Methodological differences in projected potential evapotranspiration
- 951 Downloads
There is growing concern that the higher temperatures expected with climate change will exacerbate drought extent, duration and severity by enhancing evaporative demand. Temperature-based estimates of potential evapotranspiration (PET) are popular for many eminently practical reasons and have served well in many research and management settings. However, a number of recent publications have questioned whether it is appropriate to use temperature-based PET estimates for long-term evaporative demand and drought projections, demonstrating that PET does not always track temperature. Where precipitation changes are modest, methodologically driven differences in the magnitude or direction of PET trends could lead to contrasting drought projections. Here I calculate PET by three methods (Hamon, Priestley-Taylor and Penman) and evaluate whether different techniques introduce disparities in the sign of PET change, the degree of model agreement, or the magnitude of those changes. Changes in temperature-based Hamon PET were more significantly and consistently positive than trends in PET estimated by other methods, and where methods agreed that summer PET would increase, trends in temperature-based PET were often larger in magnitude. The discrepancies in PET trends appear to derive from regional changes in incoming shortwave radiation, wind speed and humidity -- phenomena simpler equations cannot capture. Because multiple variables can influence trends in PET, it may be more justifiable to use data-intensive methods, where the source(s) of uncertainty can be identified, rather than using simpler methods that could mask important trends.
KeywordsWind Speed Vapor Pressure Deficit Specific Humidity Drought Index Diurnal Temperature Range
I would like to thank John Walsh, Scott Rupp and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was performed while the author was a postdoctoral fellow funded by the USGS Alaska Climate Science Center.
- Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 465 ppGoogle Scholar
- Brekke LD, Kiang JE, Olson, JR, Pulwarty RS, Raff DA, Turnipseed DP, Webb RS, White KD (2009) Climate Change and Water Resources Management: A Federal Perspective. Circular 1331, U.S. Dept of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 76 pp.Google Scholar
- Furrer R, Nychka D, Sain S (2012). Fields: Tools for Spatial Data. R Package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fields/index.html
- Hamon WR (1961) Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Proc Amer Soc Civ Engrs 87:107–120Google Scholar
- Heim RR (2002) A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in the United States. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 83:1149–1165Google Scholar
- Joyce LA, Price DT, McKenney DW, Siltanen RM, Papadopol P, Lawrence K, Coulson DP (2011) High Resolution Interpolation of Climate Scenarios for the Conterminous USA and Alaska Derived from General Circulation Model Simulations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-263. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.Google Scholar
- Keyantash J, Dracup JA (2002) The quantification of drought: an evaluation of drought indices. Bull Amer Meteorol Soc 83:1167–1180Google Scholar
- NOAA (2012) National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate: Wildfires for Annual 2012, published online December 2012, retrieved on January 23, 2013 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/.
- Palmer WC (1965) Meteorological drought. U.S. Weather Bureau Res Pap No 45.Google Scholar
- Pierce D (2011) ncdf: Interface to Unidata netCDF data files. R Package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ncdf/index.html
- Pulwarty R (2003) Climate and water in the West: science, information and decision-making. Water Resources Update 124:4–12Google Scholar
- Wallace JM, Hobbs PV (2006) Atmospheric science: an introductory survey. Vol. 92. Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson J (2013) U.S. Crop-insurance claims rise to record after 2012 drought. Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-15/u-s-crop-insurance-claims-rise-to-record-after-2012-drought-2-.html 15 Jan 2013 accessed 21 January 2013
- WMO (2008) Guide to meteorological instruments and methods of observation, 7th edition. WMO- No.8Google Scholar