MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153083983 · doi:10.5194/acp-13-6687-2013

Performance of the Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM) for temperature, water vapor, and trace gas retrievals: recent updates evaluated with IASI case studies

2013· article· en· W2153083983 on OpenAlexaff
M. J. Alvarado, Vivienne H. Payne, E. J. Mlawer, G. Uymin, Mark W. Shephard, Karen Cady‐Pereira, Jennifer Delamere, Jean‐Luc Moncet

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRadiative transferTrace gasAtmospheric radiative transfer codesEnvironmental scienceWater vaporNadirSatelliteDepth soundingLine (geometry)Remote sensingSpectroscopyAtmospheric Infrared SounderSpectral lineAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyPhysicsGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Modern data assimilation algorithms depend on accurate infrared spectroscopy in order to make use of the information related to temperature, water vapor (H2O), and other trace gases provided by satellite observations. Reducing the uncertainties in our knowledge of spectroscopic line parameters and continuum absorption is thus important to improve the application of satellite data to weather forecasting. Here we present the results of a rigorous validation of spectroscopic updates to an advanced radiative transfer model, the Line-By-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM), against a global dataset of 120 near-nadir, over-ocean, nighttime spectra from the Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI). We compare calculations from the latest version of LBLRTM (v12.1) to those from a previous version (v9.4+) to determine the impact of spectroscopic updates to the model on spectral residuals as well as retrieved temperature and H2O profiles. We show that the spectroscopy in the CO2 ν2 and ν3 bands is significantly improved in LBLRTM v12.1 relative to v9.4+, and that these spectroscopic updates lead to mean changes of ~0.5 K in the retrieved vertical temperature profiles between the surface and 10 hPa, with the sign of the change and the variability among cases depending on altitude. We also find that temperature retrievals using each of these two CO2 bands are remarkably consistent in LBLRTM v12.1, potentially allowing these bands to be used to retrieve atmospheric temperature simultaneously. The updated H2O spectroscopy in LBLRTM v12.1 substantially improves the a posteriori residuals in the P-branch of the H2O ν2 band, while the improvements in the R-branch are more modest. The H2O amounts retrieved with LBLRTM v12.1 are on average 14% lower between 100 and 200 hPa, 42% higher near 562 hPa, and 31% higher near the surface compared to the amounts retrieved with v9.4+ due to a combination of the different retrieved temperature profiles and the updated H2O spectroscopy. We also find that the use of a fixed ratio of HDO to H2O in LBLRTM may be responsible for a significant fraction of the remaining bias in the P-branch relative to the R-branch of the H2O ν2 band. There were no changes to O3 spectroscopy between the two model versions, and so both versions give positive a posteriori residuals of ~ 0.3 K in the R-branch of the O3 ν3 band. While the updates to the H2O self-continuum employed by LBLRTM v12.1 have clearly improved the match with observations near the CO2 ν3 band head, we find that these updates have significantly degraded the match with observations in the fundamental band of CO. Finally, significant systematic a posteriori residuals remain in the ν4 band of CH4, but the magnitude of the positive bias in the retrieved mixing ratios is reduced in LBLRTM v12.1, suggesting that the updated spectroscopy could improve retrievals of CH4 from satellite observations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207