Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Radiative transfer x
  • Understanding Diurnal Variability of Precipitation through Observations and Models (UDVPOM) x
  • All content x
Clear All
T. N. Krishnamurti, C. Gnanaseelan, A. K. Mishra, and A. Chakraborty

et al. (2007) examined four versions of the FSU model where the cloud radiative transfer algorithms were different for each version. These versions include the cloud schemes based on Slingo et al. (1987) and Pleim and Xiu (1995) . This study was aimed at comparing the results of short-range predictions from the use of ensemble mean, a unified model, and the multimodel superensemble. In this study the prediction of the diurnal changes for the phase and amplitude (fractional coverage) of low

Full access
Song Yang and Eric A. Smith

into weighted averages determined from the proximity of precalculated forward radiative transfer calculations associated with the individual microphysical profiles to the TMI’s channel-specific measurement values ( Kummerow et al. 1998 ; Olson et al. 2006 ). The 2a12 convective rainfall classification is not applied in this study because its convective definition cannot be directly compared to those used for the 2a25 and 2b31 algorithms (see Hong et al. 1999 ; Olson et al. 2006 ). The 2a25

Full access
Arindam Chakraborty and T. N. Krishnamurti

1. Introduction The diurnal cycle contributes to a large modulation of the time-mean energy budget of the earth–atmosphere system. Bergman and Salby (1997) , from radiative transfer calculations, showed that large errors can occur in the estimation of TOA (a list of acronyms is provided in Table 1 ) shortwave (∼20 W m −2 ) and longwave fluxes (∼5 W m −2 ) if the diurnal cycle is not taken into account. Chakraborty et al. (2007) showed that improvements in the diurnal cycle of low, middle

Full access