PNNL

Abstract

Based on monthly-3-hourly and 3-hourly mean surface radiative fluxes and their associated meteorological parameters for 2004 from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project-FD (ISCCP-FD) and the Radiative Flux Analysis method-Produced Surface Observations (RFA-PSO) for 15 high-quality-controlled surface stations, operated by the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN), the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?s Surface Radiation budget network (SURFRAD), this work, goes beyond the previous validation for FD against surface observation by introducing the Meteorological Similarity Comparison Method (MSCM) to make a more precise, mutual evaluation of both FD and PSO products. The comparison results in substantial uncertainty reduction and provides reasonable physical explanations for the flux differences. This approach compares fluxes for cases where the atmospheric and surface physical properties (specifically, the input parameters for radiative transfer model) are as close as possible to the values determined at the observational sites by matching the RFA-produced cloud fraction (CF) and/or optical thickness (Tau), etc., or alternatively, by directly changing the model input variables for FD to match PSO values, and using such-produced matched sub-datasets to make more accurate comparisons based on more similar meteorological environments between FD and PSO. The crucial part is the availability of flux-associated meteorological parameters from RFA-PSO, which was only recently made available that makes this work possible. For surface downwelling shortwave(SW) flux (SWdn) and its two components, diffuse (Dif) and direct (Dir), uncertainty for monthly mean is 15, 15 and 17 W/m2, respectively, smaller than the separately estimated uncertainty values from both FD and PSO. When applying MSCM by reducing their CF difference, the differences can be reduced by a factor of 2. The strength of MSCM is particularly shown in the comparisons of diurnal variations. For clear sky, reducing the FD values of aerosol optical depth (AOD) by 50% to approximately match the PSO values brings all downward SW flux components into substantial agreement. For cloudy scenes, when both CF and Tau are matched to within 0.1 – 0.25 and ~10, respectively, the majority of the SW flux components have nearly-perfect agreement between FD and PSO. The best restriction differences are not zero indicates the influence of other parameters that are not accounted for yet. For longwave (LW) fluxes, general evaluation also confirms uncertainty values for FD and PSO less than separately estimated. When applying MSCM to CF and surface air temperature, the agreement is substantially improved. For downwelling LW diurnal variation comparison, FD shows good agreement with PSO for both RFA-defined or true clear sky but overestimates the amplitude for cloudy sky by 3-7 W/m2, which may be caused by different sensitivities to cirrus clouds. For upwelling LW diurnal cycle, the situation is reversed; FD now underestimates the diurnal amplitude for all and clear sky but generally agrees for overcast (CF > 0.7). The combined effect of downwelling and upwelling LW fluxes results in FD?s underestimates of the diurnal variation of the net-LW-loss for all the scenes by up to 10 W/m2, although the daily mean net loss is more accurate. Therefore, in terms of amplitude and phase, both FD and PSO seem to have caught correct diurnal variations.