Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241

Estimation of mean monthly solar global radiation as

a function of temperature
Francisco Meza
a,
, Eduardo Varas
b,1
a
Departamento de Ciencias de Recursos Naturales, Ponticia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile
b
Departamento de Ingeniera Hidrulica y Ambiental, Ponticia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile
Received 14 December 1998; received in revised form 11 August 1999; accepted 13 August 1999
Abstract
Solar radiation is the primary energy source for all physical and biochemical processes that take place on earth. Energy
balances are a key feature of processes such as temperature changes, snow melt, carbon xation through photosynthesis in
plants, evaporation, wind intensity and other biophysical processes. Solar radiation level is sometimes recorded, but generally
it needs to be estimated by empirical models based on frequently available meteorological records such as hours of sunshine
or temperature.
This paper evaluates the behavior of two empirical models based on the difference between maximum and minimum
temperatures and compares results with a model based on sunshine hours. This work concludes that empirical models based
on temperature have a larger coefcient of determination than the model based on cloud cover for the normal conditions of
Chile. These models are easy to use in any location if the parameters are correctly adjusted. In addition, probability distribution
functions and condence intervals for solar radiation estimates using stochastic modeling of temperature differences were
calculated. 2000 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solar radiation; Temperature; Random variable; Fourier series
1. Introduction
In some cases a record of global solar radiation (R
G
)
using instruments such as pyranometers or actinome-
ters is available, however, there are many meteorolog-
ical stations which do not measure solar radiation, but
do register other variables such as precipitation, pres-
sure and temperature. For this reason, this paper eval-

Corresponding author. Fax: +56-2-553-92-31.

E-mail addresses: fmeza@puc.cl (F. Meza), evaras@ing.puc.cl
(E. Varas).
1
Fax +56-2-686-58-76.
uates proposed mathematical models to estimate so-
lar radiation as a function of temperature differences
and compares their performance with models based
on sunshine hours.
Solar radiation is the principal energy source for
physical, biological and chemical processes, such as,
snow melt, plant photosynthesis, evaporation, crop
growth and is also a variable needed for biophysical
models to evaluate risk of forest res, hydrological
simulation models and mathematical models of natu-
ral processes. Hence, in many occasions, a record of
observed solar radiation or an estimate of radiation is
required.
0168-1923/00/$ see front matter 2000 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0168- 1923( 99) 00090- 8
232 F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241
2. Model description
Extra-terrestrial solar radiation, also known as An-
got radiation (R
A
, MJ m
2
day
1
) can be calculated
as a function of the distance from the sun to earth (d,
km), the mean distance sunearth (d
m
, km), latitude
(, rad), solar declination (, rad) and solar angle at
sunrise (sunset) (H
s
, rad) using the following expres-
sion (Romo and Arteaga, 1983):
R
A
=
(86400)(1360)

_
d
m
d
_
2
[(H
s
)sin()sin() +cos()cos()sin(H
s
)]
(1)
Using the preceding relationship, solar radiation can
be calculated for any point in the earths outer atmo-
sphere for each day of the year as a function of latitude
and solar declination. However, gases and clouds in-
troduce changes to both magnitude and spectral com-
position of solar radiation.
2.1. Angstrm model, 1924
Since the beginning of the century, efforts have
been made to estimate solar radiation as a function
of extra-terrestrial solar radiation and the state of the
atmosphere (Castillo and Santibez, 1981). The pa-
rameter most commonly used is hours of sunshine.
Usually, the ratio of global solar radiation to Angot ra-
diation is correlated to the ratio of effective sunshine
hours to total possible sunshine hours.
Effective sunshine hours (n) are measured with a
heliograph (Martnez-Lozano et al., 1984). Although
this instrument has a threshold, under which sunshine
is not recorded, this error is not signicant when esti-
mating daily solar radiation.
Angstrm (1924), suggested a simple linear re-
lationship to estimate global solar radiation (R
G
,
MJ m
2
day
1
) as a function of Angot radiation,
actual sunshine hours (n) and potential or theoretical
sunshine hours (N).
R
G
R
A
= a +b
n
N
(2)
Angstrm suggested values of 0.2 and 0.5 for
empirical coefcients a and b respectively. Other
authors, such as Bennett (1962), Davies (1965),
Table 1
Angstrm coefcients (a and b) recommended for Chilean locali-
ties. (Castillo and Santib aez, 1981)
Locality a b Latitude Longitude Altitude
(

S) (

W) (m)
Arica 0.28 0.57 18.29 70.19 035
Iquique 0.23 0.47 20.13 70.09 008
Antofagasta 0.23 0.47 23.28 70.20 122
Copiap o 0.26 0.51 27.21 70.20 283
Vallenar 0.22 0.46 28.35 70.46 469
La Serena 0.29 0.57 29.54 71.15 032
La Paloma 0.22 0.46 30.41 71.02 320
Quintero 0.22 0.45 32.47 71.32 002
Valparaiso 0.22 0.55 33.01 70.38 041
Santiago 0.22 0.44 33.27 70.42 520
Curic o 0.23 0.47 34.58 71.13 227
Constituci on 0.22 0.45 35.20 72.26 007
Chillan 0.23 0.47 36.36 72.02 124
Concepci on 0.26 0.51 36.47 73.07 009
Temuco 0.23 0.47 38.46 72.39 114
Osorno 0.23 0.47 40.35 73.09 027
Puerto Montt 0.26 0.51 41.28 72.56 110
Ancud 0.26 0.51 41.54 73.48 020
Puerto Ays en 0.26 0.51 45.24 72.42 010
Balmaceda 0.26 0.51 45.54 71.43 520
Punta Arenas 0.26 0.52 53.10 70.54 008
Monteith (1966), Penman (1948), and Turc (1961)
have calibrated this expression for different places.
Coefcients can vary signicantly as Doorenbos
and Pruitt (1975) show. In Chile, Castillo and San-
tibez (1981), have recommended the values given in
Table 1.
2.2. BristowCampbell model, 1984
Incoming solar radiation is determined by the state
of the atmosphere. However, the dynamics of the
atmosphere is very difcult to predict. Considering
transformations experienced by solar radiation, one
can expect to nd a relationship to express solar
radiation as a function of meteorological variables
commonly registered at climatological stations. When
solar radiations reaches the earth surface, part of it
is reected and part is absorbed. The same occurs
with long-wave radiation that each body emits as a
function of its temperature. As Chang (1968), reports,
there is usually a good relation between net radiation
and global solar radiation, since the latter one is the
principal source of energy.
F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241 233
Furthermore, if the heat ow towards the soil is
neglected, one can nd the ratio of sensible heat to
latent heat or Bowen ratio, on a daily basis (Campbell,
1977). Sensible heat is responsible for temperature
variations, so it is possible to obtain a relationship
between temperature differences and solar radiation,
being temperature a reection of radiation balance.
Using this argument, Bristow and Campbell (1984),
suggested the following relationship for daily R
G
, as
a function of daily R
A
and the difference between
maximum and minimum temperatures (T,

C):
R
G
R
A
= A
_
1 exp(BT
C
)
_
(3)
Athough coefcients A, B and C are empirical, they
have some physical meaning. Coefcient A represents
the maximum radiation that can be expected on a clear
day. Coefcients B and C control the rate at which A
is approached as the temperature difference increases.
Values most frequently reported for these coefcients
are 0.7 for A, the range 0.004 to 0.010 for B and 2.4
for C.
Since clear days present large temperature differ-
ences A tends to be the ratio between global solar radi-
ation and Angot radiation, hence the sum of Angstrm
coefcients a and b tends to be similar to A.
2.3. Allen model, 1997
Allen (1997), suggested the use of a self-calibrating
model to estimate mean monthly global solar radiation
following the work of Hargreaves and Samani (1982).
He suggested that the mean daily R
G
can be estimated
as a function of R
A
, mean monthly maximum(T
M
,

C)
and minimum temperatures (T
m
,

C).
R
G
R
A
= K
r
(T
M
T
m
)
0.5
(4)
Previously, Allen (1995), had expressed the empiri-
cal coefcient (K
r
) as a function of the ratio of atmo-
spheric pressure at the site (P, kPa) and at sea level
(P
0
, 101.3 kPa) as follows:
K
r
= K
ra
_
P
P
0
_
0.5
(5)
In his work, Allen suggested values of 0.17 for interior
regions and 0.20 for coastal regions for the empirical
coefcient K
ra
.
3. Climatic data
In order to compare the behavior of the different
models, monthly climatological data of 21 stations
representing different climatic regions of Chile were
collected. Data ranged from Arica (latitude 18.3

S) to
Punta Arenas (53.1

S) and was registered between the

years 1971 and 1992.
Selected meteorological variables were T
M
, T
m
, P,
mean monthly degree of cloud cover (x) and R
G
.
For the locations mentioned in Table 1, monthly val-
ues of maximum and minimum temperatures, cloud
cover and atmospheric pressure for each year in the
period 1971 to 1992, were available. Unfortunately,
for global solar radiation only the average value for
each month in that period was available and monthly
radiation values for each year were impossible to ob-
tain from Direccin Meteorolgica de Chile.
In addition to the above, data from La Paloma sta-
tion was collected to compare the behaviour of models
based on temperature differences when they are ap-
plied to estimate monthly global solar radiation. The
selected meteorological variables in this case were T
M
,
T
m
, P, and R
G
between the years 1971 and 1978.
Finally, data from Santiago station was used to
compare the behaviour of BristowCampbell and
Allen models when they are applied to estimate daily
global solar radiation. The meteorological variables
were daily T
M
, T
m
, P, and R
G
.
4. Models applied to mean monthly data
The extension of the reviewed models to apply them
to monthly averages requires some explanation. The
Angstrm model was originally derived for daily so-
lar radiation and hours of sunshine. Nonetheless, be-
ing a linear function it can be readily applied to mean
monthly data since the expected value of a sum is
equal to the summation of the expected values. Allens
model was derived for monthly data so it can readily
be used. However, the BristowCampbell model is de-
ned for daily data and has no evident extrapolation
to mean monthly values. For this reason, one can ex-
pect to nd a new set of coefcients when the same
expression is applied to monthly data.
With the values of temperature, atmospheric pres-
sure and sunshine hours, mean monthly global solar
234 F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241
radiation was calculated at each site, using the ex-
pressions and empirical coefcients suggested by
Angstrm (1924), Bristow and Campbell (1984), and
Allen (1995). Results show that models using the
coefcients proposed in the literature do not esti-
mate correctly the historical average in each location.
The slope of the relationship between calculated
and observed radiation is signicantly different from
unity. This is especially notorious in the case of the
BristowCampbell model, although this result was ex-
pected since the coefcients suggested by the authors
are applicable to daily data.
Given the results, it was necessary to change the
Allen and BristowCampbell model coefcients to
obtain a better t, following the idea suggested by
Castillo and Santibez (1981) for the Angstrm
model. Least squares coefcients, which minimize the
sum of square errors for each location were calculated
and included in Table 2.
Due to the fact that monthly solar radiation values,
were not available for each year, as mentioned in the
section about climatic data, the A and C coefcients
of BristowCampbell model were assumed xed and
the B coefcient was adjusted to minimize the square
Table 2
Adjusted coefcients (K
ra
and B) of Allen and BristowCampbell
models
Locality K
ra
B
Arica 0.3354 0.01354
Iquique 0.2854 0.01619
Antofagasta 0.4717 0.01944
Copiap o 0.2577 0.00203
Vallenar 0.3457 0.00200
La Serena 0.2697 0.00677
La Paloma 0.1589 0.00347
Quintero 0.2731 0.00589
Valparaso 0.0114 0.01144
Santiago 0.2593 0.00202
Curic o 0.4348 0.00152
Constituci on 0.2423 0.00555
Chillan 0.2316 0.00159
Concepci on 0.3402 0.00242
Temuco 0.2583 0.00154
Osorno 0.3756 0.00150
Puerto Montt 0.3252 0.00290
Ancud 0.2820 0.00493
Puerto Ays en 0.2870 0.00463
Balmaceda 0.3058 0.00348
Punta Arenas 0.3471 0.00389
Table 3
Regression between calculated and observed mean monthly global
solar radiation using adjusted parameters of 20 Chilean localities
Model Slope Upper Lower R
2
limit. (95%) limit. (95%)
Angstrm 0.959 0.970 0.939 0.892
Allen 0.999 1.010 0.990 0.961
BristowCampbell 1.152 1.170 1.138 0.928
errors. The available data made it impossible to study
the contribution of coefcients A and C. However, A
represents the maximum radiation on a clear day and
its value represents the observed data reasonably well.
Moreover, a change in coefcient C does not affect
signicantly the calculated global solar radiation.
Observed and calculated values for different
locations and models are shown in Fig. 1. In this
gure the improvement in the relationships when us-
ing locally calibrated coefcients can be appreciated.
The Angstrm model results using the coefcients
proposed by Castillo and Santibez (1981) are also
included for comparison. Slopes of the different mod-
els and the coefcients of determination are given in
Table 3.
Allens model presents the best relationship. It has
a higher coefcient of determination and the slope
is equal to unity with 90% condence interval. The
BristowCampbell model tends to under-estimate
global solar radiation but explains a large proportion
of sample variance. The Angstrm model t the data
poorer than the other two.
4.1. Models applied to monthly data.
Since the available data of global solar radiation
for most stations is only the average value for each
month, it was necessary to examine if the relationships
with the adjusted coefcients represent accurately the
monthly values for each year. One station available
with monthly global solar radiation data, is La Paloma.
In this case the models with the adjusted coefcients
derived with the average monthly values were used to
estimate monthly global solar radiation for each year.
A comparison between estimated monthly values for
La Paloma, compared to observed monthly values is
shown in Table 4.
Results show that monthly global radiation for each
year can be adequately estimated with the derived
F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241 235
Fig. 1. (a) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Angstrm parameters from the literature
(see text); (b) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Angstrm adjusted parameters;
(c) Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Allen parameters from the literature; (d)
Comparison between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Allen adjusted parameters; (e) Comparison between
observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using Bristow-Campbell parameters from the literature; and (f) Comparison
between observed and measured mean monthly global solar radiation using BristowCampbell adjusted parameters.
236 F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241
Fig. 1 (Continued).
F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241 237
Table 4
Regression between calculated and observed monthly global solar
radiation at La Paloma station
Model Slope Upper Lower R
2
limit. (95%) limit. (95%)
Allen 1.000 1.010 0.990 0.97
BristowCampbell 0.994 1.006 0.982 0.96
models. Allens model presents the best relationship
between observed and calculated monthly solar global
radiation because it explains a large proportion of the
sample variance. In both models the slope is equal to
unity with 90 % condence interval. This veries that
the models can be used to estimate monthly values for
different years.
4.2. Global solar radiation distribution functions
A probability distribution function for global solar
radiation was obtained as a derived distribution, when
radiation is expressed as a function of temperature dif-
ferences and temperature differences are expressed as
a Fourier series with a random component. This ran-
dom error was found to be a random variable with nor-
mal distribution. This hypothesis was tested in both for
the BristowCampbell and the Allen models using the
AndersonDarling test for normal distribution. Once
a distribution model for solar radiation is calculated,
condence intervals for estimates can be computed.
4.3. Temperature difference modelling.
Temperature has a marked seasonal variation due to
periodicity in the earths orbit about the sun. For this
reason temperature variations can be represented us-
ing mathematical cyclic functions. In this paper, dif-
ferences between maximum and minimum tempera-
tures were modelled using a Fourier series once the
stationary component was removed, as suggested by
Van Wijk and De Vries (1966) and Campbell and Nor-
man (1997). These authors applied Fourier series with
one term to represent air temperatures.
The T in location i and month j (T
ij
,

C) can be
expressed as a function of mean annual T in location
i (T
i
,

C), Fourier series coefcients at location i (C

i
,
D
i
) and an error or residual in location i and month j
(E
ij
,

C) as follows:
Table 5
Average temperatures (T
i
) and Fourier series coefcients C
i
and
D
i
of 20 Chilean localities
Locality T
i
C
i
D
i
Arica 06.344 0.722 1.412
Iquique 05.629 0.629 1.162
Antofagasta 06.489 0.269 0.945
Copiap o 14.545 0.640 0.292
Vallenar 13.193 1.264 0.177
La Serena 07.856 0.220 0.044
La Paloma 14.143 0.330 0.345
Quintero 08.366 0.670 0.495
Valparaso 05.549 0.804 0.330
Santiago 13.917 2.539 1.830
Curic o 14.612 4.235 2.851
Constituci on 08.397 0.723 0.188
Chillan 13.802 3.991 2.910
Concepci on 10.073 2.134 1.365
Temuco 11.494 3.052 2.111
Osorno 11.031 3.140 1.592
Puerto Montt 08.592 1.862 0.773
Ancud 07.255 1.636 1.051
Puerto Ays en 06.823 1.427 0.345
Balmaceda 09.078 2.130 1.151
Punta Arenas 07.019 1.829 0.665
T
ij
=T
i
+C
i
cos
_
2j
12
_
+D
i
sin
_
2j
12
_
+E
ij
(6)
The coefcients C
i
and D
i
are given in Table 5 for the
sites used in this work.
4.4. Probability distribution functions
If X is a continuous random variable with a proba-
bility density function f(x) and Y is a monotonic func-
tion of X, then the probability function of Y can be
obtained multiplying the inverse function by the abso-
lute value of the Jacobian of the transformation (J) or
determinant of the rst derivative of w(y) with respect
to X (Walpole and Myers, 1992):
g(y) = f [w(y)]|J| (7)
Using this procedure probability density and proba-
bility distribution functions for R
G
estimated by Allen
and BristowCampbell models were derived.
238 F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241
4.5. BristowCampbell model
In this case the distribution function is calculated
using Eq. (3) and replacing T
ij
for its expression in
terms of annual T in each location and the corre-
sponding Fourier series coefcients. Combining both
the expressions, an equation for the residuals is ob-
tained. Residuals were found to be well represented
by a normal distribution model, so the probability dis-
tribution of the errors was assumed known. The distri-
bution hypothesis was tested using AndersonDarling
test.
The probability density function for solar radiation
following Eq. (7), is equal to the product of the normal
density function evaluated at the residuals for location
i and month j and the absolute value of the transfor-
mation Jacobian (Eq. (8)). The residuals are given in
this case by Eq. (9) and the rst derivative by Eq. (10).
g(R
Gij
) = [J]f
_
(R
Gij
)
_
(8)
The residuals are given by the following equation ex-
pressed as a function of terms already dened:
E
ij
=
_
ln
_
1 R
Gij
/0.7R
Aij
_
B
i
_
1/2.4
T
i
C
i
cos
_
2j
12
_
D
i
sin
_
2j
12
_
(9)
The rst derivative is:
|J| =

_
1
B
i
_
1/2.4
1
6.8
_
ln
_
1
R
Gij
0.7R
Aij
__
1.4/2.4

_
1
1 R
Gij
/0.7R
Aij
_
1
R
Aij

(10)
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) is ob-
tained by integrating the probability density function.
The CDF was evaluated numerically, using very small
intervals and the trapezoidal integration method, to
dene condence intervals for global solar radia-
tion. Results for two locations Arica and Vallenar are
shown graphically in Fig. 2 (a,b).
4.6. Allens model
Similarly, for Allens model, 1997, the probability
density function is obtained using Eq. (4) and replac-
ing T
ij
for its expression in terms of annual T in
each location and the corresponding Fourier series co-
efcients (Eq. (6)). Residuals in this case were also
found to be well represented by a normal distribution
model, so the probability distribution of errors was
assumed known.
The probability density function for solar radiation
is shown in Eq. (8).The residuals are given in this case
by Eq. (11) and the rst derivative by Eq. (12):
E
ij
=
_
R
Gij
(R
Aij
)K
rai
(P/P
0
)
0.5
_
T
i
C
i
cos
_
2j
12
_
D
i
sin
_
2j
12
_
(11)
The Jacobian is:
|J| =

2R
Gij
(P
0
)
K
2
ra i
(R
Aij
)
2
P

(12)
The CDF is obtained integrating the probability den-
sity function. It was evaluated numerically to dene
condence intervals for global solar radiation. Re-
sults for Arica and Vallenar are shown graphically
in Fig. 2(c,d). The expected value for global solar
radiation given by the CDF using Allens model
are higher than the Angot radiation because the
limits of integration derived in this case were zero
and innite. On the other hand, the CDF using
Bristow-Campbell model have clear and dened limits
which are zero and A times the Angot radiation. For
this reason the CDF obtained with BristowCampbell
model is more accurate and has smaller condence
intervals.
5. Models applied to daily data
5.1. Allens model
Allens model, 1997 includes a correction term for
barometric pressure which in fact represents the alti-
tude of the station above sea level, since the pressure
as a function of elevation can be expressed in terms of
the pressure at sea level, the temperature gradient, the
temperature at station elevation and the Avogadro air
constant. This correction termis small compared to the
inuence of the temperature difference on radiation.
F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241 239
Fig. 2. (a) Expected values and condence limits (5 and 95%) of daily mean global radiation using Bristow-Campbell model and Angot
radiation for Arica; (b) Expected value and condence limits (5 and 95 %) of daily mean global radiation using Bristow-Campbell model
and Angot radiation for Vallenar; (c) Expected value and condence limits (5 and 95 %) of daily mean global radiation using Allen model
and Angot radiation for Arica; (d) Expected value and condence limits (5 and 95%) of daily mean global radiation using Allen model
and Angot radiation for Vallenar.
This model tends to over estimate global solar ra-
diation in a daily basis, and frequently estimates radi-
ation in excess of the extra-terrestrial radiation, since
the condition expressed by Eq. (13) is fullled. This
model does not have a limit for the estimated solar
radiation.
T >
P
0
(K
ra
)
2
P
(13)
This condition is frequently true when the model is
applied to points located in interior regions which
usually experience large daily temperature variations.
Even though Allens model has a larger coef-
cient of determination, the slope is clearly less than
unity, indicating that the model over-estimates solar
radiation.
5.2. BristowCampbell model
This model is dened solely in terms of temperature
differences and is thus simpler to apply. The value for
A coefcient is 0.7, which is a reasonable value for
clear days. This type of day usually is associated to
large temperature differences.
240 F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241
Fig. 2 (Continued).
Table 6
Regression between calculated and observed daily global solar
radiation at Santiago station
Model Slope Upper Lower R
2
limit. (95%) limit. (95%)
Allen 0.561 0.549 0.571 0.85
BristowCampbell 1.090 0.979 1.202 0.79
The behavior of the BristowCampbell model is
more consistent and reliable, since it has an upper limit
given by parameter A. The regression analysis shows
that the BristowCampbell model performs better
(Table 6). On the other hand, BristowCampbell
model gives consistently a better estimate when
applied to daily data.
6. Conclusions
Empirical models to estimate global solar radia-
tion are a convenient tool if the parameters can be
calibrated for different locations. These models have
the advantage of using meteorological data which are
commonly available.
For Chile, the models proposed by Allen and
BristowCampbell are adequate and allowestimates of
mean average global solar radiation as a function of air
temperature variation. Allens model has a larger coef-
cient of determination but requires both atmospheric
pressure and temperature variation measurements.
Models were calibrated for 20 locations in Chile which
represent a wide variation in climatic characteristics
and hence the procedure described is considered to be
F. Meza, E. Varas / Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 100 (2000) 231241 241
of general application. Temperature variation can be
modelled by Fourier series and condence intervals for
global solar radiation estimates can be obtained using
derived distribution procedures. Both the models have
limitations when applied to daily data. Solar radiation
at locations with large temperature differences are
not correctly modelled using Allen procedure and the
BristowCampbell model had a better performance.
References
Allen, R., 1995. Evaluation of procedures of estimating mean
monthly solar radiation from air temperature. FAO, Rome.
Allen, R., 1997. Self-calibrating method for estimating solar
radiation from air temperature. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2, 5667.
Angstrm, A., 1924. Solar and terrestrial radiation. Q.J.R.
Meteorol. Soc. 50, 121125.
Bennett, I., 1962. A method of preparing maps of mean daily
global radiation. Arch. Meteorol. Geophys. Bioklimatol Ser. B
13, 216248.
Bristow, K., Campbell, G., 1984. On the relationship between
incoming solar radiation and daily maximum and minimum
temperature. Agric. For. Meteorol. 31, 159166.
Castillo, H., Santibez, F., 1981. Evaluacin de la radiacin solar
global y luminosidad en Chile I. Calibracin de frmulas para
estimar radiacin solar global diaria. Agricultura Tcnica 41,
145152.
Campbell, G., 1977. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics.
Springer, New York.
Campbell, G., Norman, J., 1997. An Introduction to Environmental
Biophysics. Soils/AOS 532. Pullman WA.
Chang, J.-H., 1968. Climate and Agriculture. Aldine Publishing.
Chicago.
Davies, J.A., 1965. Estimation of insolation for West Africa. Q.J.R.
Meteorol. Soc. 91, 359363.
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W., 1975. Crop water requierements,
Irrigation and drainage paper, 24. FAO, Rome.
Hargreaves, G., Samani, Z., 1982. Estimating potential
evapotranspiration. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE. 108, 225230.
Martnez-Lozano, J., Tena, F., Onrubia, J., De la Rubia, J.,
1984. The historical evolution of Angstrm formula and its
modications: review and bibliography. Agric. For. Meteorol.
33, 109128.
Monteith, J.L., 1966. Local differences in the attenuation of solar
radiation over Britain. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc. 92, 254262.
Penman, H.L., 1948. Natural evaporation from open water, bare
soil and grass. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A. 193, 120145.
Romo, J., Arteaga, R., 1983. Meteorologa Aplicada. Universidad
Autnoma de Chapingo. 442 pp.
Turc, L., 1961. Evaluation des besoins en eau dirrigation.
Evapotranspiration potentielle. Ann. Agron. 12, 1349.
Van Wijk, W., De Vries, D., (1966). Physics of Plant Environment,
2nd ed. North-Holland, The Netherlands, 382 pp.