MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412354236 · doi:10.1002/qj.2848

Determination of direct normal irradiance including circumsolar radiation in climate/NWP models

2016· article· en· W2412354236 on OpenAlexaff
Zhian Sun, Jiangnan Li, Yongjian He, Jiandong Li, Aixia Liu, Feng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPhysicsIrradianceSolar irradianceRadiationScalingComputational physicsMeteorologyOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An issue in the determination of the direct component of solar radiation involving the circumsolar contribution in numerical weather prediction (NWP) and climate models is discussed. The direct solar radiation has multiple definitions in different applications, but this ambiguity has not always been clearly identified and has therefore sometimes caused confusion. The confusion arises from a fact that the photons that are scattered into the direct solar beam path by atmospheric particles are no different from the non‐scattered photons travelling in the same direction. Therefore there is a question whether these scattered photons should be included in the direct flux calculation or whether they should be excluded. Different definitions of the direct solar radiation in a wide range of applications have been discussed by Blanc et al. (2014). We further discuss it in terms of its relation to NWP and climate models. The short‐wave radiation schemes used in NWP and climate models can be classified into two groups: those that calculate the direct solar radiation without including scattering contributions and those which include the scattering contribution in terms of the delta‐Eddington approximation. We assess the two treatments by comparing modelled direct solar radiation with observations. It is found that the use of delta‐Eddington scaling results in positive errors in the direct solar flux at the surface, while neglecting the delta‐scaling leads to negative errors. The important result is that the positive error from using the delta‐Eddington scaling is at least 1 order of magnitude larger than the absolute negative error due to neglecting it. In order to include properly the scattering contribution in the direct flux calculation, a simple parametrization for dust aerosol is developed which can be used to consider the scattering contribution due to the particular case of dust aerosol to the direct solar radiation within the circumsolar region.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207