Comment on “Comparison of the Efficiencies of the Prognostic Generalized Complementary Functions on Evaporation Estimation” by Wang, L., et al., Published in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Surprising significant underperformance of the polynomial complementary relationship (PCR) of evaporation (Szilagyi et al., 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016jd025611) by Wang et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jd038683) is caused by the (a) station‐by‐station application of a grid‐based estimation procedure of the Priestley‐Taylor parameter (α) value, and (b) choice of the wind function. Application of the Rome wind function in the Penman equation together with either a well‐chosen single (constant) α or α as a function of the wet‐environment air temperature, should result in much improved evaporation estimates by the PCR in line with previous studies. Plain Language Summary The serious underperformance of the polynomial complementary relationship of evaporation as employed by Wang et al. (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023jd038683) can be significantly improved by the application of a properly chosen constant value of its α parameter or by relating it to the wet‐environment air temperature demonstrated by Szilagyi and Crago (2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129917). Key Points Such underperformance of the polynomial complementary relationship (PCR) has never been reported It is caused mainly by the improper application of its parameter estimation procedure With the proper Priestley‐Taylor parameter the PCR performs significantly better