The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Efficient and Accurate Method for Computing the Wet-Bulb Temperature along Pseudoadiabats
Abstract
A new technique for computing the wet-bulb potential temperature of a parcel and its temperature after pseudoadiabatic ascent or descent to a new pressure level is presented. It is based on inverting Bolton’s most accurate formula for equivalent potential temperature θE to obtain the adiabatic wet-bulb temperature Tw on a given pseudoadiabat at a given pressure by an iterative technique. It is found that Tw is a linear function of equivalent temperature raised to the −1/κd (i.e., −3.504) power, where κd is the Poisson constant for dry air, in a significant region of a thermodynamic diagram. Consequently, Bolton’s formula is raised to the −1/κd power prior to the solving. A good “initial-guess” formula for Tw is devised. In the pressure range 100 ≤ p ≤ 1050 mb, this guess is within 0.34 K of the converged solution for wet-bulb potential temperatures θw ≤ 40°C. Just one iteration reduces this relative error to less than 0.002 K for −20° ≤ θw ≤ 40°C. The upper bound on the overall error in the computed Tw after one iteration is 0.2 K owing to an inherent uncertainty in Bolton’s formula. With a few changes, the method also works for finding the temperature on water- or ice-saturation reversible adiabats. The new technique is far more accurate and efficient than the Wobus method, which, although little known, is widely used in a software package. It is shown that, although the Wobus function, on which the Wobus method is based, is supposedly only a function of temperature, it has in fact a slight pressure dependence, which results in errors of up to 1.2 K in the temperature of a lifted parcel. This intrinsic inaccuracy makes the Wobus method far inferior to a new algorithm presented herein.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Emanuel, K. A. (1994) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195066302.001.0001 · Cited by 1,205
Cited by
Safe and just Earth system boundaries
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S. J., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., Armstrong McKay, D. I., Bai, X., Bala, G., Bunn, S. E., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8 · Cited by 1,400
Deadly heat waves projected in the densely populated agricultural regions of South Asia
Im, E.-S., Pal, J. S., & Eltahir, E. A. B. (2017) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1603322 · Cited by 673
Reductions in labour capacity from heat stress under climate warming
Dunne, J. P., Stouffer, R. J., & John, J. G. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1827 · Cited by 660
North China Plain threatened by deadly heatwaves due to climate change and irrigation
Kang, S., & Eltahir, E. A. B. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05252-y · Cited by 499
Moist heat stress extremes in India enhanced by irrigation
Mishra, V., Ambika, A. K., Asoka, A., Aadhar, S., Buzan, J., Kumar, R., & Huber, M. (2020) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-020-00650-8 · Cited by 250
Metadata
- Authors
- Davies-Jones, R.
- Venue
- Monthly Weather Review
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2008-07-01
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2764-2785
- ISSN
- 0027-0644 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0493
- OpenAlex
- W2127673213
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Efficient and Accurate Method for Computing the Wet-Bulb Temperature along Pseudoadiabats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/2007mwr2224.1
- The paper
- Davies-Jones, R. (2008). An Efficient and Accurate Method for Computing the Wet-Bulb Temperature along Pseudoadiabats. Monthly Weather Review. https://doi.org/10.1175/2007mwr2224.1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.