Evaporation from large water‐surfaces based on records in California and Nevada

Harding, S. T.

doi:10.1029/tr016i002p00507

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The one universal control on the existence of closed lakes is evaporation. Evaporation from lake surfaces has been studied extensively and intensively (Harding, 1935;Harbeck, Kohler, and Koberg, 1958) so that close estimates of it can be made quite directly, given sufficient pertinent data on temperature, radiation, wind, and humidity. Kohler and others (1959) show a map of annual evaporation from water surfaces that summarizes the variation in the rate of evaporation in the United States.…”

Section: Climatologic Limits For Closed Lakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salinity and hydrology of closed lakes

Langbein¹

1961

Professional Paper

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

____________________________________ Introduction _________________________________ Climatologic and hydrologic factors _____________ Climatologic limits for closed lakes.__ _ _______ Water balance and fluctuations in water level-Historical fluctuations in lake level-__________ Comparison with drainage lakes_____________ Salt content of closed lakes____________________ Loss of salts with variation in lake level _____ Lake data.______________________________ SALINITY AND HYDROLOGY OF CLOSED LAKES

show abstract

Section: Climatologic Limits For Closed Lakesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salinity and hydrology of closed lakes

Langbein¹

1961

Professional Paper

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the original references are all very old and the data used for some of the lakes are not well documented. There is little doubt that the water budget estimates of the evaporation from Lake Elsinor [Harding, 1927[Harding, , 1935 and from Walker Lake [Harding, 1935] are realistic enough to be used as standards of comparison. Those for Tulare Lake [Harding, 1927[Harding, , 1935 and Buena Vista Lake [Young, 1947] are probably adequate as well, although the use of monthly mean values derived from differing dry periods to establish mean annual evaporation estimates adds an element of doubt.…”

Section: Langbein Added An Adjustment For the Effects Of Salinity Whimentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of techniques for estimating annual lake evaporation using climatological data

Andersen¹,

Jobson²

1982

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Andersen and dobson [1982] have estimated mean annual evaporation for 30 lakes by using a published version [Morton, 1979] of what are now referred to as the complementary relationship lake evaporation, or CRLE, models and by using an evaporation map prepared by the U.S. Weather Service [Kohler et al., 1959]. The two estimates for each lake were compared with evaporation values that have been reported in the literature over the past 31 years. Andersen and Jobson concluded that the evaporation map provides annual evaporation estimates which are more consistent with observations than those derived from the CRLE model. However, there are two reasons why neither the comparisons nor the conclusion have any value. The first reason is that the CRLE model estimates computed by the authors are obviously in error. The second is that the basis of comparison is inadequate in that the majority of the values reported in the literature are alternative estimates and not observations. These inadequacies are discussed in more detail hereinafter. Table 2 [Andersen and dobson, 1982, p. 633] are obviously too high. This is because they used the potential evaporation outputs of the CRLE model rather than the lake evaporation outputs. When advised of this they prepared a revised version of Table 2, which is presented in the response to this discussion. Table 1 provides an evaluation of their "revised" results for 13 of the lakes. The "comparable" values are also CRLE model estimates, but the inputs are the monthly mean values of maximum and minimum temperatures, relative humidities at 6-hour intervals, and ratios of observed to maximum possible sunshine duration that were published in the two volumes of Climates of the States [NOAA, 1974]. The vapor pressure was estimated to be the average of the saturation vapor pressure at the maximum temperature multiplied by the minimum of the relative humidities and the saturation vapor pressure at the minimum temperature multiplied by the maximum of the relative humidities. Table 1 shows that the difference between the revised and comparable estimates is less than 25 mm/yr for seven of the lakes and less than 70 mm/year for nine of the lakes. Such differences can be attributed to differences in input data from one set of years to another and thus indicate that the authors have used the CRLE model correctly. However the differences for the other four lakes are too large to be ignored. The difference of the 192 mm/yr between the revised and comparable estimates for Lake Okeechobee can be attributed to the use of data at different locations. Thus the revised value is based on sunshine duration records at Key West, which is approxi- The CRLE [Morton, 1979] model estimates presented by Andersen and Jobson for the last 14 lakes (symbols I to Z) in

show abstract

“…This code was designed to facilitate selection, by the computing machines, of data from the station considered to be most representative of the air upwind from the barge. The considerations underlying construction of the code were as follows: (1) normal wind-direction distribution, as shown by a wind rose furnished by the Oklahoma City Weather Bureau Office; (2) number and location of the shore measuring stations, each location being determined by terrain and other practical considerations as well as by dominant wind directions; (3) terrain and other obstructions affecting air flow; (4) the fact that the equipment recorded wind direction only by the eight cardinal and intercardinal points of the compass. The arbitrary code shown in figure 4 represents a compromise between these various factors for sectors 2, 3, and 4, the intent being that measurements at stations 2, 3, and 4 be representative of their respective sectors.…”

Section: Climatologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Water-loss investigations: Volume 1--Lake Hefner studies technical report

1952

Circular

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEMDevelop an improved method or methods for the determination, and if possible the prediction from climatological and limnological data, of water losses by evaporation using mass-transfer and energy-budget theory. Develop improved techniques for converting evaporation-pan data to estimated lake evaporation. Test the proposed methods and techniques at Lake Hefner, Oklahoma, using evaporation computed from the water budget of the lake as the control. CONCLUSIONS1. The water-budget control met the requirement that errors in the water budget should not exceed 5 per cent of the monthly evaporation. In addition, 62 per cent of the determinations of daily evaporation were sufficiently accurate to provide a* check against estimates of daily evaporation by mass-transfer and energy-budget theories. 2. Only two (O. G. Button's and Sverdrup's 1937 form) of the many mass-transfer equations tested proved adequate for predicting daily evaporation with sufficient accuracy to be generally useful, employing equipment now available. 3. A simple empirical equation was developed from the water-budget data, using wind speeds and vapor-pressure differences measured at Lake Hefner. An operational version of this equation proved satisfactory for computing daily evaporation at Lake Hefner using standard meteorological observations from a nearby weather station, plus the surface-water temperature of the lake. 4. The energy-budget equation proved satisfactory for computing evaporation for periods of 7 days or longer provided the water budget can be approximated closely enough to estimate advected energy. The primary limitation on the accuracy of the method, for short periods of time, is the evaluation of change in energy storage. 5. The Cummings Radiation Integrator (CRI) promises to provide a satisfactory substitute for the expensive radiation-measuring equipment used at Lake Hefner, thus simplifying the computation of evaporation by the energy-budget method. 6. Study of evaporation from four types of evaporation pans confirmed previous studies in showing that pan evaporation is generally higher than lake evaporation and that pan-to-lake coefficients have a pronounced seasonal variation. Annual pan-to-lake coefficients are reasonably consistent with previous values, but further studies of such coefficients under different conditions of climate, lake area, and lake depth will be required for more accurate interpretation of available evaporation-pan records in terms iii CONTENTS pgge 1 INTRODUCTION t PERSONNEL l ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 9 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF LAKE HEFNER by G. EgrI Hgrbeck, Jr. I Basis for Choice of Lake Hefner Physical and Climatological Characteristics References GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER HYDROLOGY OF THE LAKE HEFNER AREA by P. E. Dennis Scope of the Study Geology and Water-Bearing Properties of the Rocks Ground-Water Hydrology Conclusions on Geology and Hydrology References THE WATER-BUDGET CONTROL by G. EgrI Hgrbeck, Jr., and Frgnk W. Kennon Instrumentation and Methods 31 Results Conclusions on the Water Budget...

show abstract

Evaporation from large water‐surfaces based on records in California and Nevada

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Salinity and hydrology of closed lakes

Salinity and hydrology of closed lakes

Comparison of techniques for estimating annual lake evaporation using climatological data

Water-loss investigations: Volume 1--Lake Hefner studies technical report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About