Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Parameterizations

By Feng Zhang, Yi-Ning Shi, Kun Wu, Jiangnan Li and Wenwen Li

Submitted: April 4th 2018Reviewed: October 18th 2018Published: April 23rd 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.82122

Downloaded: 185

Abstract

Various radiative transfer (RT) schemes are presented in the chapter including four-stream discrete ordinates adding method (4DDA), four-stream harmonic expansion approximation (4SDA) for the solar spectra and absorption approximation (AA), variational iteration method (VIM) for the infrared spectra. 4DDA uses Gaussian quadrature method to deal with the integration in the RT equation. 4SDA considers four-order spherical harmonic expansion in radiative intensity. VIM allows the zeroth-order solution to be identified as AA, and the scattering effect is included in the first-order iteration. By applying 4DDA/4SDA to a realistic atmospheric profile with gaseous transmission considered, it is found that the accuracy of 4DDA/4SDA is superior to two stream spherical harmonic (Eddington approximation) adding method (2SDA) and two-stream discrete ordinates adding method (2DDA), especially for the cloudy conditions. It is shown that the relative errors of 4DDA/4SDA are generally less than 1% in heating rate, while the relative errors of both 2SDA and 2DDA are over 6%. By applying VIM to a full radiation algorithm a gaseous gaseous transmission, it is found that VIM is generally more accurate than the discrete ordinates method (DOM). Computationally, VIM is slightly faster than DOM in the two-stream case but more than twice as fast in the four-stream case. In view of its high overall accuracy and computational efficiency, 4DDA, 4SDA, as well as VIM are well suited in solving radiative transfer in climate models.

Keywords

  • atmospheric radiative transfer
  • solar four-stream discrete ordinates adding method
  • solar four-stream harmonic expansion approximation
  • infrared variational iteration method
  • infrared absorption approximation
  • integro-differential equation

1. Introduction

Solving the radiative transfer (RT) equation is a key issue when dealing with solar/infrared radiative processes related to climate simulations (e.g., radiative flux and heating rate calculation at each level of a climate model). In recent decades, numerous approximation techniques have been proposed to solve the RT equation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].

For solar radiation, analytical solutions of various two-stream approximations [6] have been widely used in climate models [7]. More accurate methods of four-stream approximation and six-stream approximation have also been proposed (e.g., [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]). Based on the invariance principle [14], an adding method of four-stream discrete ordinates method (DOM) (4DDA) has been proposed. The advantage of the adding method is that it can handle partial cloud in climate models (e.g., [15, 16, 17]). 4DDA is much more accurate than the adding method of two-stream DOM (2DDA) in flux and heating rate calculation, especially under cloudy-sky conditions, where cloud plays an important role in radiative transfer with different dynamics and microphysics [18, 19]. Zhang and Li [20] proposed a new solar RT parameterization (4SDA) which is based on four-stream harmonic expansion to simulate RT in climate modeling.

Since scattering is much weaker for infrared radiation than for solar radiation, an absorption approximation (AA) is used in most current climate models [7]. In AA, the scattering phase function is replaced by a δ-function, meaning that scattering is neglected in all but the forward direction. The advantage of AA is that the upward and downward transfer processes are completely separated. If scattering is considered, the upward and downward intensities are coupled. Under this condition, Fu [21] derived an inverse matrix method to deal with multiple scattering in the atmosphere by using the two-stream DOM (2DOM) and the four-stream DOM (4DOM). It is found that 4DOM is more accurate than 2DOM, especially for thin optical depths. Even if scattering is included, TOA errors for 2DOM can still be >2 W m−2 for cirrus clouds [22]. The 4DOM results tend to be very accurate, but the calculation process is complicated. Zhang et al. [23] apply the four-stream adding method to resolve multilayer infrared RT.

In the past two decades, the variational iteration method (VIM) has been used to deal with many nonlinear problems [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. In addition, VIM has been shown to converge faster to the exact solution than other methods do. An accurate solution can be found for most nonlinear problems in only one or two iterations for small solution domains in VIM [27, 31]. Because of its flexibility, convenience and efficiency, VIM has been applied to various nonlinear equations ([27, 28, 29] and many others). In VIM, a nonlinear problem is separated into linear and nonlinear terms, where the latter are usually difficult to deal with and are initially approximated as a first guess. Subsequently, a correction function is constructed by using a general Lagrange multiplier that can be identified optimally via variational theory. Although the infrared RT equation is not a nonlinear equation, it contains an integral term for the scattering, and this is very complicated to deal with. Therefore, VIM is applied to solve the infrared RT equation.

The objective of the chapter is to introduce 4DDA/4SDA scheme [15] for solar RT, AA, and VIM [32] schemes and apply them to resolve solar/infrared radiative transfer in RT models. The simulation results and their comparison to results from the 128-stream discrete ordinates method radiative transfer scheme [33] are shown in Section 4. Finally, a summary is given in Section 5.

2. Parameterizations for solar radiative transfer

The azimuthally averaged solar RT equation is

μdIτμ=Iτμω2−11Iτμ'Pμμ'dμ'ω4πF0eτ/μ0Pμμ0E1

where μis the cosine of the zenith angle (we use the positive and negative μto denote the upward and downward light beams, respectively), τis optical depth, ωis single-scattering albedo, and Pμμ'is the azimuthally averaged scattering phase function, defining the light incidence at μ', which is scattered in the direction μ. F0is the incoming solar flux and μ0is the solar zenith angle. The Pμμ'can be written as

Pμμ'=l=0NωlPlμPlμ'E2

where Plis the Legendre function. The ωlcan be determined from the orthogonal property of Legendre polynomials: ωl=2l+1/2PcosΘPlcosΘdcosΘ. In our notations, ω0=1and ω1=3g. gis the asymmetry factor.

2.1. Four-stream discrete ordinates scheme

The four-stream discrete ordinates scheme (4DDA) use the Gaussian quadrature method to deal with the integration in Eq. (1). Eq. (1) yields

μidIτμi=Iτμiω2l=03ωlPlμij=22IτμjPlμjajω4πF0eτ/μ0l=03ωlPlμiPlμ0E3

where the quadrature point μi=μi, the weight ai=aiwith i=±1,±2, μ1=0.2113248, μ2=0.7886752and a1=a2=0.5.

After a lengthy and laborious derivation, the solution of (3) is given by

Iτμ2Iτμ1Iτμ1Iτμ2=φ2+e2φ1+e1φ1e3φ2e4φ2+e2φ1+e1φ1e3φ2e4φ2e2φ1e1φ1+e3φ2+e4φ2e2φ1e1φ1+e3φ2+e4G+Z2+Z1+Z1Z2expτ/μ0E4

where G is determined by the boundary conditions, and values of other parameters are shown in [13].

The adding method which is used to deal with multilayer RT is shown in [13].

2.2. Four-stream spherical harmonic expansion scheme

The purpose of the four-stream spherical harmonic expansion (4SDA) is to separate out the angle-dependent intensity by assuming

Iτμ=l=03IlτPlμE5

By substituting Eqs. (2) and (5) into Eq. (1) and using the orthogonality relation of the Legendre function in 1μ1, we obtain

dI1=a0I0b0eτ/μ0E6
2dI2+dI0=a1I1b1eτ/μ0E7
3dI3+2dI1=a2I2b2eτ/μ0E8
3dI2=a3I3b3eτ/μ0E9

The solution of Eqs. (6)(9) is

I0I1I2I3=e1e3e2e4R1e1R1e3R2e2R2e4P̂1e1P̂1e3P̂2e2P̂2e4Q1e1Q1e3Q2e2Q2e4G+η0η1η2η3expτ/μ0E10

where Gis determined by the boundary conditions, and values of other parameters can be found at [20].

The 4SDA can also be applied to solve multilayer solar RT. The detailed process can be found at [20].

3. Parameterizations for infrared radiative transfer

The infrared RT equation for intensity Iτμis

μdIτμ=Iτμ1ωBτω2−11Iτμ'Pμμ'dμ'E11

where μ, τ, ω, and Pare the same as one in Eq. (1). The Planck function is approximated exponentially in optical depth [17, 18] as Bτ=B0eβτwhere β=lnB1/B0/τ1. τ1is the optical depth of the considered layer. Planck functions B0and B1are evaluated by the temperature of the top (τ=0) and bottom (τ=τ1) of the layer, respectively.

3.1. Absorption approximation

In absorption approximation (AA), the scattering phase function Pμμ'is simplified as a δμμ'function [22], and the infrared RT equation becomes

μdI0τμ=1ωI0τμ1ωB0eβτE12

We use I0as the radiative intensity from the absorption approximation. The solution of Eq. (12) is

I0τ±μ=I0τs±μ1ωμβ±1ωB0eβτse±1ωττs/μ±1ωμβ±1ωB0eβτE13

where ±μis corresponding to the upward (downward) path and τsis the initial point at optical depth τs=0for the downward direction and at τs=τ1for the upward direction. Generally, AA is applied to the two-stream case (δ-2AA) and the four-stream case (δ-4AA). In the following subsection, the AA solution is used as the initial approximate solution of the VIM.

3.2. Variational iteration method

A general nonlinear system is used to illustrate the basic idea of variational iteration method (VIM) [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]:

x+x=hxE14

where υxis the function to be solved and hx, L, and Nare an inhomogeneous term, a linear operator, and a nonlinear operator, respectively. If υxis found in the (n)th iteration, the (n + 1)th-order functional solution is

υn+1x=υnx+0xλζnζ+Nυ˜nζhζE15

Here, υ˜nζis considered as a restricted variation [i.e., δ̂υ˜nζ=0], where δ̂represents the variation. The term λζis a general Lagrange multiplier and should be identified optimally by using variational theory.

Based on VIM, the functional reiteration of the infrared RT equation can be deduced as

In+1τ±μ=Inτ±μ+τsτλ±s[dIns±μdsIns±μμ±ω2μ−11I˜nsμ'P±μμ'dμ'±1ωB0eβs/μ]dsE16

According to VIM theory, under the conditions that δ̂Ins±μs=τs=0, δ̂τsτ1ωB0eβsμds=0and the restricted variation δ̂I˜nsμ'=0, Eq. (16) yields

δ̂In+1τ±μ=1+λ±sδ̂In(s±μ)s=τ+δ̂τsτ±sdsλ±sμIns±μdsE17

For the above correction functional to be stationary [i.e., δ̂In+1τ±μ=0], we require the following stationary conditions:

±sdsλ±sμ=0andλ±ss=τ=1E18

Therefore the Lagrangian multiplier λ±scan be identified as

λ±s=e±τs/μE19

By substituting Eq. (19) into Eq. (16), we obtain

In+1τ±μ=Inτ±μτsτe±τs/μ[dIns±μdsIns±μμ±ω2μ−11Insμ'P±μμ''±1ωB0eβs/μ]dsE20

In two-stream VIM (2VIM), the term of −11Insμ'P±μμ''in Eq. (22) is simplified as

−11Insμ'P±μμ''=1+3gμμ1Insμ1+1+3gμμ1Insμ1E21

where μ1=μ1=1/1.66. The AA expression shown in Eq. (15) is used as the initial zeroth-order solution. By substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (22), we obtain the first-order solution of upward intensity at τ=0and downward intensity at τ=τ1. Detailed process can be found at [30]. The upward and downward fluxes are written as

F+0=πI10μ1andFτ1=πI1τ1μ1E22

We consider a surface boundary condition with a surface emissivity εsas follows in 2VIM

Isμ1=1εsIsμ1+εsBTsE23

where Ts, Isμ1, and Isμ1are the surface temperature, upward intensity, and downward intensity, respectively, at the surface.

In four-stream VIM (4VIM), the term of−11Insμ'P±μμ''in Eq. (22) is simplified as

−11Insμ'Pμiμ''=12j=221+3iμjInsμjE24

where μ1=μ1=0.2113248and μ2=μ2=0.7886752. The AA expression shown in Eq. (15) is used as the initial zeroth-order solution. Detailed process can be found at [30]. The upward and downward fluxes are written as

F+0=2πa1μ1I10μ1+a2μ2I10μ2E25
Fτ1=2πa1μ1I1τ1μ1+a2μ2I1τ1μ2E26

The surface boundary condition with an emissivity εsis given by

Isμi=21εsj=12ajμjIsμj+εsBTsE27

To enhance the accuracy of the radiative schemes, a δ-function adjustment is used to adjust the optical parameters following Wiscombe [34]. We refer to the VIM solutions with the δ-function applied as δ-2VIM and δ-4VIM.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Solar spectra

RT in the atmosphere is a complicated process. It depends not only on the single-layer direct reflection and transmission but also on the diffuse results and the gaseous transmission, cloud-aerosol scattering and absorption, etc. It is important to evaluate errors in radiation under a variety of atmospheric conditions by using a radiation algorithm. The Fu-Liou radiation model [35] is used in this study. This model adopts the correlated-k distribution method for gaseous transmission, including five major greenhouse gases, H2O, CO2, O3, NO2, and CH4.

In benchmark calculations, the discrete ordinates model [33] with a 128-stream scheme (128S) is incorporated with the gaseous transmission scheme of the Fu-Loiu radiation model [35] by replacing the existing radiative transfer algorithm in the model. Also the two-stream discrete ordinates adding method (2DDA), Eddington adding method (2SDA), four-stream discrete ordinates adding method (4DDA), and four stream spherical harmonic adding method (4SDA) schemes are incorporated with the same gaseous transmission scheme. The atmosphere was vertically divided into 280 layers, each of thickness 0.25 km. The mid-latitude winter of atmospheric profile [36] is used with a surface albedo of 0.2 for each band. For a water cloud the optical properties are parameterized in terms of liquid water content (LWC) and effective radius (re) [36]. Two calculations are performed: (1) a low cloud (LWC=0.22gm3, re=5.89μm) positioned from 1.0 to 2.0 km and (2) a middle cloud (LWC=0.28gm3, re=6.19μm) positioned from 4.0 to 5.0 km. Three solar zenith angles of μ0=1, μ0=0.5, and μ0=0.25are generally considered.

In Figure 1, the benchmark results of heating rate are shown for three solar zenith angles under low/middle cloud condition (Figure 1a–c for low cloud condition, Figure 1g–i for middle cloud condition) as well as the absolute errors of 2DDA, 2SDA, 4DDA, and 4SDA against the benchmark results (Figure 1d–f for cloud condition, Figure 1j–l for middle cloud condition). When μ0=1, the absolute errors of 2DDA are up to about 1.5 and 2.3 K day−1 (relative errors about 6%) for the low and middle clouds. The error of 2SDA is smaller than 2DDA. When μ0=0.25, the result becomes opposite as the error of 2SDA becomes larger than 2DDA. By using 4DDA and 4SDA, relative errors are much suppressed. In general, the relative error becomes less than 1% for the three solar zenith angles. This indicates both 4DDA and 4SDA are accurate enough to obtain cloud-top solar heating.

Figure 1.

Heating rate profiles computed from 128S and the error profiles from 2DDA, 2SDA, 4DDA, and 4SDA. Three solar zenith angles μ 0 = 1 , μ 0 = 0.5 , and μ 0 = 0.25 are considered.

4.2. Infrared spectra

For the infrared spectra, the accuracy and efficiency of δ-2AA, δ-4AA, δ-2VIM, δ-4VIM, δ-2DOM, and δ-4DOM will be systematically compared. In addition, the discrete ordinates model [28] with a 128-stream scheme (δ-128DOM) is used as the benchmark model.

A radiation model [17] is used to study the accuracy of the VIM scheme for multiple layers within a model atmosphere. A correlation-k distribution scheme is used to simulate the gaseous transmission with profiles for H2O, CH4, CO2, NO2, O3, and CFCs. This model is reasonably efficient because it neglects to scatter for certain intervals with very large absorption coefficients and water vapor continuum at high altitudes. Nine infrared bands are adopted in this model in wavenumber ranges 0–340, 340–540, 540–800, 800–980, 980–1100, 1100–1400, 1400–1900, 1900–2200, and 2200–2500 cm−1. The optical properties of ice and water clouds are calculated based on the radiative property parameterization of [37, 38, 39], respectively. The mid-latitude winter atmospheric profiles [36] are used. The atmospheric profile is divided into homogeneous layers with a geometrical thickness of 0.25 km.

In this model, a low cloud with an effective radius re=5.89μmand liquid water content LWC=0.22gm3is located at 1.0–2.0 km, a middle cloud with re=5.89μmand LWC=0.22gm3is located at 4.0–5.0 km, and a high cloud with a mean effective size De=41.1μmand an ice water content IWC=0.0048gm3is located at 9.0–11.0 km. The surface emissivity εsis set to 1.

In the left column of Figure 2, the benchmark heating rates calculated by δ-128DOM are given under conditions of low clouds (Figure 2a), middle clouds (Figure 2d), high clouds (Figure 2g) and the all-sky case containing a combination of low, middle, and high clouds (Figure 2j). The middle column of Figure 2 shows the errors in the calculated heating rates of δ-2AA, δ-2DOM, and δ-2VIM compared to those of δ-128DOM. Furthermore, the right column of Figure 2 shows the errors in the calculated heating rates of δ-4AA, δ-4DOM, and δ-4VIM compared to those of δ-128DOM.

Figure 2.

Heating rate profiles calculated by δ-128DOM and the error profiles produced by δ-2AA, δ-4AA, δ-2DOM, δ-4DOM, δ-2VIM, and δ-4VIM in the mid-latitude winter atmospheric profile with surface emissivity ε s = 1 for (a)–(c) low cloud, (d)–(f) middle cloud, (g)–(i) high cloud, and (j)–(l) all three cloud types.

For the low-cloud case, the maximum errors of δ-2AA, δ-2DOM, and δ-2VIM are 20.8, 10.5, and 10.3 K day−1, respectively, at a height corresponding to the top of the cloud (Figure 2b). The maximum errors of δ-4AA, δ-4DOM, and δ-4VIM are 20.9, 10.1, and 10.03 K day−1, respectively, at the same height (Figure 2c). This shows that, for low-level water clouds, δ-2VIM (δ-4VIM) is more accurate than δ-2AA (δ-4AA) and δ-2DOM (δ-4DOM).

For the middle cloud, the maximum errors of δ-2AA, δ-2DOM, and δ-2VIM are approximately 20.9, 11.1, and 10.8 K day−1, respectively, at a height corresponding to the top of the cloud. At the bottom of the cloud, the errors are 10.6 K day−1 for δ-2AA and just 20.05 and 10.05 K day−1 for δ-2DOM and δ-2VIM, respectively (Figure 2e). At the top of the cloud, δ-4AA, δ-4DOM, and δ-4VIM produce biases of approximately 11.1, 10.7, and 10.5 K day−1, respectively (Figure 2f).

For the high-cloud case, the optical depth of the ice cloud is much smaller than that of the water cloud. Based on the results shown in Figure 2, the accuracies of δ-2DOM and δ-2VIM are similar and are better than that of δ-2AA. Furthermore, δ-4AA, δ-4DOM, and δ-4VIM have very similar accuracies. As seen in the third row in Figure 2, δ-2AA produces an error of approximately 10.6 K day−1 at a height corresponding to the top of a high cloud. The accuracies of δ-2DOM and δ-2VIM are similar; the maximum errors of both are approximately 10.5 K day−1 (Figure 2h). The maximum errors of δ-4AA, δ-4DOM, and δ-4VIM are all about 10.1 K day−1(Figure 2i). However, the difference is that the maximum errors occur at top of the high cloud for δ-4AA but on the bottom for δ-4DOM and δ-4VIM.

In the case of all three clouds together, δ-2VIM is more accurate than δ-2AA and δ-2DOM for the low and middle clouds (Figure 2k). In general, δ-4DOM and δ-4VIM are comparable in accuracy for cloud heating rate (Figure 2l).

The results of upward (downward) flux at the TOA (surface) for the six schemes are presented in Table 1 for mid-latitude winter profiles with the surface emissivity εs=1. For the low and middle clouds, the δ-2AA overestimates the upward flux at TOA by 1.8 and 2.1 W m−2, respectively. The errors of the δ-2DOM are up to 21.0 and 21.2 W m−2, while that of the δ-2VIM is limited to 20.7 W m−2. Also, the δ-4VIM is generally more accurate than the δ-4DOM. However, the results for the high clouds are reversed, with the δ-2VIM errors becoming larger than that of δ-2DOM. For the downward flux at the surface, the AA schemes are generally more accurate than the corresponding DOM and VIM schemes except in the middle-cloud case. We also calculate the mean square error of each scheme. For upward flux at TOA, the mean square error of VIM is generally smaller than one of DOM and AA. However, the mean square error of 2VIM and 4VIM is 0.10 W m−2 and 0.17 W m−2, respectively, while the mean square error of 2AA is limited to 0.08 W m−2.

Atmospheric condition128DOM2AA2DOM2VIM4AA4DOM4VIM
Upward flux (TOA)
Low clouds209.5326211.2735
(1.7409)
208.5206
(−1.012)
209.0425
(−0.4901)
210.9585
(1.4259)
209.1645
(−0.3681)
209.5458
(0.0132)
Middle clouds183.5646185.7200
(2.1554)
182.4027
(−1.1619)
182.9060
(−0.6586)
182.4002
(−1.1644)
183.1096
(−0.4550)
183.5357
(−0.0289)
High clouds198.1357200.3545
(2.2188)
198.6394
(0.5037)
198.8373
(0.7016)
199.2441
(1.1084)
197.2351
(−0.9006)
197.4354
(−0.7003)
Low, middle, and high clouds176.3821179.7768
(3.3947)
175.6421
(−0.7400)
176.2356
(−0.1465)
178.8788
(2.4967)
175.5891
(−0.7930)
175.8856
(−0.4965)
Mean square error6.03090.79390.29692.71280.44560.1845
Downward flux (surface)
Low clouds302.7236302.7267
(0.0031)
302.9533
(0.2297)
302.9384
(0.2148)
302.7429
(0.0193)
302.8662
(0.1426)
302.8449
(0.1213)
Middle clouds287.4458286.9155
(−0.5303)
287.7658
(0.3200)
287.6141
(0.1683)
287.7658
(0.3200)
287.5678
(0.1220)
287.5418
(0.096)
High clouds247.8497248.0313
(0.1816)
248.3309
(0.4812)
248.3303
(0.4806)
248.2968
(0.4471)
248.5608
(0.7111)
248.6452
(0.7955)
Low, middle, and high clouds302.1410302.0497
(−0.0913)
302.4413
(0.3003)
302.4227
(0.2817)
302.0189
(−0.1221)
302.3161
(0.1751)
302.3151
(0.1741)
Mean square error0.08060.11920.09620.07940.14290.1718

Table 1.

Comparison of δ-2AA, δ-4AA, δ-2DOM, δ-4DOM, δ-2VIM, and δ-4VIM for flux (W m−2) at the top and surface by using the mid-latitude winter atmospheric profile with εs=1.

The flux differences between the six approximate schemes and δ-128DOM are listed in parentheses. All δ symbols are neglected in the table.

For climate modeling, the efficiency of radiative transfer parameterization is also very important. Table 2 lists the computing times required for δ-2AA, δ-4AA, δ-2DOM, δ-4DOM, δ-2VIM, and δ-4VIM, which were computed by HP EliteDesk 880 G1 TWR with 8 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7–4790 CPUs, 32-bit operating system, and 8GB memory. The results are normalized to that of δ-2AA. The computational efficiency of δ-2VIM is slightly better than that of δ-2DOM, which took more than double the time of δ-2AA. However, δ-4VIM is more than twice as fast as δ-4DOM for the radiation algorithm alone and the radiation model.

2AA4AA2DOM4DOM2VIM4VIM
Algorithm only1.01.44122.222314.81952.03655.3615
Radiation model1.01.10951.41145.88991.37592.2739

Table 2.

Computing times of δ-2AA, δ-4AA, δ-2DOM, δ-4DOM, δ-2DDA, δ-4DDA, δ-2VIM, and δ-4VIM (normalized by the computing time of δ-2AA).

All δ symbols are neglected in the table.

5. Summary and conclusions

The objective of the paper is to introduce 4DDA/4SDA [13, 20] for solar RT, AA, and VIM [32] for infrared RT and applied them to radiative transfer models.

4DDA use Gaussian quadrature method to deal with the integration in the RT equation. 4SDA is based on four-stream harmonic expansion in radiative intensity. By applying 4DDA/4SDA to a realistic atmospheric profile with gaseous transmission considered, it is found that the accuracy of 4DDA/4SDA is superior to Eddington adding method (2SDA) and two-stream discrete ordinates adding method (2DDA), especially for the cloudy conditions. It is shown that the relative errors of 4SDA are generally less than 1% in heating rate, while the relative errors of both 2SDA and 2DDA are over 6%.

VIM differs from other analytical methods for solving nonlinear differential equations in that it requires neither linearization nor small perturbations. The optimal result is constructed through variation by a Lagrange multiplier. It was found that the scattering term in the infrared RT equation could be dealt with as a nonlinear operator in VIM. By taking the AA solution as the zeroth-order solution, the scattering effect was properly included in the first-order iterative solution.

The six schemes of δ-2AA, δ-4AA, δ-2DOM, δ-4DOM, δ-2VIM, and δ-4VIM were compared systematically against the benchmark results provided by δ-128DOM for a multilayer case. For a multilayer atmosphere, VIM gave more accurate results than those of DOM and AA for the low and middle clouds in both the two- and four-stream cases. However, the errors from VIM for high clouds were similar to those from AA.

Computationally, δ-2VIM and δ-2DDA were slightly faster than δ-2DOM, which took more than double time of δ-2AA. However, δ-4VIM/δ-4DDA was more than twice as fast as δ-4DOM for both the pure radiation algorithm and the radiation model in a layered, cloudy atmosphere. In general, the main benefit of δ-2VIM was an improved accuracy with a computational time similar to that of δ-2DOM. The main benefit of δ-4VIM/δ-4DDA was improved computational efficiency with accuracy similar to that of δ-4DOM.

In view of their overall high accuracy and computational efficiency, the conclusion is that 4DDA, 4SDA, δ-2VIM, and δ-4VIM are well suited for parameterizing the solar/infrared RT in climate models.

Acknowledgments

The work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2018YFC1507002) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (41675003 and 41675056).

How to cite and reference

Link to this chapter Copy to clipboard

Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Feng Zhang, Yi-Ning Shi, Kun Wu, Jiangnan Li and Wenwen Li (April 23rd 2019). Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Parameterizations, Understanding of Atmospheric Systems with Efficient Numerical Methods for Observation and Prediction, Lei-Ming Ma, Zhang Chang-Jiang and Feng Zhang, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.82122. Available from:

chapter statistics

185total chapter downloads

More statistics for editors and authors

Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications.

Access personal reporting

Related Content

This Book

Understanding of Atmospheric Systems with Efficient Numerical Methods for Observation and Prediction

Edited by Lei-Ming Ma

Next chapter

Evaluating Cooling Tower Scheme and Mechanical Drag Coefficient Formulation in High-Resolution Regional Model

By Miao Yu and Shiguang Miao

Related Book

Frontiers in Guided Wave Optics and Optoelectronics

Edited by Bishnu Pal

First chapter

Frontiers in Guided Wave Optics and Optoelectronics

By Bishnu Pal

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

More About Us