| 1. |
- Bui, Hai Thanh, 1972-, et al.
(författare)
-
Group theoretical investigations of daylight spectra
- 2004
-
Ingår i: 2nd European Conference on Color in Graphics, Imaging and Vision,2004. - Springfield, VA, USA : IST: The Society for Imaging Science and Technology. ; , s. 437-
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Landelius, Tomas, et al.
(författare)
-
A system for modelling solar radiation parameters with mesoscale spatial resolution
- 2001
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Today, modern analysis systems synthesise meteorological data from a number of sources, e.g.\ground based SYNOP, satellites, radar, etc., into field information which enable us to model radiation at the Earth’s surface on the mesoscale. At the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) we have set up a model system that produce hourly information in terms of field data with a resolution of about 22x22 km2 for a geographic area covering Scandinavia and the run off region of the Baltic sea. Presently, the model calculates fields of global-, photosynthetically active- (PAR), UV- and direct radiation based on output from a mesoscale analysis system, a high resolution limited area numerical weather prediction model (NWP), an ice model for the Baltic sea together with satellite measurements of total ozone. A spectral clear sky model lies at the heart of the model system. Its output is multiplied by a function which captures the influence of clouds and precipitation. Different cloud effect functions are applied to the different radiation components, with the exception of global- and PAR for which the same relation is assumed. Measurements from the radiation network of SMHI were used for estimation and validation purposes. A first evaluation of the model system suggests that the RMSE for hourly global radiation data is on the order of 28% and about 16% for daily values. These errors are comparable to those obtained for models purely based on synoptic observations (SYNOP) (29% and 13%) . For UV radiation the figures are similar but for the direct radiation component they are worse; 53% and 31% respectively compared to 25% and 15% for the SYNOP models. To some extent the larger errors for the direct component could be explained by its sensitivity to scale differences when model grid squares are validated against point measurements.
|
|
