Intercomparison of shortwave radiative transfer codes and measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computation of components of shortwave (SW) or solar irradiance in the surface‐atmospheric system forms the basis of intercomparison between 16 radiative transfer models of varying spectral resolution ranging from line‐by‐line models to broadband and general circulation models. In order of increasing complexity the components are: direct solar irradiance at the surface, diffuse irradiance at the surface, diffuse upward flux at the surface, and diffuse upward flux at the top of the atmosphere. These components allow computation of the atmospheric absorptance. Four cases are considered from pure molecular atmospheres to atmospheres with aerosols and atmosphere with a simple uniform cloud. The molecular and aerosol cases allow comparison of aerosol forcing calculation among models. A cloud‐free case with measured atmospheric and aerosol properties and measured shortwave radiation components provides an absolute basis for evaluating the models. For the aerosol‐free and cloud‐free dry atmospheres, models agree to within 1% (root mean square deviation as a percentage of mean) in broadband direct solar irradiance at surface; the agreement is relatively poor at 5% for a humid atmosphere. A comparison of atmospheric absorptance, computed from components of SW radiation, shows that agreement among models is understandably much worse at 3% and 10% for dry and humid atmospheres, respectively. Inclusion of aerosols generally makes the agreement among models worse than when no aerosols are present, with some exceptions. Modeled diffuse surface irradiance is higher than measurements for all models for the same model inputs. Inclusion of an optically thick low‐cloud in a tropical atmosphere, a stringent test for multiple scattering calculations, produces, in general, better agreement among models for a low solar zenith angle (SZA = 30°) than for a high SZA (75°). All models show about a 30% increase in broadband absorptance for 30° SZA relative to the clear‐sky case and almost no enhancement in absorptance for a higher SZA of 75°, possibly due to water vapor line saturation in the atmosphere above the cloud.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".