Update e_s to a more accurate formulation and add e_i (based on Murphy and Koop, 2005) #2480
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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