Radiative flux and forcing parameterization error in aerosol‐free clear skies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reports on the accuracy in aerosol‐ and cloud‐free conditions of the radiation parameterizations used in climate models. Accuracy is assessed relative to observationally validated reference models for fluxes under present‐day conditions and forcing (flux changes) from quadrupled concentrations of carbon dioxide. Agreement among reference models is typically within 1 W/m 2 , while parameterized calculations are roughly half as accurate in the longwave and even less accurate, and more variable, in the shortwave. Absorption of shortwave radiation is underestimated by most parameterizations in the present day and has relatively large errors in forcing. Error in present‐day conditions is essentially unrelated to error in forcing calculations. Recent revisions to parameterizations have reduced error in most cases. A dependence on atmospheric conditions, including integrated water vapor, means that global estimates of parameterization error relevant for the radiative forcing of climate change will require much more ambitious calculations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".