4/2/2018 Update

[Alexvt15]

Here is an example of a gradient map we created that shows the percent difference in the 7Q10 flow metric between the USGS calibration gage and the model output.

[alyssaf4]

I have also started creating box plots for our flow metrics. I am still working on the alf one and the September drought of warning one.

[Alexvt15]

This gradient map shows the percent difference in the ALF flow metric between the USGS calibration gage and the model output.

This gradient map shows the percent difference in the DOR flow metric between the USGS calibration gage and the model output.

This gradient map shows the percent difference in the September 10% flow metric between the USGS calibration gage and the model output.

[Alexvt15]

The DOR map came out wrong, here is the correct map:

[jdkleiner]

Thanks guys - overall these %differences are a bit higher than I was expecting (or hoping). I want to be sure that we're area weighting in all cases prior to performing these calculations. (the only time we won't be area weighting is if the usgs gage happens to exactly coincide with the model segment outlet, or is pretty darn close)

To quote Rob from an earlier email: "Regardless of the drainage area difference (whether 5% or 50%), we will want to area weight the data to try our best to compare apples to apples."

[rburghol]

Thanks folks — great progress. I concur with Joey’s assessment — this is part of making sure that we add table data to these describing drainage area of both gage and segments, and adjustmeny factors used.

I like the % difference map approach, though perhaps you can show a warm-to-cool type spectrum expressing negative and positive differences. Might be in addition to the absolute value of difference or instead of depending on what we think we need to tell people about.

Thanks again, rb

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 3:49 PM Joey Kleiner notifications@github.com wrote:

Thanks guys - overall these %differences are a bit higher than I was expecting (or hoping). I want to be sure that we're area weighting in all cases prior to performing these calculations. (the only time we won't be area weighting is if the usgs gage happens to exactly coincide with the model segment outlet, or is pretty darn close)

To quote Rob from an earlier email: "Regardless of the drainage area difference (whether 5% or 50%), we will want to area weight the data to try our best to compare apples to apples."

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/HARPgroup/cbp_wsm/issues/20#issuecomment-378024219, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXAIvrDDofS9yZ9fuT2djEo-10T3lF0ks5tkoDXgaJpZM4TDyVS .

--

Robert W. Burgholzer 'Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.' - Charles Mingus Athletics: http://athleticalgorithm.wordpress.com/ Science: http://robertwb.wordpress.com/ Wine: http://reesvineyard.wordpress.com/

[Alexvt15]

Here are the same maps but with the warm to cool spectrum without absolute values:

7Q10 Percent Difference:

ALF Percent Difference:

DOR Percent Difference:

Percent Difference September 10%:

[rburghol]

Thanks -- looks good -- well, the % changes don't look so good but...

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Alexvt15 notifications@github.com wrote:

Here are the same maps but with the warm to cool spectrum without absolute values:

7Q10 Percent Difference: [image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32133622/38265227-33a091e0-3743-11e8-815d-a205f692800b.png

ALF Percent Difference: [image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32133622/38265380-b4338164-3743-11e8-97e8-5f3d490a5838.png

DOR Percent Difference: [image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32133622/38265484-0f838852-3744-11e8-952e-23ab597298e2.png

Percent Difference September 10%: [image: image] https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32133622/38265604-62e0edbe-3744-11e8-8e3a-b99120c54703.png

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/HARPgroup/cbp_wsm/issues/20#issuecomment-378334956, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXAIsZtWmwTPPBtv2tmNu2nFLZ2d4sEks5tk7PegaJpZM4TDyVS .

--

Robert W. Burgholzer 'Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.' - Charles Mingus Athletics: http://athleticalgorithm.wordpress.com/ Science: http://robertwb.wordpress.com/ Wine: http://reesvineyard.wordpress.com/

[alyssaf4]

Rob and Joey, I am not really sure what you mean by area weight the data. If you could explain what that is, then Alex and I could work on getting that done by Friday.

[rburghol]

Ahh ok. So, say you have a watershed model with total drainage area of 100 sqmi, and a USGS gage with a drainage area of 105 sqmi. In order to compare flow stats for them you would multiply each days outflow in your model time-series by 1.05 to adjust for (weight) the differences in order to compare accurately. Make sense?

The second part, will be providing us (the reviewing public) with the information needed to make us comfortable that you have gotten all your ducks in a row as it were. Drainage area values, watershed maps, flow values and weighting factors, and then of course hydrographs and/or duration curves, and shorter duration plots (like weeks, months and/or years) to further demonstrate the fidelity (or infidelity) of your model.

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 2:03 PM Alyssa Ford notifications@github.com wrote:

Rob and Joey, I am not really sure what you mean by area weight the data. If you could explain what that is, then Alex and I could work on getting that done by Friday.

— You are receiving this because you commented.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/HARPgroup/cbp_wsm/issues/20#issuecomment-378342445, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXAImiA0R98zPkTxWRPABhA6XzXmLaEks5tk7llgaJpZM4TDyVS .

--

Robert W. Burgholzer 'Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.' - Charles Mingus Athletics: http://athleticalgorithm.wordpress.com/ Science: http://robertwb.wordpress.com/ Wine: http://reesvineyard.wordpress.com/

[alyssaf4]

So if the gage drainage area is larger than the model drainage area, I am going to multiply the model time series by 1+% error. If the model drainage area is larger than the gage drainage area, do you want me to multiply the gage time series by 1+%error or divide the model time series by 1+%error?

[rburghol]

Lets make our convention be to always scale the model to the gage — lets not call this error, as it is simply different areas resulting from choices or datasets used for drainage delineation — it is simply difference. Unless we think someone has indeed made an error or course. :)

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 3:46 PM Alyssa Ford notifications@github.com wrote:

So if the gage drainage area is larger than the model drainage area, I am going to multiply the model time series by 1+% error. If the model drainage area is larger than the gage drainage area, do you want me to multiply the gage time series by 1+%error or divide the model time series by 1+%error?

— You are receiving this because you commented.

Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/HARPgroup/cbp_wsm/issues/20#issuecomment-378372890, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEXAIirYumseY2pHqxcWL_EH3_dJ7zFwks5tk9FzgaJpZM4TDyVS .

--

Robert W. Burgholzer 'Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.' - Charles Mingus Athletics: http://athleticalgorithm.wordpress.com/ Science: http://robertwb.wordpress.com/ Wine: http://reesvineyard.wordpress.com/