1 Modelling solar UV radiation in the past: Comparison of algorithms and effects of the selected input data Peter Koepke, Hugo De Backer, Alkiviadis Bais, Aleksander Curylo, Kalju Eerme, Uwe Feister, Bjorn Johnsen, Juergen Junk, Andreas Kazantzidis, Janusz Krzyscin, Anders Lindfors, Jan Asle Ol- seth, Peter den Outer, Anna Pribullova, Alois Schmalwieser, Harry Slaper, Henning Staiger, Jean Verdebout, Laurent Vuilleumier, Philipp Weihs 1 Introduction The knowledge of biologically effective UV radiation doses is important, since UV solar radiation plays a role in many processes in the biosphere, including the influence on human skin and immune system, and may be very harmful if UV exposure exceeds certain limits. Thus to determine the geographical distribution of the UV-daily dose for whole Europe during the last 50 years, the COST action 726 “Long term changes and climatology of UV radiation over Europe” (http://i115srv.vu-wien.ac.at/uv/COST726/Cost726.htm) has been established The methods and re- sults derived in this Action will advance the understanding of UV radiation distribution under various meteorological conditions, determine a UV radiation climatology for Europe and allow one to assess UV changes. An intention is to develop detailed maps of biologically effective solar UV radiation over Europe. These data will represent a basis for research on changes in UV dose regarding geographical distribution and variable biological action spectra, and for investigations of skin cancer inventories and other UV related questions. 2 Method UV radiation in the past and at places without measurements can only be obtained by using models running with the correct input data, i.e. values of the parameters which affect the solar UV radiation at the surface. The astronomical parameters solar elevation and solar-earth-distance are known from geographical coordinates and time, but to get proper values for the atmospheric parameters, like ozone amount, cloud properties, aerosol amount and type, and regional surface albedo needs detailed analysis. This is especially the case for the time many years back, where fewer parameters have been measured and stored than today.
97
Embed
Modelling solar UV radiation in the past: Comparison of ...i115srv2.vu-wien.ac.at/uv/COST726/COST726_Dateien... · sults derived in this Action will advance the understanding of UV
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Modelling solar UV radiation in the past: Comparison of algorithms
and effects of the selected input data
Peter Koepke, Hugo De Backer, Alkiviadis Bais, Aleksander Curylo, Kalju Eerme, Uwe Feister,
Bjorn Johnsen, Juergen Junk, Andreas Kazantzidis, Janusz Krzyscin, Anders Lindfors, Jan Asle Ol-
seth, Peter den Outer, Anna Pribullova, Alois Schmalwieser, Harry Slaper, Henning Staiger, Jean
Verdebout, Laurent Vuilleumier, Philipp Weihs
1 Introduction
The knowledge of biologically effective UV radiation doses is important, since UV solar radiation plays
a role in many processes in the biosphere, including the influence on human skin and immune system,
and may be very harmful if UV exposure exceeds certain limits.
Thus to determine the geographical distribution of the UV-daily dose for whole Europe during the last
50 years, the COST action 726 “Long term changes and climatology of UV radiation over Europe”
(http://i115srv.vu-wien.ac.at/uv/COST726/Cost726.htm) has been established The methods and re-
sults derived in this Action will advance the understanding of UV radiation distribution under various
meteorological conditions, determine a UV radiation climatology for Europe and allow one to assess
UV changes. An intention is to develop detailed maps of biologically effective solar UV radiation over
Europe. These data will represent a basis for research on changes in UV dose regarding geographical
distribution and variable biological action spectra, and for investigations of skin cancer inventories and
other UV related questions.
2 Method
UV radiation in the past and at places without measurements can only be obtained by using models
running with the correct input data, i.e. values of the parameters which affect the solar UV radiation at
the surface. The astronomical parameters solar elevation and solar-earth-distance are known from
geographical coordinates and time, but to get proper values for the atmospheric parameters, like
ozone amount, cloud properties, aerosol amount and type, and regional surface albedo needs detailed
analysis. This is especially the case for the time many years back, where fewer parameters have been
measured and stored than today.
2
Consequently a first objective of the Action was to record the available numerical models and algo-
rithms, the meteorological data needed to run these models, the availability of these data for different
places in Europe, and measured UV data that can be used to check the modelling results.
To do this in a practical way, UV radiation has been modelled for two years in the past for four stations
distributed over Europe, called the “Modelling Exercise”.
The quantity that has been modelled is the erythemal-weighted daily dose. Erythemal weighting has
been used since it is relevant for human health damage and is the quantity that has been measured
most frequently. Also from the modelling site it is the best spectral weighting since some algorithms
are focussed on UV Index, i.e. this type of weighting, but all spectral models easily can produce this
spectral weighting.
The daily dose as the final result was chosen as a compromise between the temporal resolution of the
available input data, on the one hand, and that needed to investigate biological UV-processes, on the
other hand.
The time interval for the test has been chosen as to be complete years, in order to check the widest
range of meteorological conditions. The results, as absolute and relative differences of modelled
against measured data, have been analysed on a daily basis. Thus the results for different time peri-
ods, e.g. because of the low UV-doses during winter time with low effects to human health, can be
analysed additionally.
To cover the geographical range in Europe, modelling has been done for the following sites:
-- Bergen (Norway, 60,4° N, 5.3° E, 45 m a.s.l.),
-- Potsdam (Germany, 52.4° N, 13.1° E, 107 m a.s.l.),
-- Davos (Switzerland, 46.8° N, 9.8° E, 1590 m a.s.l.)
-- Thessaloniki (Greece, 40.6°N, 23.0°E, 60 m a.s.l.)
The modelling exercise has been made for the years 1999 and 2002. These years have been chosen
as two different years with available measured UV doses.
For these two years and four sites, meteorological data which are useful for UV-modelling have been
made available by Woking group 1 of the Cost Action (Hugo De Backer et al.). These data have been
given into consistent format and should be the only basis to be used by the modellers. The data are
described in the next chapter.
3 Observational Data
To run the models, information is needed on ozone amount, on cloud properties, on aerosol amount
and absorption, and on regional surface albedo. Total ozone is taken from measurements by ground
based Dobson and Brewer spectrophotometers (Arosa for Davos, Potsdam (Spänkuch et al., 1999),
and Thessaloniki) that are used in WMO/GAW (www.wmo.ch) and NDACC (www.nadcc.org) observa-
tion networks, and satellite data (Bergen from TOMS, on board of Earth Probe satellite,
3
jwocky.gsfc.nas.gov). Cloud information is contained in total cloudiness, cloudiness for different levels,
solar global irradiance and sunshine duration. Aerosol information is given as optical depth, visibility,
and aerosol type e.g. from spectral extinction, but these data are not routinely measured, so often
climatologic values or assumptions have to be used. Relevant information on surface albedo in the UV
spectral range can be derived from snow age and height. To check the results, measured daily doses
of erythemal-weighted UV are necessary.
As a consequence of these needs, and taking into account the availability of the data, the measured
data listed in the Tab. 3.1 have been made available as input data for the modelling exercise:
Tab. 3.1 List of meteorological, radiation and ozone data made available for the modelling exercise.
Meteorological and radiation data are from meteorological or synoptic observations. The in-
struments for ozone observations are mentioned in the table.
Bergen Potsdam Davos Thessaloniki
Cloud cover X X X X
(relative) sunshine duration X X X X
Diffuse solar radiation X X X
Global solar radiation X X X X
Visibility X X X X
Snow height X X X
Snow age X
Ozone TOMS Dobson
or Brewer
Dobson
(Arosa) Brewer
For verification of the models results comparison is made with UV observations at the same sites. The
UV-index data, which have been used to get the UV-daily doses used for the comparisons, are from
measurements with broadband Instruments or derived from spectral measurements as specified for
the stations in the following.
The UV-measurements for Bergen are based on a multiband filter radiometer, model GUV, serial
number 9270 from Biospherical Instruments Inc. The instrument is part of the national UV-monitoring
network. The radiometer has 5 detector channels in the UV with a spectral bandwidth of ca 10 nm
(FWHM). A linear combination of the output from different detector channels forms the basis for deriv-
ing CIE-effective doses. The absolute calibration is traceable to the Nordic Ozone Group international
intercomparison of global sky instruments in Tyløsand, Sweden, 2000. The instrument is once a year
calibrated against a travelling standard GUV operating side by side the network station instruments.
The calibrations are maintained by the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority.
4
In the framework of the Swiss Radiation Monitoring program (CHARM) of MeteoSwiss, UV erythemally
weighted broadband irradiance has been measured continuously at the World Radiation Center
(PMOD/WRC) at Davos since the end of 1995, using SolarLight 501A (SL501A). The instruments at
the WRC are ventilated and heated to keep the domes free of dew, snow and ice. In addition to this
external ventilation and heating, the temperature of the SL501A instrument body is stabilized to 25°C.
Measurements are performed automatically every 2 s, and 2 min averages are recorded.
The SL501A were initially calibrated, and had their spectral response determined by the manufacturer.
Thereafter, they have been calibrated annually by comparison with a Swiss reference SL501 at the
WRC. The accuracy of the Swiss reference is verified regularly at international intercomparisons. It
initially took part in the WMO/STUK intercomparison in Helsinki, Finland, 1995 [Leszczynski et al.,
1998]. It was also compared to spectroradiometers at Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, 1997 [Phili-
pona et al., 2001], and participated in the COST 713 intercomparison at Thessaloniki, Greece, 1999,
as well as the COST 726 intercomparison at Davos in 2006. Philipona et al. [2001] estimated the ac-
curacy of SL501A radiometers used at Weissfluhjoch a station neighboring Davos. These instruments
are in a setting similar to those used at the WRC at Davos. They also undergo the same calibration
procedure. The absolute accuracy was estimated to be within ±10%. This uncertainty is also applica-
ble to the measurements of Davos.
Erythemal-weighted UV irradiance at Potsdam for the year 2002 was integrated from UV spectra
measured by a Bentham DM150 double monochromator that became operational in the year 2000.
The instrument measures UV spectra in the range from 290 to 450 nm with a spectral bandwidth
(FBHM) of 0.5 nm at time steps of 6 minutes between sunrise and sunset. For the year 1999 at Pots-
dam, measurements by Brewer spectroradiometer No 118 of the type MKIII (double monochromator)
in the spectral range from 290 to 363 nm have been used. All the Brewer spectra were cosine cor-
rected by the method of Feister et al. 1997, and spectral irradiance within the spectral range from 363
to 400 nm estimated by the method of Slaper et al. 1995. Calibration of both instruments has been
based on standard lamps of the FEL1000W type calibrated by the Physikalisch-Technische Bunde-
sanstalt (PTB) in Germany. Brewer instrument No 118 took part in the intercomparison of spectroradi-
ometers at Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1997 (Seckmeyer at al. 1998), and in the QASUME campaign
in 2004 (Gröbner et al. 2004). As the typical number of Brewer spectral scans was only about 10 to 20
spectra per day, part of the variability of UV irradiance due to changing cloudiness between the spec-
tral scans has been accounted for by a method described by Feister and Junk (2006) that takes short-
term global irradiance variability into account for the calculation of hourly and daily UV irradiation.
The UV data for Thessaloniki were produced by an erythemal detector of type YES UVB-1, which is in
operation since 1991. Although spectral UV measurements are also available at the same location
from two Brewer spectroradiometers (Bais et al., 1996), the erythemal detector has better temporal
resolution (every 1 min) which allows more accurate calculation of the daily integrals required for this
study. The detector is regularly calibrated against the two Brewer spectroradiometers, and hence its
stability in time is sufficiently controlled to within about ±7%.
5
4 Models and input data
4.1 Overview Sixteen models and algorithms took part in the modelling exercise. For each model a description is
In the following, the quality of the models is checked by comparing the modelled data against the
measured ones. Thus, it is assumed that the measured data are correct. But it should be kept in mind
that the uncertainty of UV irradiance measured with broad band instruments is at best in the order of
5 %, even in case of high quality assurance. Nevertheless, due to the use of measured data from
different sites, their uncertainty is of minor importance.
Measured daily UV-doses do not exist for all days, and also not all modeller calculated UV-doses for
all days, especially if one of the meteorological quantities used as input parameter was not available.
To perform the comparison of the modelled results on the basis of equal days, for the statistical analy-
sis and for the figures only those days have been used, which are available from all modellers. How-
ever, a comparison of the reduced data sets with data sets with all available data, individual for each
modeller, shows only very small differences in the statistical results.
To give an overview of the measured data, Fig. 5.1 shows the measured UV daily doses for all sta-
tions and the two years, together with their smoothed annual profile.
Figure 5.2 shows, as an example for the agreement between modelled and measured data, correla-
tion coefficients on a monthly base for Thessaloniki 2002.
Fig. 5.2 Thessaloniki 2002: Monthly distribution of the correlation coefficients modelled to measured
daily dose dependent on the model version
20
The values are given for all models and in addition for the assumption of persistence. For December
the correlation for persistence is not shown, because it is negative. But also for all the other months
can be seen that all models result are much better values than persistence and for other stations, with
more clouds than Thessaloniki, correlation for persistence even is worth than shown here. This is the
proof that modelling is necessary. Moreover can be seen already in Fig. 5.2 that the models using
measured values of solar global radiation result in better agreement with the measured UV data than
those models which do not use this information. This fact can easily be understood, since solar global
radiation contains information on the actual influence of clouds and aerosols, which only have to be
converted to the UV spectral range, while the other models use average values for the cloud effects.
This is the reason why a difference is made between these types of models, already in Tab. 4.1 and
again in the following presentation of the results.
5.2 Figures to compare modelled with measured daily doses To show the result of the modelling exercise, i.e. the agreement between modelled and measured
daily UV doses, the following type of figures have been made for each model, each station and both
years:
Scattering of modelled against measured data.
These data show the general agreement between modelled and measured UV data.
Absolute differences, modelled minus measured daily dose, as function of the day in the year
These values are of relevance with respect to the essential UV effects, because the dose is re-
sponsible for the impact of UV. The days with high UV dose during summer will dominate.
Relative differences, modelled minus measured divided by measured daily dose, as function of the
day in the year.
These values are of relevance for the quality of the models from the mathematical point of view.
Since here percentage deviations are considered, the winter values with low absolute values will
result in high deviations.
For all three versions used to present the agreement between measured and modelled UV doses, the
results are shown for each station (Bergen, Davos, Potsdam, Thessaloniki) and each year (2002,
1999) separately. Within the figures the results are presented for all models in the order given in
Tab. 4.1, starting with the 12 models using solar global irradiance and ending with the 4 models which
do not take this information into account.
21
5.3 Modelled against measured UV doses Figures 5.3.a to 5.3.h show modelled against measured data as green dots with bi-section line in
black and best fit straight line in red. The length of the cloud of dots represents the maximum dose at
the station, which increases from Bergen via Potsdam and Thessaloniki to Davos, as already shown in
Fig. 5.1.
The scattering of the points in Figs. 5.3 increases with increasing values, since the points show abso-
lute differences between measured and modelled doses. Another reason for scattering is cloudiness,
because here the largest variability occurs. This will be the explanation for the low scattering for Thes-
saloniki, even for high values during summer.
The results for 2002 and 1999 in general are similar, but differences can be seen for Bergen and for
Potsdam. For Bergen the agreement is worse for 2002 which may be explained by the degradation of
TOMS that has been used for the ozone data taken for modelling, and which was strongest for high
latitudes. The effect can clearly be seen at the highest doses for Bergen 2002, with deviations that are
nearly identical for all models. For Potsdam the agreement of the model dwdf_day is perfect for 1999
and much better than for 2002, but for all other models the agreement it is contrariwise. The reason
could be the UV_measurement at Potsdam. This has been made with a Brewer (See chapter 3) in
1999, and these data also have been used to train the neural network used by dwdf_day. In 2002 the
values used for comparison for Potsdam have been measured by a Bentham at shorter time steps and
thus better representativity of daily totals, with the consequences of different agreement mentioned
above.
Since the clear sky modelling generally is of high quality, besides uncertainties due to actual aerosol
and albedo properties, the agreement between measured and modelled data depends mainly on the
way how to take the cloud effects into account. Thus it is very good for the models that use solar
global irradiance as an input parameter to get a cloud modification factor CMF. Here both the effect of
shadow and cloud optical depth directly has been taken into account, which is not the case for models
that use cloud amount or sun shine duration. On the other hand, with respect to the time in the past
which should be modelled, the question arises whether cloud amount as an input parameter is more
easily available than global irradiance. The model mim_cn4 uses information of global irradiance as an
input parameter, but nevertheless shows systematically too high modelled doses. This effect can be
explained by the data used to train the neural network, which have been measured in an alpine valley
and apparently the effect of horizon has not been considered correctly. This also explains the effect
Fig. 5.3.b Modelled CIE-UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Davos 2002. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line repre-sents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
Fig. 5.3.c Modelled CIE-UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Potsdam 2002. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line repre-sents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
Fig. 5.3.d Modelled CIE UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Thessaloniki 2002. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line represents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
Fig. 5.3.e Modelled CIE UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Bergen 1999. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line repre-sents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
Fig. 5.3.f Modelled CIE UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Davos 1999. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line represents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
Fig. 5.3.g Modelled CIE UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Potsdam 1999. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line repre-sents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
Fig. 5.3.h Modelled CIE UV radiation daily dose as a function of measured value for Thessaloniki 1999. The red line represents linear dependence of modelled values on measured ones; black line represents ideal case when modelled values are equal to measured ones.
38
The quality of the results of multiple scattering models dominantly results from the quality of the used
input parameters (Schwander et al., 1997). Besides the way to consider cloud effects, albedo and
aerosol are the relevant input parameters are. For aerosol very different methods have been used by
different models: climatological values, values measured at the site, values derived from visibility or
aerosol attenuation already has been taken into account by the retrieved CMF. The use of climatologi-
cal values for aerosol optical depth may result in a constant deviation, as it can be seen in the
dwd_acc results for Thessaloniki. Here an optical depth has been taken which is valid for a larger re-
gion and is lower than the value which seems to be valid for the measured data at the station in the
city, resulting in high modelled dose values.
5.4 Absolute differences Figures 5.4.a – 5.4.h show absolute differences, modelled minus measured daily doses, as function
of the day in the year. The figures are presented with respect to model, site and year, in the same
order than Fig. 5.3. If the value of the CMF is available, the data are separated by colour and symbol
for conditions with low (CMF > 0.75), medium (0.75 >= CMF > 0.50) and large attenuation due to
clouds (CMF<0.50). Values larger than 1000 J are presented close to the 1 kJ line and lower than –
1000 J close to –1 kJ, to have the same interval for all figures. The days 21 March and 21 September,
to separate the summer time, are shown with vertical lines.
As already mentioned, the possibility for large absolute differences increases with increasing daily
doses. Thus the differences for the winter time generally are lower, especially for Bergen and Pots-
dam, independent of the model. For Davos and Thessaloniki even in winter larger deviations occur, for
the first due to snow, for the latter due to rather high values due to higher sun even in winter. The dif-
ferent colour for different CMFs give the chance to look for wrong modelling of the cloud effects. The
strength and seasonality of the absolute deviations give additional possibilities to derive the reasons
for the deviations, which could be – beside general model problems – the use of wrong aerosol
amount and properties or a wrong albedo value. This has to be done by separating the results into
different categories, e.g. cloud free conditions, where specific effects may dominate.
39
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
40
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
tobs_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.a Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-
lated for Bergen 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points were sorted with
respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-
UV radiation daily dose.
41
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
42
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.b Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Davos 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
43
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
dwdf_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
44
45
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.c Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Potsdam 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
46
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 20002daily CIE-UV dose
47
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.d Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Thessaloniki 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
48
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
49
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
tobs_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.e Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Bergen 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
50
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
51
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.f Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Davos 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
52
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
53
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.g Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Potsdam 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
54
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
55
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas
(J /
m2 )
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s(J
/ m
2 )Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.4.h Absolute differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses cal-culated for Thessaloniki 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose
56
5.5 Relative differences Figures 5.5.a to 5.5.h show relative deviations, i.e. modelled minus measured daily dose divided by
measured daily dose, as function of the day in the year. Again the model, sites and years are given in
the same order than Fig. 5.3 and again the resulting values are separated for different ranges of CMFs
if this information is available. Values larger than 1 are presented near 1 and lower than –1 near –1.
The days 21. March and 21. September again are shown with vertical lines to separate the summer
time.
In general, in comparison with the absolute deviations, the relative deviations increase for winter time
and are reduced for summer. For some models and sites, the agreement mostly is better than 20%.
57
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sBergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
58
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
tobs_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Bergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sBergen 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.a Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Bergen 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
59
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sDavos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
60
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Davos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sDavos 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.b Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Davos 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with re-spect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
61
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sPotsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
62
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Potsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sPotsdam 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.c Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Potsdam 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
63
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sThessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
64
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Thessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sThessaloniki 2002daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.d Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Thessaloniki 2002. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
65
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
66
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
tobs_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Bergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sBergen 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.e Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Bergen 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
67
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sDavos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
68
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Davos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sDavos 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.f Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Davos 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with re-spect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
69
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdf_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
70
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Potsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sPotsdam 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.g Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Potsdam 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
71
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
auth_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sThessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
dwdk_acc
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
fmi_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
gsas_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
igfp_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
imwm_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
72
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
Jan Feb Mrz Apr Mai Jun Jul Aug Sep Okt Nov Dez-1,0
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
mim_cn4
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/UV
mea
s
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
rivm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
boku_day
all CMF
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_cn1
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
mim_wgt
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ U
Vm
eas
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
uvwm_day
CMF > 0.75 0.75 > CMF > 0.50 CMF < 0.50
(UV
mod
- U
Vm
eas)
/ UV
mea
s
Thessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
jrc_day
all CMF
(U
Vm
od -
UV
mea
s) /
UV
mea
sThessaloniki 1999daily CIE-UV dose
Fig. 5.5.h Relative differences between modelled and measured CIE-UV radiation daily doses calcu-lated for Thessaloniki 1999. If clear-sky CIE-UV radiation was available, the data points are sorted with respect to cloud modification factor (CMF) calculated as a ratio between modelled and clear-sky CIE-UV radiation daily dose.
73
5.6 Statistics of modelled against measured UV doses To get detailed information with respect to the agreement of modelled and measured data, for each
site, each year, and each model version the statistical quantities have been calculated which are
shown in Tab. 5.1. The parameters standard deviation of measurements “st_deviat_x”, of model re-
sults “st_deviat_y”, and the correlation coefficient “r” allow to construct a Taylor diagram (Taylor 2001).
The definition of skill score 1 and 2 are taken from the description of the Taylor diagram. R0 is the
maximum, potentially realisable correlation, and is set to 1. Skill score 2 slightly increases the penalty
for low correlation. They result in different weighting of correlation coefficient and centred pattern root
mean square (≡ standard deviation of bias).
The results for all models and quantities mentioned in Tab. 5.1 are given in Tab. 5.2 to 5.10 for the
different sites and years. Tab. 5.2 to 5.9 summarize the results for each station (Bergen, Davos, Pots-
dam, Thessaloniki) and both years (1999, 2002) separately based on the absolute values. Tab. 5.10
combines all sites and the two years. Since the measured daily dose of a site depends on latitude and
the meteorological specifics in Tab. 5.10 both the measured and modelled absolute values are nor-
malized by the yearly average of the measured daily dose. This shall ensure a balanced weight of the
sites in comparison. The tables confirm the above derived results by statistical numbers.
74
Tab. 5.1 Statistical quantities
Symbol Definition Dimension
pair_number Number (n) of measured and modelled pairs of values 1
avg_meas__x Arithmetic average of measurements (xm):
xm = n-1 · Σ xi J m-2
st_deviat_x Standard deviation of measurements (σx):
σx = sqrt( (n – 1)-1 · Σ (xi – xm )2 ) J m-2
avg_meas_y Arithmetic average of modelled values (ym):
ym = n-1 · Σ yi J m-2
st_deviat_y Standard deviation of measurements (σy):
σy = sqrt( (n – 1)-1 · Σ (yi - ym )2 ) J m-2
bias__x-y Arithmetic average of difference measured – modelled value:
The question remains if the Taylor diagram is able to provide the best model in term of the smallest
distance to the ideal case point, as it is, for example in the 1999 Davos data model C in both figures. A
group of other model points is not far away from this point. Thus, a test is necessary to evaluate how
significant are the differences between locations of the points of the different models in the diagram.
For estimation of the range of the model point distance to the ideal model point the resampling meth-
odology has been used. The distribution of the distance is obtained from the moving-block bootstrap
technique (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993). The bootstrap belongs to the category of nonparametric statis-
tical methods. It is able to simulate the probability distribution of any statistics without making any as-
sumptions related to the temporal or spatial covariance structure of the variables. The data simply are
resampled, with replacement, from the original record. The most challenging problem is to resample
the records in such way, as to preserve the temporal structure of the original time series. The time
series of absolute and relative daily deviations used here can be approximated as a simple autore-
gressive process with small serial correlations. Thus, sequences of 5-day data blocks will be approxi-
mately independent. Resampling of blocks of data is known as the moving-blocks bootstrap first intro-
duced by Kunsch [1989].
Radiation data show a large seasonality (spring/summer and winter maxima in the absolute and rela-
tive deviations data, respectively). So it is assumed that possible blocks for replacement are within ±1
month relative to the removed original block. It is rather an arbitrary assumption but gives ~ 1060 possi-
ble representatives of the original time series for each year. Both the original modelled and measured
time series are bootstrapped using the same sequences of the blocks. So a sample of 1000 pairs of
the annual time series has been analysed. For each model-measurement pair the data necessary for
the point on the Taylor diagram has been calculated. i.e. the normalized standard deviation and the
correlation coefficient and finally the distance to the (0,1). Sensitivity studies show that much larger
samples (10,000 and 100,000) provide similar results. The sample of the model-observation distances
is sorted in ascending order and point No. 25 and No. 975 define the 95% confidence range for the
distance calculated from the original data. The results are shown for all models and sites both for the
absolute deviations (Tab. 6.1 for 1999 and Tab. 6.2 for 2002) and the relative deviations (Tab. 6.3 for
1999 and Tab. 6.4 for 2002).
Analyzing the numbers in these tables show statistically significant differences between models’
performances for different stations and years. Even single model can behave differently for different
stations, which is especially the case for 1999. Many models using the global radiation data (auth,
dwdk_day, dwdk_acc, fmi, gsas, imgw, rivm) perform always better than those using other proxies for
the cloud effects.
89
Tab. 6.1 . Taylor model-measurement distance derived from the absolute deviations for selected sta-tion and model in 1999. The 95% confidence limit is shown in the parentheses.
Tab. 6.2. Taylor model-measurement distance derived from the absolute deviations for the selected station and model in 2002. The 95% confidence limit is shown in the parentheses.
Tab. 6.3. Taylor model-measurement distance derived from the relative deviations for the selected station and model in 1999. The 95% confidence limit is shown in the parentheses. Tab. 6.4. Taylor model-measurement distance derived from the relative deviations for the selected station and model in 2002. The 95% confidence limit is shown in the parentheses.