Code additions for alternate g-point cloud optics #300
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR includes code revisions to input and use alternate g-point cloud optics input data. The all-sky example test case was revised to demonstrate the new capability.
Longwave and shortwave flux profile comparisons (between band and g-point clouds optics) were completed for the tropical and mid-latitude winter atmospheric profiles using two cloud cases, one an all liquid low cloud and one an all ice mid-level cloud. The graphics below illustrate impacts of up to one percent in the shortwave liquid cloud case, with smaller impacts in the longwave and in the ice cloud case.
A comparison was also completed between shortwave flux calculations using the RRTMGP band and g-point cloud optics and the LBLRTM shortwave cloudy flux calculations of Lu et al. (2011; https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-10-05001.1). The LBLRTM fluxes from Table 3 of that paper and the comparable results from RRTMGP are shown in the table below. This comparison is not optimized, since small differences in TSI, cloud physical properties, gaseous absorption coefficients, or other parameters may be present.