New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Revisit the overlap assumption #303

Open

szy21 opened this issue Jul 15, 2022 · 1 comment

Member

szy21 commented Jul 15, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Currently, we are using the maximum random overlapping assumption from RRTMG. (Note that it is different from the one in RRTMGP.)

Robert notes that maximum-random overlap has the disadvantage of being closely tied to the vertical discretization. Overlap formulations which rely on correlations with vary with physical distance, as described in the second paper below, are more robust.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1256/qj.03.99
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005100

Right now, there are no physical tests for the overlap assumption. Tapio suggested that we use 3D radiation as a reference (see Clare's paper).

The original RRTMG also has some useful tests: https://github.com/AER-RC/RRTMG_SW

Member Author

szy21 commented Jul 21, 2022

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment