Actinic Flux and Net Flux Calculations in Radiative Transfer—A Comparative Study of Computational Efficiency.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Actinic Flux and Net Flux Calculations in Radiative Transfer—A Comparative Study of Computational Efficiency.
Authors:	Kay, M. J., Box, M. A., Trautmann, Thomas, Landgraf, Jochen
Source:	Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences. 12/1/2001, Vol. 58 Issue 23, p3752. 10p. 3 Charts, 9 Graphs.
Subjects:	Radiation, Mathematical formulas
Abstract:	The accuracy and speed of three well-known computational techniques (DISORT, the δ–four-stream approximation, and the two-stream approximation), and the matrix inversion method, which is less well known, have been investigated. Results are presented for both broadband actinic and net fluxes over a range of parameters including solar zenith cosine, relative humidity, and altitude for two different surface/aerosol systems: terrestrial and oceanic. The matrix inversion method can only calculate actinic fluxes; therefore, this is the main focus of this paper. Investigations into the comparative accuracy of the four techniques for the oceanic model with and without a cloud layer included are also presented. (DISORT is taken as the benchmark for this research.) Based on results presented here, it is found that for actinic flux calculations, the δ–four-stream approximation is slightly more accurate than the matrix inversion method, and that both are far more accurate than the two-stream approximation. However, for net flux calculations, the δ–four-stream approximation fares better and is clearly the most accurate. The superiority of the δ–four-stream approximation is particularly noticeable for both net and actinic fluxes when a cloud layer is included. In this paper, information is provided to assist modelers in choosing a computational technique that best suits their needs. The relative computational efficiency of the various radiative transfer techniques is also discussed for the benefit of those modelers who seek a compromise between time and accuracy, rather than solely maximal accuracy in a particular technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences is the property of American Meteorological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Engineering Source

Description
Abstract:	The accuracy and speed of three well-known computational techniques (DISORT, the δ–four-stream approximation, and the two-stream approximation), and the matrix inversion method, which is less well known, have been investigated. Results are presented for both broadband actinic and net fluxes over a range of parameters including solar zenith cosine, relative humidity, and altitude for two different surface/aerosol systems: terrestrial and oceanic. The matrix inversion method can only calculate actinic fluxes; therefore, this is the main focus of this paper. Investigations into the comparative accuracy of the four techniques for the oceanic model with and without a cloud layer included are also presented. (DISORT is taken as the benchmark for this research.) Based on results presented here, it is found that for actinic flux calculations, the δ–four-stream approximation is slightly more accurate than the matrix inversion method, and that both are far more accurate than the two-stream approximation. However, for net flux calculations, the δ–four-stream approximation fares better and is clearly the most accurate. The superiority of the δ–four-stream approximation is particularly noticeable for both net and actinic fluxes when a cloud layer is included. In this paper, information is provided to assist modelers in choosing a computational technique that best suits their needs. The relative computational efficiency of the various radiative transfer techniques is also discussed for the benefit of those modelers who seek a compromise between time and accuracy, rather than solely maximal accuracy in a particular technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00224928
DOI:	10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<3752:AFANFC>2.0.CO;2