Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Daily Rainfall........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.
1.3.
List of Tables
Table 1: Estimated Percentile values for Exponential Distribution ( 4.1) ....................................... 3
Table 2: Estimations of Distribution Fits for Daily Rainfall Data .......................................................... 3
Table 3: Estimated Percentile values for Gamma Distribution ( 2.8; 25.5) ............................... 4
Table 4: Estimated Percentile values for Normal Distribution ( 851; 117)................................ 4
Table 5: Model Summary of SAAR vs Elevation Regression ................................................................. 5
Table 6: Coefficients of SAAR vs Elevation Regression ......................................................................... 5
Table 7: Best combinations of SAAR regression variables .................................................................... 6
Table 8: Model Summary of revised SAAR regression .......................................................................... 7
Table 9: Coefficients of revised SAAR regression model ...................................................................... 7
Table 10: Model application results from ungauged site ..................................................................... 8
Table 11: Trend model details and uncertainty parameters .............................................................. 12
List of Figures
Figure 1: Top - Histogram of Daily Rainfall ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Top - Histogram of Monthly Rainfall ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 3: Top - Histogram of Annual Rainfall .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: Scatterplot of Regression relation (SAAR versus Elevation) .................................................... 5
Figure 5: Residual Plots of SAAR Regression with Elevation ................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Residual plots of refined SAAR regression model .................................................................... 7
Figure 7: Correlogram of Daily Rainfall in the Eden Catchment (30-day lag) ......................................... 9
Figure 8: Sample time series plot of Daily Rainfall Data . ....................................................................... 9
Figure 9: Autocorrelation (12 month lag) plot for Monthly Rainfall in the Eden Catchment ................. 9
Figure 10: Autocorrelation (10 year lagged) of Annual rainfall in the Eden Catchment. ..................... 10
Figure 11: Autocorrelation (12 month lagged) for mean monthly flows ............................................. 10
Figure 12: Correlogram of deseasonalised monthly flow data (12 month lagged) .............................. 10
Figure 13: Mean Annual Temperatures for Central England for 1659 - 2011 ...................................... 11
Figure 14: Mean Annual Temperature of Central England (1701 - 1800) ............................................ 11
Figure 15: Mean Annual Temperature of Central England (1801 - 1900) ............................................ 12
Figure 16: Mean Annual Temperature of Central England (1901 - 2000) ............................................ 12
Part One
This part is aimed at understanding the various distributions that estimate the likelihood of given
probabilistic events. The stochastic nature of precipitation events present clear examples of events
that need to be estimated from some established probability distribution.
The objective of this part is to analyse various rainfall frequencies from the Eden Catchment over a
40 year period to determine general shapes of individual probability density curves. For each curve,
the properties and resultant estimated catchment parameters would be presented as well.
1.1.
Daily Rainfall
It is evident from the plot of relative frequencies of the various daily rainfall occurrences that the
exponential distribution estimates the daily rainfall depth reasonably. The cumulative distribution
function also fits the distribution.
The daily distribution has an approximated mean () of 4.1mm. For the given record length, there
were 8239 wet days. The depth of rainfall
on these days varied between 0.1mm and
79mm. This wide range complicates the
identification of distribution fits for daily
rainfall data, especially for estimations of
rainfall depths close to zero. First
comparison assessments on Minitab with
given candidate distributions (Normal,
Exponential, 3-parameter lognormal and
Gamma) produced Table 2.
It was noticed that no particular
distribution immediately fit the data
accurately (as shown by p values < 0.005).
However, a reduction in the range of values
caused by raising the calculation threshold
significantly reduced the Anderson-Darling
(AD) statistic for the exponential
distribution alone. Additionally, visual
comparison confirmed this selection.
Table 1: Estimated Percentile values for Exponential
Distribution ( 4.1)
P( X x )
0.10 (10th Percentile)
0.50 (50th Percentile)
0.90 (90th Percentile)
0.99 (99th Percentile)
x (mm)
0.4
2.8
9.4
18.7
1.2.
Monthly Rainfall
Annual Rainfall
14
12
Frequency
1.3.
16
10
8
6
4
2
0
600
720
840
960
1080
Part Two
Part One somewhat highlighted the variation of rainfall at various temporal scales. This part aims at
defining relationships between Standard Annual Average Rainfall (SAAR) and geospatial variables in
the Eden Catchment. To achieve this, regression analysis would be used to test the dependence and
the resulting model would be used to predict a possible scenario (within stated margins of
uncertainty) given a specific location.
In this case, the predictor variables given for the analysis are Elevation (Elev), Easting (E) and
Northing (N). First glances at the catchments Digital Elevation and Interpolated Annual Rainfall maps
suggest some correlation, especially in the lower lying areas of the catchment. (See Appendix).
Similar spatial variation is also evident in the steady decrease in rainfall with Northward progress,
but few difficulties arise in visual East West estimations.
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
100
200
300
400
500
Elevation (m)
S (mm)
R2
R2 (adjusted)
PRESS
194.2
71.60%
70.46%
1143016
65.55%
P-Value
0.000
0.000
Although the histogram of the residuals Figure 5 seem not to follow a normal distribution at visual
inspection of the histogram, analysis of the residuals give some evidence of normality at 95%
confidence (Mean of residuals = -0.01; AD = 0.483; p = 0.212). It is worthy of note that the sample
size of the distribution in question may play a major role in this seeming contradiction, as small
sample sizes usually always pass statistical normality tests (Machiwel & Jha, 2012). Nevertheless, the
normal probability plot shows points clustered about the normal line. The functional form accuracy
assumption that the residuals follow a normal distribution is thus satisfied.
The residuals also show random patterns about the centre line (and no clustering) when plotted in
order of observation. This characteristic satisfies the assumption that the residuals are not
correlated with one another.
Examination of the residuals plotted against fitted values shows an increase of variance from left to
right. This gives evidence of non-constant variance and violates the assumption of homoscedasticity.
6
This violation affects the validity of the model. Thus, the model may require refinement. Either by
transformation of the response variable or by inclusion of other predictor variables.
Subsequent manipulation of the variables in Minitab to select the optimal (high R2, significant p
values, low errors and few variables) combination of terms produced the following summary table:
Table 7: Best combinations of SAAR regression variables
Model Summary
2
No of
R
R2
R2 (adjusted)
Mallows CP
Variables
(predictive)
1
71.6
70.5
65.6
10.6
1
54.7
52.9
46.3
30.5
2
77.6
75.8
67.8
5.4
2
72.6
70.3
65.5
11.4
All
80.5
78.0
66.4
4.0
S (mm)
194.16
245.08
175.79
194.71
167.56
Variable Combination
Elevation
Easting
Northing
(m)
X (p=0.000)
X (p=0.000)
X (p=0.000)
X (p=0.000)
X (p=0.000)
X (p=0.018)
X (p=0.363)
X (p=0.077)
X (p=0.005)
The results (Table 7) clearly show that elevation (orographic uplift or cloud seeding) is the major
physical determinant of rainfall for this catchment as its variations are the most significant
determinant of responses in SAAR. This observation of the predominant physical activity through
statistics would assist in the interpretation of the other physical effects that generally determine wet
and dry areas within the catchment.
The combination of results also show that the model with all three variables also quite reasonably
models the responses. The added terms generally improve the models ability to fit responses to
changes in the variables (Adjusted R2 = 0.78). Comparing the coefficients, we still find very high
significance of Elevation to the overall annual rainfall model (p = 0.000). All other terms except the
Easting (p = 0.077) show high levels of significance to response fitting.
This may suggest that the Easting variable is not very useful to the model, and the model may
reproduce similar responses in SAAR without it. Indeed, the model which predicts SAAR from
Elevation and Northing alone has a higher predictive R2 value. Nevertheless, a trade-off is made for
7
fitness of model (Mallows Cp) and standard difference of the predicted results from actual
observances shown in the S (mm) values. It may thus be concluded that regression of SAAR with
Elevation, and the included variables of Easting and Northing seems practical enough to be used for
subsequent predications.
The revised regression produced the following model summarized in Table 8:
Equation 2: Revised Regression Model of SAAR
SAAR (mm) = 12633 + 2.142 Elevation (m) 0.009 Easting 0.017 Northing
Table 8: Model Summary of revised SAAR regression
S (mm)
R2
R2 (adjusted) PRESS
R2 (predictive)
167.559
80.54%
78.00%
1115354
66.39%
T-Value
3.36
5.52
-1.85
-3.07
P-Value
0.003
0.000
0.077
0.005
VIF
1.94
1.52
1.88
Details of the model in Table 9 show that average annual rainfall within in the catchment increases
(positive coefficients) with higher progress towards higher elevations but decreases (negative
coefficients) with progress in northward and eastward directions. Prior understanding of the
predominant effect of orographic uplift (or cloud seeding) within the catchment and visual
inspection of catchment area maps assist detecting physical patterns. The catchment maps show
highland areas on the southern and eastern boundaries with lower lying areas towards the north.
Comparing the average rainfall map with DEM map (see Appendix), the low-lying northern reaches
of the catchment receive less rainfall. However, even the highlands in the eastern boundaries get
significantly less amounts of rainfall. This corresponds with the model predictions and can be
interpreted to mean a rain shadow effect caused by the highlands in the south-west shading rain
8
laden predominant south westerly winds (Pollock, et al., 2013). Relation of results with the given
2005 rainfall map which shows intense raining in the eastern highlands may be due to enhanced
cloud seeding during a convective storm.
Figure 6 shows residual plots which test the validity of the refined linear model. The residuals clearly
follow a normal distribution (Mean = -0.0000; AD = 0.283; p = 0.607) and as in the first model, the
residuals show a random pattern when plotted against record order. This random pattern of
residuals against order gives evidence that errors are not correlated with one another. This statistic
is also represented in Table 9 (all VIF values relatively close to 1).
However, the residuals in this revised model still show evidence of non-constant variance. This may
be due to missing variables in the model. From previous analysis, direction of slope (aspect)
combined with elevation may give better predictions of the SAAR responses in the catchment.
Thus applying this model to an ungauged site, its shortfalls must be taken into consideration as
predictions are accurate only if the model represents the true relationship. Given such a site, with
predictor variables: Elevation 400m, Easting 380000; Northing 500000, SAAR can be estimated
as follows:
Table 10: Model application results from ungauged site
Estimated SAAR SE Fit
95% CI
95% PI
1648.3 mm 65.1
(1513.7, 1782.8) (1276.4, 2020.1)
From the above table, it is predicted that the SAAR is 1648.3mm (given a set of parameters) at 95%
confidence interval. This shows that there is a 95% chance that the true mean (expected value) of
SAAR lies between 1513.7mm and 1782.8mm. On the other hand, the prediction interval gives the
range of values that are likely to contain the particular estimated value 95% of times. This interval
has a wider range of values because it seeks to predict a particular value from a range rather than
the mean of a sample (a wider set) of values from the same range. Therefore, even if the model
rightly represents the expected value of responses given a set of variables, its representation of any
particular response given the same set of variables is at best a crude estimate.
Part Three
Autocorrelation Function for Daily Rainfall
(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)
1.0
0.8
0.6
Autocorrelation
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Lag
Autocorrelation
-0.4
Monthly rainfall also shows
-0.6
strong autocorrelation with
-0.8
the immediately succeeding
-1.0
month. However, this effect
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
wanes significantly after one
Lag
month. This persistence or
Figure 9: Autocorrelation (12 month lag) plot for Monthly Rainfall in the Eden
Catchment
influence by antecedent conditions
is not evident in annual autocorrelation of rainfall at 10 year lags
(Figure 10). This is usually due to changes in the environment and the dissipation of physical inertia
over time. Rainfall is generally a phenomenon that responds quickly to alterations in atmospheric
10
Autocorrelation
conditions. It is therefore,
more likely to exert
influence over subsequent
events in its time series only
for a relatively short period
as antecedent conditions
vary rapidly.
0.4
0.2
0.0
Autocorrelation
This dependence on
-0.2
-0.4
antecedent conditions is also
-0.6
demonstrated in the
-0.8
correlogram for stream flow
-1.0
time series. High flows tend
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
to follow high flows and low
Lag
flows have a higher chance
Figure 10: Autocorrelation (10 year lagged) of Annual rainfall in the Eden Catchment.
of succeeding low flows.
Autocorrelation Function for Monthly Flow
Because time series are
(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)
usually a combination of
1.0
several complex and
0.8
intricately correlated
0.6
components, it is sometimes
0.4
possible for a certain
0.2
component to mask the
0.0
-0.2
detection of another
-0.4
component. This masking
-0.6
prevents proper
-0.8
understanding of the
-1.0
masked component, which
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
may be crucial to overall
Lag Time (12 months)
insight into the behaviour of Figure 11: Autocorrelation (12 month lagged) for mean monthly flows at Eden
Sheepmouth (1970 - 2000)
the time series. A clear
example of this masking effect is the effect of seasonality component on trend component.
Autocorrelation
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
1
10
11
12
Lag
Figure 12: Correlogram of deseasonalised monthly flow data (12 month lagged)
11
achieve this, the difference between the observed data is standardized using the standard deviation.
This ensures that monthly variations are significantly different from seasonal variations. The formula
used for deseasonalising the data is:
=
( )
Figure 13: Mean Annual Temperatures for Central England for 1659 - 2011
12
The importance of record lengths to
developing decision support systems is
illustrated clearly in the following graph
(Figure 13) of mean annual temperature in
Central England from 1659 2011. This
temperature series has been split into three
century long partial duration series (Figure
14, Figure 15 and Figure 16).
Each partial series exhibits a unique trend
applicable only within its record length and
does not conform to the overall trend of
the entire series. This highlights the danger
of extrapolating outside the range of
predictor values. It is therefore imperative
to understand the uncertainty of the data
record period available for use and calibrate
decision support models to reflect such
unknowns accordingly.
Record Length
Trend Equation
Y(t) = 9.31 - 0.003t
1701 1800
1801 1900 Y(t) = 9.10 + 0.00036t
1901 - 2000 Y(t) = 9.16 + 0.007t
Complete Series Y(t) = 8.76 + 0.003t
Mean Absolute
Percentage Error
Mean Absolute
Deviation
Mean Squared
Deviation
4.9%
5.5%
4.1%
5.3%
0.44
0.49
0.39
0.48
0.34
0.38
0.24
0.37
It must be emphasized nonetheless that the errors shown in Table 11 give error margins only for the
record length supplied to Minitab. This may mean that making extrapolations from one time window
to the next, additional error terms must be included, thus increasing uncertainty.
References
Machiwel, D. & Jha, M., 2012. Hydrologic Time Series Analysis. New Delhi: Capital Publishing
Company.
Pollock, M. et al., 2013. World Meteorological Organisation. [Online]
Available at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-116_TECO2014/Session%203/O3_9_Pollock_Accurate_Rainfall_measurement.pdf
[Accessed 9 December 2014].