You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Milly and Dune (2016) investigate the Penman-Monteith method for calculating PET and find that it overestimates drought compared to non-water-stressed evapotranspiration (which should theoretically be equal). They propose a simplification of Penman-Monteith that better predicts PET: PET = 0.8(R_n - G) where R_n is net radiation at the surface, and G is heat flux into the subsurface, both converted to units of mm/d. This might be a nice addition to the SPEI package.
Milly PCD, Dunne KA (2016) Potential evapotranspiration and continental drying. Nature Clim Change 6:946–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3046
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Milly and Dune (2016) investigate the Penman-Monteith method for calculating PET and find that it overestimates drought compared to non-water-stressed evapotranspiration (which should theoretically be equal). They propose a simplification of Penman-Monteith that better predicts PET: PET = 0.8(R_n - G) where R_n is net radiation at the surface, and G is heat flux into the subsurface, both converted to units of mm/d. This might be a nice addition to the SPEI package.
Milly PCD, Dunne KA (2016) Potential evapotranspiration and continental drying. Nature Clim Change 6:946–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3046
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: