Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Angular Distribution Models for Top-of-Atmosphere Radiative Flux Estimation from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System Instrument on the Terra Satellite. Part II: Validation

Loeb, Norman G., Kato, Seiji, Loukachine, Konstantin, Manalo-Smith, Natividad, Doelling, David R.·2007·Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology

Abstract

Errors in top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument due to uncertainties in radiance-to-flux conversion from CERES Terra angular distribution models (ADMs) are evaluated through a series of consistency tests. These tests show that the overall bias in regional monthly mean shortwave (SW) TOA flux is less than 0.2 W m−2 and the regional RMS error ranges from 0.70 to 1.4 W m−2. In contrast, SW TOA fluxes inferred using theoretical ADMs that assume clouds are plane parallel are overestimated by 3–4 W m−2 and exhibit a strong latitudinal dependence. In the longwave (LW), the bias error ranges from 0.2 to 0.4 W m−2 and regional RMS errors remain smaller than 0.7 W m−2. Global mean albedos derived from ADMs developed during the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) and applied to CERES measurements show a systematic increase with viewing zenith angle of 4%–8%, while albedos from the CERES Terra ADMs show a smaller increase of 1%–2%. The LW fluxes from the ERBE ADMs show a systematic decrease with viewing zenith angle of 2%–2.4%, whereas fluxes from the CERES Terra ADMs remain within 0.7%–0.8% at all angles. Based on several months of multiangle CERES along-track data, the SW TOA flux consistency between nadir- and oblique-viewing zenith angles is generally 5% (<17 W m−2) over land and ocean and 9% (26 W m−2) in polar regions, and LW TOA flux consistency is approximate 3% (7 W m−2) over all surfaces. Based on these results and a theoretically derived conversion between TOA flux consistency and TOA flux error, the best estimate of the error in CERES TOA flux due to the radiance-to-flux conversion is 3% (10 W m−2) in the SW and 1.8% (3–5 W m−2) in the LW. Monthly mean TOA fluxes based on ERBE ADMs are larger than monthly mean TOA fluxes based on CERES Terra ADMs by 1.8 and 1.3 W m−2 in the SW and LW, respectively.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/jtech1983.1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Loeb, N. G., Kato, S., Loukachine, K., Manalo-Smith, N., & Doelling, D. R.
Venue
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology
Published
2007-04-01
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
564-584
ISSN
  • 0739-0572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0426
OpenAlex
W2180591517
Cited by
292
References
0
FWCI
17.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Angular Distribution Models for Top-of-Atmosphere Radiative Flux Estimation from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System Instrument on the Terra Satellite. Part II: Validation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/jtech1983.1
The paper
Loeb, N. G., Kato, S., Loukachine, K., Manalo-Smith, N., & Doelling, D. R. (2007). Angular Distribution Models for Top-of-Atmosphere Radiative Flux Estimation from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System Instrument on the Terra Satellite. Part II: Validation. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech1983.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.