N. C., Zhang, X., Jin, Y., Muller, J.-P., Lewis, P., Barnsley, M., Hobson, P., Disney,
M., Roberts, G., Dunderdale, M., Doll, C., d'Entremont, R. P., Hu, B.,
Liang, S., Privette, J. L., and Roy, D.: First operational BRDF, albedo nadir
reflectance products from MODIS, Remote Sens. Environ., 83, 135–148, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00091-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-4257(02)00091-3</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib83"><label>83</label><mixed-citation>
Schimel, D., Alves, D., Entling, I., Heimann, M., Joos, F., Raynaud, D.,
Wigley, T., Prather, M., Derwent, R., Ehhalt, D., Fraser, P., Sanhueza, E., Zhou, X., Jonas, P., Charlson, R., Rodhe, H., Sadasivan, S., Shine, K. P., Fouquart, Y., Ramaswamy, V., Solomon, S., Srinivasan, J., Albritton, D., Derwent, R., Isaksen, I., Lal, M., and Wuebbles, D.: Radiative forcing of climate change, in: Climate change 1995: The science of climate change.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by:
Houghton, J. T., Meiro Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenburg, A., and Maskell,
K., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 69–131, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib84"><label>84</label><mixed-citation>
Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S., Boucher, O., Bretherton, C., Forster, P. M.,
Gregory, J. M., and Stevens, B.: Adjustments in the Forcing-Feedback Framework for
Understanding Climate Change, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 217–228,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib85"><label>85</label><mixed-citation>
Shindell, D. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Schulz, M., Flanner, M., Jiao, C., Chin, M., Young, P. J., Lee, Y. H., Rotstayn, L., Mahowald, N., Milly, G., Faluvegi, G., Balkanski, Y., Collins, W. J., Conley, A. J., Dalsoren, S., Easter, R., Ghan, S., Horowitz, L., Liu, X., Myhre, G., Nagashima, T., Naik, V., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., Yoon, J.-H., and Lo, F.: Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2939–2974, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2939-2013</a>, 2013a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib86"><label>86</label><mixed-citation>
Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Nazarenko, L., Bowman, K., Lamarque, J. F.,
Voulgarakis, A., Schmidt, G. A., Pechony, O., and Ruedy, R.: Attribution of
historical ozone forcing to anthropogenic emissions, Nat. Clim. Chang., 3,
567–570, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1835" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1835</a>, 2013b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib87"><label>87</label><mixed-citation>
Shine, K., Derwent, R. G., Wuebbles, D. J., Morcrette, J.-J., Apling, A. J.,
Blanchet, J. P., Charlson, R. J., Crommelynck, D., Grassl, H., Husson, N., Jenkins, G. J., Karol,
I., King, M. D., Ramanathan, V., Rodhe, H., Shi, G.-Y., Thomas, G.,
Wang, W.-C., Wigley, T. M. L., Yamanouchi, T.: Radiative forcing of climate, in: Climate Change: The IPCC
Scientific Assessment, edited by:
Houghton, J. T., Jenkins, G. J., and Ephraums, J. J., 45–68, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,
NY, USA, 1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib88"><label>88</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., Soden, B. J., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D.,  Hodnebrog, Ø., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V.,  Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.‐F., Mülmenstädt, J., Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Samset, B. H.,  Shindell, D., Stier, P., Takemura, T.,  Voulgarakis, A., and Watson‐Parris, D.: Understanding rapid adjustments to diverse forcing
agents, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 12023–12031, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079826" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079826</a>,
2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib89"><label>89</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, C. J., Forster, P. M., Allen, M., Leach, N., Millar, R. J., Passerello, G. A., and Regayre, L. A.: FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2273–2297, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib90"><label>90</label><mixed-citation>
Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., Colman, R., Shell, K. M., Kiehl, J. T., and Shields, C. A.: Quantifying Climate Feedbacks Using Radiative Kernels,
J. Climate, 21, 3504–3520, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib91"><label>91</label><mixed-citation>
Soden, B. J., Collins, W. D., and Feldman, D. R.: Reducing uncertainties in climate
models, Science, 361, 326–327, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1864" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1864</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib92"><label>92</label><mixed-citation>
Søvde, O. A., Hoyle, C. R., Myhre, G., and Isaksen, I. S. A.: The HNO<sub>3</sub> forming branch of the HO<sub>2</sub> + NO reaction: pre-industrial-to-present trends in atmospheric species and radiative forcings, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 8929–8943, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-8929-2011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-8929-2011</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib93"><label>93</label><mixed-citation>
Søvde, O. A., Hoyle, C. R., Myhre, G., and Isaksen, I. S. A.: Corrigendum to “The HNO<sub>3</sub> forming branch of the HO<sub>2</sub> + NO reaction: pre-industrial-to-present trends in atmospheric species and radiative forcings” published in Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 8929–8943, 2011, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 7725–7725, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7725-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-7725-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib94"><label>94</label><mixed-citation>
Stevenson, D. S., Young, P. J., Naik, V., Lamarque, J.-F., Shindell, D. T., Voulgarakis, A., Skeie, R. B., Dalsoren, S. B., Myhre, G., Berntsen, T. K., Folberth, G. A., Rumbold, S. T., Collins, W. J., MacKenzie, I. A., Doherty, R. M., Zeng, G., van Noije, T. P. C., Strunk, A., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Plummer, D. A., Strode, S. A., Horowitz, L., Lee, Y. H., Szopa, S., Sudo, K., Nagashima, T., Josse, B., Cionni, I., Righi, M., Eyring, V., Conley, A., Bowman, K. W., Wild, O., and Archibald, A.: Tropospheric ozone changes, radiative forcing and attribution to emissions in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3063–3085, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3063-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib95"><label>95</label><mixed-citation>
Stott, P. A., Gillett, N. P., Hegerl, G. C., Karoly, D. J., Stone, D. A., Zhang, X.,
and Zwiers, F.: Detection and attribution of climate change: a regional
perspective, WIREs Climate Change, 1, 192–211, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.34" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.34</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib96"><label>96</label><mixed-citation>
Taylor, J. P., Edwards, J. M., Glew, M. D., Hignett, P., and Slingo, A.:
Studies with a flexible new radiation code. II: Comparisons with aircraft
short-wave observations, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 122, 839–862, 1996.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib97"><label>97</label><mixed-citation>
Toll, V., Christensen, M., Gassó, S., and  Bellouin, N.: Volcano and ship tracks indicate excessive aerosol-induced
cloud water increases in a climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
12492–12500, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075280" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075280</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib98"><label>98</label><mixed-citation>
Vial, J., Dufresne, J. L., and Bony, S.: On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5
climate sensitivity estimates, Clim. Dynam., 41, 3339,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib99"><label>99</label><mixed-citation>
World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Executive Summary: Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring
Project–Report No. 58, Geneva, Switzerland, 67 pp., 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib100"><label>100</label><mixed-citation>
Yeung, L. Y., Murray, L. T., Martinerie, P., Witrant, E., Hu, H., Banerjee, A., Orsi, A., and Chappellaz, J.: Isotopic constraint on the
twentieth-century increase in tropospheric ozone, Nature, 570, 224–227,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1277-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1277-1</a>, 2019.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib101"><label>101</label><mixed-citation>
Young, P. J., Archibald, A. T., Bowman, K. W., Lamarque, J.-F., Naik, V., Stevenson, D. S., Tilmes, S., Voulgarakis, A., Wild, O., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Cionni, I., Collins, W. J., Dalsøren, S. B., Doherty, R. M., Eyring, V., Faluvegi, G., Horowitz, L. W., Josse, B., Lee, Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima, T., Plummer, D. A., Righi, M., Rumbold, S. T., Skeie, R. B., Shindell, D. T., Strode, S. A., Sudo, K., Szopa, S., and Zeng, G.: Pre-industrial to end 21st century projections of tropospheric ozone from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2063–2090, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2063-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib102"><label>102</label><mixed-citation>
Yu, H., Chin, M., Remer, L. A., Kleidman, R. G., Bellouin, N., Bian, H., and Diehl, T.: Variability of marine aerosol fine‐mode fraction and estimates of anthropogenic aerosol component over cloud‐free oceans from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), J. Geophys. Res., 114, D10206, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010648" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010648</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib103"><label>103</label><mixed-citation>
Zhang, H., Zhu, S., Zhao, S., and Wei, X.: Establishment of High-resolution
Aerosol Parameterization and Its Influence on Radiation Calculations, J.
Quant. Spectrosc. Ra., 243, 106802, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106802" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2019.106802</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib104"><label>104</label><mixed-citation>
Zheng, B., Tong, D., Li, M., Liu, F., Hong, C., Geng, G., Li, H., Li, X., Peng, L., Qi, J., Yan, L., Zhang, Y., Zhao, H., Zheng, Y., He, K., and Zhang, Q.: Trends in China's anthropogenic emissions since 2010 as the consequence of clean air actions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14095–14111, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14095-2018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14095-2018</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib105"><label>105</label><mixed-citation>
Zuidema, P., Redemann, J., Haywood, J., Wood, R., Piketh, S., Hipondoka, M.,
and Formenti, P.: Smoke and clouds above the southeast Atlantic: Upcoming
field campaigns probe absorbing aerosol's impact on climate, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 97, 1131–1135, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00082.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
