Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 75 - <br /> <br /> 0.2 <br />'" 0.1 <br />... <br />x <br />u. <br />~ <br />'" <br />i 0.05 <br />'" <br />... <br />'" <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />> <br />"" <br /> <br /> <br />0.5 <br /> <br />1.0 <br /> <br />0.001 <br />0.01 <br /> <br />0.02 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />0.05 <br /> <br />Fig. 1. Average sampling error relations on 400 mi2 <br />(from Huff, 1971). <br /> <br />2:5 <br /> <br />E <br />oS <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />2.:5 25 250 <br />NETWORK MEAN RAINFALL (mm) <br /> <br />ILLINOIS 4-"'r STORM <br />FLORIDA SHOWERS AND <br />THUNDERSTORMS <br /> <br />a: <br />o <br />a: <br />::i 2.:5 <br /> <br />.., <br />Z <br />..J <br />... <br />~ <br />c( <br />'" <br /> <br />.25 <br />... <br />.., <br />c( <br />II: <br />... <br />> <br />c( <br /> <br />Fig. 2. Average sampling error versus network <br />mean rainfall. The lines are logarithmic least- <br />squares fits. The Illinois curves are from Huff <br />(1971). The Florida curves are from Woodley et <br />aI, (1975). <br />