-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22
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.
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
1-01-01 Align radiation variables requirements #389
Comments
In this context it also needs to be analysed, how the O/R variable "Radiation profile" can be expressed in WMDR terms.
|
Hi Franziska,
Re: radiation profile.
I suggest we take this one back to WIGOS/RRR. Although “radiation profile” is a variable name in OSCAR/Requirements, no Application Area currently “owns” any requirements for it. We should draw this to their attention and ask them to reconsider both the variable name and its definition.
John
From: Franziska Stürzl ***@***.***>
Sent: 27 April 2022 14:38
To: wmo-im/wmds ***@***.***>
Cc: Eyre, John ***@***.***>; Assign ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [wmo-im/wmds] 1-01-01 Align radiation variables with OSCAR/Requirements and add definitions (Issue #389)
This email was received from an external source. Always check sender details, links & attachments.
In this context it also needs to be analysed, how the O/R variable "Radiation profile" can be expressed in WMDR terms.
It is defined as "Vertical profile of upward and downward LW and SW radiation components".
Does it make sense to introduce a collective term, such as "Radiation components"?
This would allow the following mapping:
O/R
WMDR
Variable: Radiation profile<https://space.oscar.wmo.int/variables/view/radiation_profile>
Observed variable: "Radiation components" + geometry: "vertical profile"
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#389 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWHTXRVWQ7D5FRSD7TKWZTTVHE7KJANCNFSM5UPDZJFA>.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.******@***.***>>
|
See my comment on "radiation profile" above. |
@amilan17 - send this issue to Heikki Pohjola (WMO Secretariat for Space) who may have feedback or be able to help identify others to help review this proposal. |
Following on from my comment above |
subset of issue #190 |
I insist that the existing variables (terms) are scrutinized and properly updated if needed before we add more variables lightly. The terminology 'radiation' vs 'radiance' vs 'irradiance' refers vaguely to the same thing, but I know that some people would insist on one over the other. The existing terms were created and looked at by experts at the time, and I am requesting they be consulted (again). Names I suggest are Ann Webb (UK), Laurent Vuilleumier (MCH), and Julian Gröbner (PMOD/WRC). |
I strongly support @joergklausen's request to have the named experts look at those terms/variables. I also feel there may be some duplications as well as a non-consistent use of terminology here. Ann Webb on board would be great as there would be a direct link to both the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and the GIMO (WMO-No 8). |
@joergklausen @fierz @amilan17 @fstuerzl . I have checked these 6 variables in OSCAR/Requirements. There are 5 RRR Application Areas that have stated requirements for observations of some or all these variables: Global NWP, High-resolultion NWP, Nowcasting, Climate Monitoring (GCOS), Hydrology. I have also checked OSCAR/Space and, in most cases, there are tens of satellite instruments listed as contributing to the observation of these variables. However, I agree that the experts consulted on these issues (i.e. on the requirements, or on the space-based observing capabilities) have probably not given much thought to the exact names of the variables or their definitions. This task (of careful thought) was done by the WMO consultant tasked with proposing the variable names and definitions used in OSCAR/Requirements+Space, and these proposals were subsequently reviewed and accepted by the relevant CBS Expert Team (IPET-OSDE, which has now become JET-EOSDE). So I suggest that these variable names and definitions have already undergone considerable review, but only from the perspective of RRR. It would be beneficial to obtain a review by someone independent of the RRR process. However, as most of the relevant observations are from space, I suggest it should be someone familiar with these technologies. Comments welcome. |
@JohnEyre Thanks for clarifying with OSCAR/Space and RRR. In my view there is quite a redundancy in the variables proposed in the initial lists above. For example, Long-wave earth surface emissivity is very close to Long-wave radiation (upwelling), etc. Thus I agree that experts of both surface and space measurements need to sort this out. |
@fierz . Emissivity is a dimensionless quantity, between 0 and 1. (Normally, emissivity = 1 - reflectivity.) In the thermal infra-red, which is where it matters for many observations and applications, emissivity is close to 1 for the ocean surface and for vegetated surfaces, but differs substantial from 1 for deserts and bare soils, and for some ice surfaces. It's also important to know the emissivity in the microwave, where it is substantially less than one for the ocean surface. Surface emissivity can be retrieved from some satellite measurements. Atlases of emissivity are also required for the processing of other types of satellite data. |
Following @joergklausen request let me include a few comments below (I am Laurent Vuilleumier): The distinction between radiance and irradiance is implicitly addressed by indicating the radiance is the radiant power per solid angle per unit area (we could add “crossing a surface perpendicular to the radiation beam”), while the irradiance is a flux density on a given surface (same surface for radiation from all directions, it is more instrument-related). Since the flux density is a radiation power through a surface (Wm-2), it follows that irradiance is the radiance “directionally”-integrated over a hemisphere. With this, I mean that the integration through the hemisphere includes a cos(theta) term to take into account the orientation of the incoming radiance with respect to the surface through which the irradiance is measured. More precisely, the integration is Integral( Radiance cos(theta) dOmega ), where dOmega is sin(theta) dphi dtheta, which gives Integral( Radiance cos(theta) sin(theta) dphi dtheta) where the integral runs for phi = 0,2pi and for theta = 0,pi. I think this can be surmised from the definitions. Giving the difference between radiance and irradiance more precisely requires including formulas because describing it in writing as above is not optimal. This said, I cannot distinguish “Downward short-wave irradiance” and “Global solar radiation (downwelling)” (573) or “Upward short-wave irradiance” and “Global solar radiation (upwelling)” (574), except if the new proposed definitions are meant for satellite-use and are related to TOA quantities. However, in name themselves (Downward short-wave irradiance, Upward short-wave irradiance or Upward spectral radiance), there is nothing to indicate these are TOA quantities. By the way, in the definition of upward spectral radiance, it is mentioned in the definition that it is measured at the TOA. But except if it is decided from now on from this definition that upward spectral radiance is measured at TOA, I see nothing in the name that says this. Finally, I find confusing to use “Total Solar Irradiance” as the first definition item of the solar spectral irradiance, since I always thought “total” meant integrated over all wavelengths, which the solar spectral irradiance is precisely not. I would rather use a definition such as “spectral solar radiation density flux through a surface perpendicular to the solar beam in W m-2 nm-1. The Total Solar Irradiance results from the integration of the solar spectral irradiance over all wavelengths”. |
@laurentvuilleumier @joergklausen . In OSCAR/Requirements, "TOA" or "Surface" are included as part of the variable name. We have discussed this in TT-WIGOSMD and (tentatively) agreed that, for WMDR, it is better to keep "TOA" and "Surface" separate from the name of the geophysical variable, and to specify it through the "Layer" descriptor. |
Thanks @laurentvuilleumier Your remark
is very pertinent and I am truly sorry I chose the wrong variables above to make the case. BTW, I by far prefer “Upward short-wave irradiance” with its clear description than the much less appropriate “Global solar radiation (upwelling)” (574)_ . @JohnEyre be assured I know the difference between emissivity, the ratio of the thermal radiation from a surface to the radiation from an ideal black surface at the same temperature, a variable on its own indeed, and other measurements of radiation. |
@JohnEyre, @fierz: OK, it seems the distinction between Downward short-wave irradiance and Global solar radiation (downwelling) as well as... is indeed their use as satellite-related (rather TOA) and ground-based measured (rather surface) quantities. The TOA vs. surface quality seems to be mentioned in another part of the description (layer) that was not apparent in this issue. It is fine with me and could help people making the connection between the variables and associated physical quantities, typically when validating satellite-derived quantities with surface measurements. In this case, I would really advocate including a note in the description mentioning that the variables Downward short-wave irradiance and Global solar radiation (downwelling) as well as... are referring to the same physical quantities in satellite vs. ground-based measured context, respectively. |
@laurentvuilleumier @fierz @joergklausen . This Issue (#389) arose out of the discussion on achieving consistency between WMDR and OSCAR/Requirements. So the variables under discussion here are those for which a requirement-to-observe has been stated by one or more WIGOS Applications Areas. Hence they are geophysical variables on which observational information (direct or indirect) has been requested. They don't necessarily correspond to variables than can be observed directly, either from surface or from space. |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/Meeting-2022.09.22 notes:
|
Contacted Schuster, Gregory L. (LARC-E302) [email protected]. He will make comments directly or through me in a few weeks. |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2022.10.06-TT-WIGOSMD meeting notes: @gaochen-larc said that we may need another expert from NOAA or ESA to review |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2022.10.20-TT-WIGOSMD notes:
|
Would like to add a variable: Actinic Flux Here is the AMS definition: The spherically integrated radiation flux in the earth's atmosphere that originates from the sun, including the direct beam and any scattered components. |
I've updated the proposal, by adding two definitions from OSCAR/Requirements to the variables "Background luminance" and "Surface albedo". |
Dear colleagues, @joergklausen invited me to comment on issue #389. I was involved in the revision of the CIE International Lighting Vocabulary (ILV, https://cie.co.at/e-ilv ) which is fully harmonized with the IEV part 845 (https://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/index?openform&part=845 ). I am not really an expert on atmospheric radiation and some comments may therefore seem trivial or inappropriate. In general, I would recommend that in addition to the quantity, the units are also described somewhere. For example at the end of the description " Downward short-wave irradiance" one could add "unit: W m-2". Some comments for the individual entries: Downward short-wave irradiance : Upward short-wave irradiance: similarly: Upward spectral radiance: Solar spectral irradiance: Earth surface short-wave bidirectional reflectance Long-wave earth surface emissivity Hope you find these comments useful. |
About John's comments to ISO definitions communicated by Jörg:
|
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.01.12-TT-WIGOSMD notes:
|
This is now a very long chain of comments, so rather than try and pick out previous comments and provide a response, I will simply give my views.
|
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.02.16-TT-WIGOSMD notes: |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023-03-17-TT-WIGOSMD notes: |
The revised proposal (combining issue #389 and #426) is now published in the proposal summary above. Thanks to @JohnEyre and @joergklausen for their contributions! Experts advise is still needed for the following variables/definitions:
|
@fstuerzl I'm going to create a new branch from master, because it will be too difficult to rebase. |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.04.21-TT-WIGOSMD: |
@fstuerzl @gaochen-larc @joergklausen @amilan17 For the record, I am copying here the comments from Sebastian Schmidt on my comments (above), together with my replies. I reviewed all the comments again, and so some of my replies are modified from previous emails:
To summarise, Sebastian has given us some good comments, but I don't think they affect our proposed variables or their definitions, with the following exceptions:
|
AMS definition for Surface Albedo: The ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the amount of electromagnetic radiation reflected by the earth's surface to the amount incident upon it. Value varies with wavelength and with the surface composition. I wonder if the definition should also indicate surface albedo is also a function of incident angle. |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.05.04-TT-WIGOSMD notes: |
Add the concept of planetary albedo? Includes reflection from the atmosphere including clouds – as measured from satellites.
Ann
From: gaochen-larc ***@***.***>
Sent: 04 May 2023 00:05
To: wmo-im/wmds ***@***.***>
Cc: Ann Webb ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [wmo-im/wmds] 1-01-01 Align radiation variables requirements (Issue #389)
AMS definition for Surface Albedo: The ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the amount of electromagnetic radiation reflected by the earth's surface to the amount incident upon it. Value varies with wavelength and with the surface composition.
I wonder if the definition should also indicate surface albedo is also a function of incident angle.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#389 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/A45BQQZVBYWQ7MIUSAYXW6DXELQCJANCNFSM5UPDZJFA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
@AnnWebb @gaochen-larc @joergklausen @fstuerzl |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.06.01-TT-WIGOSMD notes: |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.06.15-TT-WIGOSMD notes: @joergklausen will review PR |
https://github.com/wmo-im/tt-wigosmd/wiki/2023.06.30-TT-WIGOSMD notes: @joergklausen will review PR 497 |
@amilan17 Done. Pls merge PR |
…gn-radiation-variables-requirements-1 issue #389, update new branch
Proposal Summary
Summary and Purpose
Provide consistent names and descriptions/definitions for radiation terminology; align terminology in use in OSCAR/Surface (based on the WMO codes registry) and OSCAR/Requirements.
Proposal
Add definitions and include the term "radiation" in the UV variables:
Replace the name and add a description for the following variables:
Include the following new variables in table 1-01-01 (Atmosphere):
Reason
Some radiation variables in OSCAR/Requirements currently have no corresponding WMDR variable:
Stakeholder(s)
@JohnEyre
Consultations
@laurentvuilleumier, @PeterBlattner, @AnnWebb
Context
[include references to manuals or guides that are reviewed to ensure alignment, if proposal differs then document how and why]
Expected Impact of Change
LOW for new codes and changes of names and descriptions
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: