The performance and construction of a new algorithm for the calculation of infrared cooling rates and fluxes in terrestrial general circulation models are described in detail. The computational method, which is suitable for use in models of both the troposphere and the middle atmosphere, incorporates effects now known to be important, such as an extended water vapor e‐type continuum, careful treatment of water vapor lines, of water‐carbon dioxide overlap, and of Voigt line shape. The competing requirements of accuracy and speed are both satisfied by extensive use of a generalization of the simplified exchange approximation of Fels and Schwarzkopf (1975). Cooling rates and fluxes are validated by comparison with benchmark line‐by‐line calculations on standard atmospheric profiles obtained for the Intercomparison of Radiation Codes Used in Climate Models (ICRCCM). Results indicate that the new algorithm is substantially more accurate than any previously used at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.
An international program of intercomparison of radiation codes used in climate models has been initiated because of the central role of radiative processes in many proposed climate change mechanisms. During the past 6 years, results of calculations from such radiation codes have been compared with each other, with results from the most detailed radiation models (line‐by‐line models) and with observations from within the atmosphere. Line‐by‐line model results tend to agree with each other to within 1%; however, the intercomparison shows a spread of 10–20% in the calculations of radiation budget components by the less detailed climate model codes. The spread among the results is even larger (30–40%) for the sensitivities of the codes to changes in radiatively important variables, such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. The analysis of the model calculations shows that the outliers to many of the clear‐sky calculations appear to be related to those models that have not tested the techniques used to perform the integration over altitude. When those outliers are removed, the agreement between narrow band models and the line‐by‐line models is about ±2% for fluxes at the atmospheric boundaries, about ±5% for the flux divergence for the troposphere, and to about ±5% for the change of the net flux at the tropopause as CO2 doubles. However, this good agreement does not extend to the majority of the models currently used in climate models. The lack of highly accurate flux observations from within the atmosphere has made it necessary to rely on line‐by‐line model results for evaluating model accuracy. As the intercomparison project has proceeded, the number of models agreeing more closely with the line‐by‐line results has increased as the understanding of the various parameterizations has improved and as coding errors have been discovered. The most recent results indicate that several climate model techniques are in the marginal range of (relative) accuracy for longwave flux calculations for many climate programs. However, not all such models will give such accuracy. It is recommended that a code not be accepted to provide such accuracy until it has made comparisons to the line‐by‐line results of this study. The data necessary to make such comparisons are included herein. However, uncertainties in the physics of line wings and in the proper treatment of the water vapor continuum make it impossible for the line‐by‐line models to provide an absolute reference for evaluating less‐detailed model calculations. A dedicated field measurement program is recommended for the purpose of obtaining accurate spectral radiance rather than integrated fluxes as a basis for evaluating model performance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.