Quantifying Uncertainties in Determining SW Cloud Radiative Forcing and Cloud Absorption due to Variability in Atmospheric Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of cloud radiative forcing (CRF) has been widely employed in studying the effects of clouds on the earth's radiation budget and climate. CRF denotes, in principle, the net influence of cloud alone on the radiation budget of a system. In practice, however, observational determination of CRF is fraught with uncertainties due to factors other than cloud that induce changes in atmospheric background conditions. The most notable variables include aerosol, water vapor, and the data sampling scheme. The impact of these factors on the derivation of CRF and cloud absorption is investigated here by means of modeling and analysis of multiple datasets. Improved estimation of CRF is attempted at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and at the surface from spatially and temporally collocated ground and satellite measurements for broadband shortwave fluxes. Satellite data employed include pixel measurements from ERBE (1988-90), ScaRaB (1994-95), and CERES (1998), as well as surface data acquired across the Canadian radiation network, the ARM Central Facility site in Oklahoma, the US/NOAA SURFRAD networks, and the world BSRN (WMO) networks. It is found that surface CRF is much more susceptible to the variability in background conditions than TOA CRF. Selection of overly clear sky conditions often leads to significant overestimation of surface CRF, but TOA CRF remains intact or only slightly affected. As a result, the ratio of CRF at the surface and TOA is prone to overestimation. With careful treatments of these effects, the CRF ratio turns out to vary mostly between 0.9 and 1.1, implying approximately the same magnitude of atmospheric absorption under clear-sky and cloudy-sky conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".