Comparison of algorithms for incoming atmospheric long-wave radiation

While numerous algorithms exist for predicting incident atmospheric long-wave radiation under clear (L(clr)) and cloudy skies, few comparisons have been published to assess the accuracy of the different algorithms. Virtually no comparisons have been made for both clear and cloudy skies across multip...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources research 2009-03, Vol.45 (3), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Flerchinger, G.N, Xaio, Wei, Marks, Danny, Sauer, T.J, Yu, Qiang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 3
container_start_page
container_title Water resources research
container_volume 45
creator Flerchinger, G.N
Xaio, Wei
Marks, Danny
Sauer, T.J
Yu, Qiang
description While numerous algorithms exist for predicting incident atmospheric long-wave radiation under clear (L(clr)) and cloudy skies, few comparisons have been published to assess the accuracy of the different algorithms. Virtually no comparisons have been made for both clear and cloudy skies across multiple sites. This study evaluates the accuracy of 13 algorithms for predicting incident long-wave radiation under clear skies, ten cloud correction algorithms, and four algorithms for all-sky conditions using data from 21 sites across North America and China. Data from five research sites were combined with publicly available data from nine sites in the AmeriFlux network for initial evaluation and optimization of cloud cover estimates; seven additional AmeriFlux sites were used as an independent test of the algorithms. Clear-sky algorithms that excelled in predicting L(clr) were the Dilley, Prata, and Ångström algorithms. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) between predicted and measured 30-minute or hourly L(clr) averaged approximately 23 W m-2 for these three algorithms across all sites, while RMSD of daily estimates was as low as 14 W m-2. Cloud-correction algorithms of Kimball, Unsworth, and Crawford described the data best when combined with the Dilley clear-sky algorithm. Average RMSD across all sites for these three cloud corrections was approximately 24 to 25 W m-2 for 30-minute or hourly estimates and approximately 15 to 16 W m-2 for daily estimates. The Kimball and Unsworth cloud corrections require an estimate of cloud cover, while the Crawford algorithm corrects for cloud cover directly from measured solar radiation. Optimum limits in the clearness index, defined as the ratio of observed solar radiation to theoretical terrestrial solar radiation, for complete cloud cover and clear skies were suggested for the Kimball and Unsworth algorithms. Application of the optimized algorithms to seven independent sites yielded similar results. On the basis of the results, the recommended algorithms can be applied with reasonable accuracy for a wide range of climates, elevations, and latitudes.
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2008WR007394
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_21014884</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>21014884</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4331-e356834c09fa388a94d1a716734d39af7979c39d2c4c05376f08752f83c55c0e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90EFP3DAQBWCrKhJbyo17c-qpgXHGseNjtaKAhKBaQMvNGnntxW0Sb-1Qyr_HKKjqqae5fG808xg74nDModEnDUC3XgEo1OIdW3AtRK20wvdsASCw5qjVPvuQ8w8ALlqpFux0GYcdpZDjWEVfUb-NKUwPQ658TFUYbRzCuK1oGmLePbgUbNXHcVs_0W9XJdoEmkIcP7I9T312h2_zgN19O71dnteX12cXy6-XNQlEXjtsZYfCgvaEXUdabDgpLhWKDWry5VZtUW8aW0yLSnroVNv4Dm3bWnB4wD7Pe3cp_np0eTJDyNb1PY0uPmbT8PJX14kCv8zQpphzct7sUhgoPRsO5rUr829XhePMn0Lvnv9rzXq1XPEGGl5S9ZwKeXJ__qYo_TTlJdWa9dWZkfJqLe-_S3Nb_KfZe4qGtqV0c3fTAEfgUrYKAV8Av_OCjA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>21014884</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of algorithms for incoming atmospheric long-wave radiation</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Flerchinger, G.N ; Xaio, Wei ; Marks, Danny ; Sauer, T.J ; Yu, Qiang</creator><creatorcontrib>Flerchinger, G.N ; Xaio, Wei ; Marks, Danny ; Sauer, T.J ; Yu, Qiang</creatorcontrib><description>While numerous algorithms exist for predicting incident atmospheric long-wave radiation under clear (L(clr)) and cloudy skies, few comparisons have been published to assess the accuracy of the different algorithms. Virtually no comparisons have been made for both clear and cloudy skies across multiple sites. This study evaluates the accuracy of 13 algorithms for predicting incident long-wave radiation under clear skies, ten cloud correction algorithms, and four algorithms for all-sky conditions using data from 21 sites across North America and China. Data from five research sites were combined with publicly available data from nine sites in the AmeriFlux network for initial evaluation and optimization of cloud cover estimates; seven additional AmeriFlux sites were used as an independent test of the algorithms. Clear-sky algorithms that excelled in predicting L(clr) were the Dilley, Prata, and Ångström algorithms. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) between predicted and measured 30-minute or hourly L(clr) averaged approximately 23 W m-2 for these three algorithms across all sites, while RMSD of daily estimates was as low as 14 W m-2. Cloud-correction algorithms of Kimball, Unsworth, and Crawford described the data best when combined with the Dilley clear-sky algorithm. Average RMSD across all sites for these three cloud corrections was approximately 24 to 25 W m-2 for 30-minute or hourly estimates and approximately 15 to 16 W m-2 for daily estimates. The Kimball and Unsworth cloud corrections require an estimate of cloud cover, while the Crawford algorithm corrects for cloud cover directly from measured solar radiation. Optimum limits in the clearness index, defined as the ratio of observed solar radiation to theoretical terrestrial solar radiation, for complete cloud cover and clear skies were suggested for the Kimball and Unsworth algorithms. Application of the optimized algorithms to seven independent sites yielded similar results. On the basis of the results, the recommended algorithms can be applied with reasonable accuracy for a wide range of climates, elevations, and latitudes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2008WR007394</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>algorithms ; altitude ; AmeriFlux ; atmospheric sciences ; clearness index ; cloud cover ; estimation ; prediction ; radiation physics ; surface energy balance</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2009-03, Vol.45 (3), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2009 by the American Geophysical Union.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4331-e356834c09fa388a94d1a716734d39af7979c39d2c4c05376f08752f83c55c0e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4331-e356834c09fa388a94d1a716734d39af7979c39d2c4c05376f08752f83c55c0e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2008WR007394$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2008WR007394$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,11493,27901,27902,45550,45551,46443,46867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Flerchinger, G.N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xaio, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sauer, T.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Qiang</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of algorithms for incoming atmospheric long-wave radiation</title><title>Water resources research</title><addtitle>Water Resour. Res</addtitle><description>While numerous algorithms exist for predicting incident atmospheric long-wave radiation under clear (L(clr)) and cloudy skies, few comparisons have been published to assess the accuracy of the different algorithms. Virtually no comparisons have been made for both clear and cloudy skies across multiple sites. This study evaluates the accuracy of 13 algorithms for predicting incident long-wave radiation under clear skies, ten cloud correction algorithms, and four algorithms for all-sky conditions using data from 21 sites across North America and China. Data from five research sites were combined with publicly available data from nine sites in the AmeriFlux network for initial evaluation and optimization of cloud cover estimates; seven additional AmeriFlux sites were used as an independent test of the algorithms. Clear-sky algorithms that excelled in predicting L(clr) were the Dilley, Prata, and Ångström algorithms. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) between predicted and measured 30-minute or hourly L(clr) averaged approximately 23 W m-2 for these three algorithms across all sites, while RMSD of daily estimates was as low as 14 W m-2. Cloud-correction algorithms of Kimball, Unsworth, and Crawford described the data best when combined with the Dilley clear-sky algorithm. Average RMSD across all sites for these three cloud corrections was approximately 24 to 25 W m-2 for 30-minute or hourly estimates and approximately 15 to 16 W m-2 for daily estimates. The Kimball and Unsworth cloud corrections require an estimate of cloud cover, while the Crawford algorithm corrects for cloud cover directly from measured solar radiation. Optimum limits in the clearness index, defined as the ratio of observed solar radiation to theoretical terrestrial solar radiation, for complete cloud cover and clear skies were suggested for the Kimball and Unsworth algorithms. Application of the optimized algorithms to seven independent sites yielded similar results. On the basis of the results, the recommended algorithms can be applied with reasonable accuracy for a wide range of climates, elevations, and latitudes.</description><subject>algorithms</subject><subject>altitude</subject><subject>AmeriFlux</subject><subject>atmospheric sciences</subject><subject>clearness index</subject><subject>cloud cover</subject><subject>estimation</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>radiation physics</subject><subject>surface energy balance</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp90EFP3DAQBWCrKhJbyo17c-qpgXHGseNjtaKAhKBaQMvNGnntxW0Sb-1Qyr_HKKjqqae5fG808xg74nDModEnDUC3XgEo1OIdW3AtRK20wvdsASCw5qjVPvuQ8w8ALlqpFux0GYcdpZDjWEVfUb-NKUwPQ658TFUYbRzCuK1oGmLePbgUbNXHcVs_0W9XJdoEmkIcP7I9T312h2_zgN19O71dnteX12cXy6-XNQlEXjtsZYfCgvaEXUdabDgpLhWKDWry5VZtUW8aW0yLSnroVNv4Dm3bWnB4wD7Pe3cp_np0eTJDyNb1PY0uPmbT8PJX14kCv8zQpphzct7sUhgoPRsO5rUr829XhePMn0Lvnv9rzXq1XPEGGl5S9ZwKeXJ__qYo_TTlJdWa9dWZkfJqLe-_S3Nb_KfZe4qGtqV0c3fTAEfgUrYKAV8Av_OCjA</recordid><startdate>200903</startdate><enddate>200903</enddate><creator>Flerchinger, G.N</creator><creator>Xaio, Wei</creator><creator>Marks, Danny</creator><creator>Sauer, T.J</creator><creator>Yu, Qiang</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200903</creationdate><title>Comparison of algorithms for incoming atmospheric long-wave radiation</title><author>Flerchinger, G.N ; Xaio, Wei ; Marks, Danny ; Sauer, T.J ; Yu, Qiang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4331-e356834c09fa388a94d1a716734d39af7979c39d2c4c05376f08752f83c55c0e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>algorithms</topic><topic>altitude</topic><topic>AmeriFlux</topic><topic>atmospheric sciences</topic><topic>clearness index</topic><topic>cloud cover</topic><topic>estimation</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>radiation physics</topic><topic>surface energy balance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Flerchinger, G.N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xaio, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marks, Danny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sauer, T.J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Qiang</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Flerchinger, G.N</au><au>Xaio, Wei</au><au>Marks, Danny</au><au>Sauer, T.J</au><au>Yu, Qiang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of algorithms for incoming atmospheric long-wave radiation</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><addtitle>Water Resour. Res</addtitle><date>2009-03</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>3</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>While numerous algorithms exist for predicting incident atmospheric long-wave radiation under clear (L(clr)) and cloudy skies, few comparisons have been published to assess the accuracy of the different algorithms. Virtually no comparisons have been made for both clear and cloudy skies across multiple sites. This study evaluates the accuracy of 13 algorithms for predicting incident long-wave radiation under clear skies, ten cloud correction algorithms, and four algorithms for all-sky conditions using data from 21 sites across North America and China. Data from five research sites were combined with publicly available data from nine sites in the AmeriFlux network for initial evaluation and optimization of cloud cover estimates; seven additional AmeriFlux sites were used as an independent test of the algorithms. Clear-sky algorithms that excelled in predicting L(clr) were the Dilley, Prata, and Ångström algorithms. Root mean square deviation (RMSD) between predicted and measured 30-minute or hourly L(clr) averaged approximately 23 W m-2 for these three algorithms across all sites, while RMSD of daily estimates was as low as 14 W m-2. Cloud-correction algorithms of Kimball, Unsworth, and Crawford described the data best when combined with the Dilley clear-sky algorithm. Average RMSD across all sites for these three cloud corrections was approximately 24 to 25 W m-2 for 30-minute or hourly estimates and approximately 15 to 16 W m-2 for daily estimates. The Kimball and Unsworth cloud corrections require an estimate of cloud cover, while the Crawford algorithm corrects for cloud cover directly from measured solar radiation. Optimum limits in the clearness index, defined as the ratio of observed solar radiation to theoretical terrestrial solar radiation, for complete cloud cover and clear skies were suggested for the Kimball and Unsworth algorithms. Application of the optimized algorithms to seven independent sites yielded similar results. On the basis of the results, the recommended algorithms can be applied with reasonable accuracy for a wide range of climates, elevations, and latitudes.</abstract><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2008WR007394</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1397
ispartof Water resources research, 2009-03, Vol.45 (3), p.n/a
issn 0043-1397
1944-7973
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_21014884
source Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals
subjects algorithms
altitude
AmeriFlux
atmospheric sciences
clearness index
cloud cover
estimation
prediction
radiation physics
surface energy balance
title Comparison of algorithms for incoming atmospheric long-wave radiation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T16%3A30%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20algorithms%20for%20incoming%20atmospheric%20long-wave%20radiation&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Flerchinger,%20G.N&rft.date=2009-03&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=3&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2008WR007394&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E21014884%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=21014884&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true