sensitivity of potential evaporation estimates to 100 years of climate variability
Clicks: 126
ID: 234695
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
126 views
11 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #220 of 303 articles by views in materials research bulletin
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 303 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Hydrological modeling frameworks require an accurate representation of
evaporation fluxes for appropriate quantification of, e.g., the water
balance, soil moisture budget, recharge and groundwater processes. Many
frameworks have used the concept of potential evaporation, often estimated
for different vegetation classes by multiplying the evaporation from a
reference surface ("reference evaporation") by crop-specific scaling
factors ("crop factors"). Though this two-step potential evaporation
approach undoubtedly has practical advantages, the empirical nature of both
reference evaporation methods and crop factors limits its usability in
extrapolations under non-stationary climatic conditions. In this paper,
rather than simply warning about the dangers of extrapolation, we quantify
the sensitivity of potential evaporation estimates for different vegetation
classes using the two-step approach when calibrated using a non-stationary
climate. We used the past century's time series of observed climate,
containing non-stationary signals of multi-decadal atmospheric oscillations,
global warming, and global dimming/brightening, to evaluate the sensitivity
of potential evaporation estimates to the choice and length of the
calibration period. We show that using empirical coefficients outside their
calibration range may lead to systematic differences between process-based
and empirical reference evaporation methods, and systematic errors in
estimated potential evaporation components. Quantification of errors provides
a possibility to correct potential evaporation calculations and to rate them
for their suitability to model climate conditions that differ significantly
from the historical record, so-called no-analog climate conditions.
| Reference Key |
bartholomeus2015hydrologysensitivity
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;R. P. Bartholomeus;J. H. Stagge;L. M. Tallaksen;J. P. M. Witte |
| Journal | materials research bulletin |
| Year | 2015 |
| DOI |
10.5194/hess-19-997-2015
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.