Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update e_s to a more accurate formulation and add e_i (based on Murphy and Koop, 2005) #2480

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

isilber
Copy link

@isilber isilber commented May 13, 2022

Description Of Changes

In this pull request, I've modified the equilibrium vapor pressure (e_s) calculation to a more accurate formulation based on Murphy and Koop (2005; reference added). I've also added a method to calculate the ice equilibrium vapor pressure (e_i) based on the same manuscript as well as a unit test for this method. Different variations (using different input coefficients) of Teten's formula have been used in the literature (e.g., Bolton, 1980; Alduchov and Eskrige, 1996) but the use of the exponential form of this type of parameterization means that the fits are valid in a relatively limited range of temperatures. The MP2005 formulation on the other hand is valid for a much broader range of temperatures.

I was contemplating whether to add an optional input parameter to saturation_vapor_pressure for the water phase with a default to ice, but then thought that it might be better to add a separate method for ice, thus making code and documentation easier to follow.
Also, I would recommend using the "equilibrium vapor pressure" term rather than "saturation vapor pressure" as that is a more physically accurate term, but that would likely result in plenty of mess after changing the terminology and method terms.

Checklist

  • [ V] Fully documented

@isilber isilber requested a review from a team as a code owner May 13, 2022 15:48
@isilber isilber requested review from dopplershift and removed request for a team May 13, 2022 15:48
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented May 13, 2022

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants