1 / 10

WatER - Telecon on March 28, 2006

WatER - Telecon on March 28, 2006. Outline: Brief description of Analyses – a run through of the figures Your comments on each figure (slides 2-4 were shown before; 5-9 more important) Discussion (comments from Paul and Delwyn). Figures 1 and 2:. VOBS data – time steps.

watson
Télécharger la présentation

WatER - Telecon on March 28, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WatER - Telecon on March 28, 2006 • Outline: • Brief description of Analyses – a run through of the figures • Your comments on each figure (slides 2-4 were shown before; 5-9 more important) • Discussion (comments from Paul and Delwyn)

  2. Figures 1 and 2: VOBS data – time steps Do you think the gaps in the data should be filled – or is this data sufficient (??)

  3. Figure 4: Number of hits Grey scale image at this resolution (200 m) and size (100 km x 100 km) looks like this. Is it ok to have a color figure in the paper?

  4. Figures 5, 6 and 7: Spatial Characteristics of Error in h Any comments ??

  5. Figure 8: VOBS h and error in h At 3 cross sections, bed elevation was determined from the time series of VOBS data (lowest elevation at each cross section pixel). The lowest bed elevation at each section was assumed to be the channel center. h and dh/dt were estimated at the channel center and dh/dx and Q were estimated across the section Error in h presented at 50 m scale – Jay thinks it should be presented at the “cross-section” scale (??)

  6. Figure 9: VOBS dh/dt and error in dh/dt dh/dt was computed at the channel center. MMV (measure of missing variability) was computed using LISFLOOD-270 m data  high MMV implies more temporal variability in h and thus more measurements are required to capture this variability Any comments ??

  7. Figure 10: VOBS dh/dx and error in dh/dx dh/dx was computed as an average across the cross section Any comments ??

  8. Figure 11: VOBS Q and error in Q Q was computed as a sum of channel flow and floodplain flow (Horritt and Bates, 2001). ~ channel width from LISFLOOD, and floodplain width = 2 x channel width (Rosgen, 1994) Any comments ??

  9. Figure 12: VOBS Q and Observed Q Q at Section 1 was compared with USGS Q. Q is over estimated  LISFLOOD flows are higher  VIC input flows are higher Hence, VOBS Q was bias-corrected using a linear regression fit between TRUTH Q and USGS Q  correl. coeff. (0.80) and RMSE 1951 m3/s and mean error 16.3% Any comments ??

  10. Discussion • What do you think of the scope of the analyses that are already in the paper. • Are they sufficient to demonstrate the capabilities of the potential satellite? • Is there anything critical that we left out?

More Related