Abstract
The parameterization of continental evaporation in many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMS) used for simulation of climate is demonstrably inconsistent with the empirical work upon which the parameterization is based. In the turbulent transfer relation for potential evaporation, the climate models employ the modeled actual temperature to evaluate the saturated surface humidity, whereas the consistent temperature is the one reflecting cooling by the hypothetical potential evaporation. A simple theoretical analysis and some direct computations, all ignoring atmospheric feedbacks, indicate that whenever the soil moisture is limited, GCM-based climate models produce rates of potential evaporation that exceed, by a factor of two or more, the rates that would be yielded by use of the consistent temperature. Further approximate analyses and supporting numerical simulations indicate that the expected value of dry-season soil moisture has a short memory relative to the annual cycle and that dry-... Abstract The parameterization of continental evaporation in many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMS) used for simulation of climate is demonstrably inconsistent with the empirical work upon which the parameterization is based. In the turbulent transfer relation for potential evaporation, the climate models employ the modeled actual temperature to evaluate the saturated surface humidity, whereas the consistent temperature is the one reflecting cooling by the hypothetical potential evaporation. A simple theoretical analysis and some direct computations, all ignoring atmospheric feedbacks, indicate that whenever the soil moisture is limited, GCM-based climate models produce rates of potential evaporation that exceed, by a factor of two or more, the rates that would be yielded by use of the consistent temperature. Further approximate analyses and supporting numerical simulations indicate that the expected value of dry-season soil moisture has a short memory relative to the annual cycle and that dry-...