...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer >A comparison of two-stream DISORT and Eddington radiative transfer schemes in a real atmospheric profile
【24h】

A comparison of two-stream DISORT and Eddington radiative transfer schemes in a real atmospheric profile

机译：实际大气剖面中两流DISORT和Eddington辐射传输方案的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Solutions of the two-stream DISORT and Eddington radiative transfer schemes are presented with explicit forms of diffuse and direct results. in the single layer, we found that the two schemes are roughly comparable in accuracy. The Eddington scheme was slightly more accurate in the thick optical depth region, while the two-stream DISORT results were slightly better in the thin optical depth region where the solar zenith angle is less than 60 degrees. In multi-layer cases with the inclusion of gaseous transmission and cloud, both of the two-stream schemes were generally accurate under clear sky conditions, with a relative error of less than 1.5% for heating rate and flux. However, tinder cloudy conditions, cloud heating might have been underestimated by as much as 12%, which indicates that a four-stream or higher-stream scheme is necessary to obtain the accurate solar cloud absorption in climate models.
机译：提出了具有明确扩散和直接结果形式的两流DISORT和Eddington辐射转移方案的解决方案。在单层中，我们发现这两种方案的精度大致相当。 Eddington方案在较厚的光学深度区域中的精度稍高一些，而两流DISORT结果在较薄的光学深度区域中的太阳天顶角小于60度时则稍好一些。在包含气体传输和云的多层情况下，两种流方案在晴朗的天空条件下通常都是准确的，加热速率和通量的相对误差小于1.5％。但是，在多雨的多云天气中，云的热量可能被低估了12％，这表明必须有四流或更高流方案才能在气候模型中获得准确的太阳云吸收。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号