1
2
Geophysical Research Letters
3
Supporting Information for
4
5
Aerosol Effects on Cloud Cover as Evidenced by Ground-Based and Space-Based
Observations at Five Rural Sites in the United States
6
7
John E. Ten Hoeve1 and John A. Augustine2
8
1. National Weather Service, SSMC2 1325 East-West Highway, Silver Spring MD 20910
9
2. Global Monitoring Division, Earth Systems Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway,
10
Boulder, CO 80305
11
Correspondence Author: John Ten Hoeve, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD 20910
12
USA, Tel: 301-427-6990, Email: john.tenhoeve@noaa.gov
13
14
Contents of this File
15
Table S1
16
Figures S1 to S5
17
References
18
19
Introduction
20
This supporting information provides the supplementary table and figures referenced in the main
21
article.
1
22
Table S1: Fraction of 𝜏 values in 0.05 to 0.1-wide 𝜏 bins (up to 𝜏 = 0.5) across all SURFRAD
23
stations. We did not include 𝜏 values higher than 0.3 in our analysis as more than 96% of 𝜏
24
values are below 0.3.
00.05
0.050.10
0.100.15
0.15 0.20
0.20 0.25
0.25 0.30
0.30 0.40
0.40 0.50
0.50 -
Bondville 0.057
0.34
0.29
0.15
0.078
0.043
0.018
0.010
0.0039
Boulder
0.25
0.40
0.25
0.072
0.018
0.0028
0.0055
0.0033
0.0039
Fort
Peck
0.33
0.36
0.17
0.073
0.024
0.013
0.013
0.0070
0.0093
Goodwin
Creek
0.062
0.36
0.25
0.13
0.076
0.045
0.045
0.022
0.013
Penn
State
0.082
0.42
0.25
0.12
0.050
0.027
0.030
0.019
0.0057
25
26
27
2
28
29
Figure S1: Locations of the five SURFRAD stations employed in the study.
30
3
31
32
Figure S2: Correlation coefficient between surface temperature (Temp); relative humidity (RH);
33
wind speed (WSPD); sea level pressure (SLP) and (a) 𝜏 corrected for near-cloud contamination
34
and (b) fc. Each bar in each colored set represents a different SURFRAD site – 1) Bondville, IL;
35
2) Boulder, CO; 3) Fort Peck, MT, 4) Goodwin Creek, MS; 5) Penn State, PA. Bars with an “x”
36
indicate correlations that are not statistically significant at the 99% confidence level.
4
37
38
Figure S3: (a)-(e): Surface relative humidity binned by 𝜏 corrected for near-cloud contamination
39
for different bins of surface relative humidity, and (f)-(j): sea level pressure binned by 𝜏 corrected
40
for near-cloud contamination for different bins of sea level pressure for the five SUFRAD stations.
41
In (g), bins for Boulder, CO are 30 hPa less than the other stations.
5
42
43
Figure S4: (a)-(e): fc binned by 𝜏 corrected for near-cloud contamination for different bins of 850
44
hPa relative humidity, and (f)-(j): fc binned by 𝜏 corrected for near-cloud contamination for different
45
bins of lower tropospheric stability (LTS) for the five SURFRAD stations. LTS is defined as θ700
6
– θ1000 hPa where θ is potential temperature. Relative humidity and temperature data are from
46
hPa
47
daily-averaged National Centers for Environmental Prediction / National Centers for Atmospheric
48
Research Reanalysis data [Kalnay et al., 1996].
49
7
50
51
Figure S5: (a)-(e): Hourly-averaged surface net solar radiation (W/m2) binned by 𝜏 corrected for
52
near-cloud contamination, and (f)-(j): hourly-averaged surface net IR radiation (W/m2) binned by
8
53
𝜏 corrected for near-cloud contamination for different bins of solar zenith angle (SZA) for the five
54
SUFRAD stations.
55
56
57
References:
58
Kalnay, E., et al. (1996), The NCEP/NCAR 40-Year Reanalysis Project. Bulletin of the American
59
Meteorological Society, 77(3).
60
9