2011
DOI: 10.1002/qj.974
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating surface long‐wave radiative fluxes at global scale

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also relied on two radiation datasets that we did not bias-correct. Although these data are best in class and were validated against observations [22,23], they may have biases that affect our net radiation results. Arguing against this is the observed global dimming between 1960-1990, which continued into the 2000s in developing regions (Asia) as a result of increasing aerosol pollution [49,50].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We also relied on two radiation datasets that we did not bias-correct. Although these data are best in class and were validated against observations [22,23], they may have biases that affect our net radiation results. Arguing against this is the observed global dimming between 1960-1990, which continued into the 2000s in developing regions (Asia) as a result of increasing aerosol pollution [49,50].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We obtained updated short-and longwave radiation datasets from the University of Maryland [22,23], at 0.5°and 1.0°resolution, respectively, and downscaled these to 0.25°u sing bilinear interpolation, correcting longwave radiation for elevation [13].…”
Section: A Bias-corrected Gridded Meteorological Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These error terms may be compared with those of direct measurements of E l↓, which have been assessed at 7.5–10 W m −2 (Dong et al , ; Colbo and Weller, ), or 5% when expressed as a percent (WMO, ). They may also be compared with the RMSE of 17 W m −2 given for daily estimates of E l↓ derived from satellite measurements (Nussbaumer and Pinker, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is an excellent agreement between the clear sky artificial neural network and the RRTM calculations with a correlation of 1.00, a rmse of 2.31 W m −2 , and a bias of 0.00 W m −2 for 2007, demonstrating the ability of the neural network to emulate a radiative transfer model with the advantage of computational efficiency. The clear sky artificial neural network is an improvement over the previous DSLW/UMD v1 clear sky parameterization [ Nussbaumer and Pinker , 2012] which was based on total column water vapor and screen level temperature. Because of the large number of data points used in the comparison ∼42 million, Figure 3 shows the log 10 density of the data points.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%