FLOOD07236 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. storm to vary significantly across the country, and the ratio of an individual maximized storm to a SS PMP shouid not be assumed to be 100%.. These statements must be left in the appendix as they were used in the original arguments, but they did not contribute scientifically to any conclusions, Again, it simply points to the need to be clear why and for whom the original peer review was performed, and to be honest about some biases that may have been represented. Now we need to move past those biases, Task 2, HMR 52 Run Verification This task is hard to comment on, There is a lot of jargon, and it Is difficult to evaiuate how much of an effort this task was for AWA It was undertaken based on a concern (shown to be unfounded) that this may have been run in error by NWS in the original SS PMP study, What specific errors were you iooking for? Since you found none, did this increase your confidence in NWS results? Task 3, Sensitivity Studies I was really looking forward to this section as a guide to quantitatively show the relative importance of different factors and assumptions contibutlng to PMP determinations, It started out very strong with a clear and quantitative analysis of how dew point temperatures relate to PMP, The case made for the importance of dew point was so strong that it certainly made me think (since I was listening to many global climate and climate change papers at the AMS annual meeting) that it is a stretch these days NOT to try to include some maximization factor for a potentially warmer and more humid climate, There is already enough uncertainty in this PMP process and there is no methodology in place to account for climate change, However, if the effect on dewpoint temperature is very strong and confident, we may need to at least talk about It. The remainder of the sensitivity analyses were more like detailed evaluations of the 1935 and 1965 storms with respect to several important parameters and less like a true sensitivity study, This was a bit disappointing for some of the parameters as this approach raised more questions than It answered concerning just how much change in a given parameter vaiue or assumption would affect the subsequent PMP estimate, If possible, I would like to see some additional effort to demonstrate the range of PMP estimates that could result from a range of input parameters or assumptions for elements 4-8 presented as results of sensitivity testing, I realize that this has to be qualitative for some of the elements in light of the budget and time constraints. but it helps us and others appreciate the relative importance of various parameters and assumptions contributing to the final PMP values, The analyses of the 1935 and 1965 storms were more detailed and comprehensive than I expected and did provide some substance with which to examine how extreme rainfall actually has and could fall in the Cherry Creek Basin, The sample size of 3 events from two storm cases is really' too small to draw some of the inferences that were being suggested -- such as the arcs of storm centers suggesting some wave length originating from Pikes Peak, It's OK to examine and speculate -- that's exploratory research -- but you don't have much to stand on, and that may best be left for oral discussion and interim reports but not for the final written report, There was also a tone of "because the 1935 and 1965 storms differed in certain ways from the Cherry Creek design PMP storm In terms of storm positioning, duration, time distribution, and spatial 2