My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD08610
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
8001-9000
>
FLOOD08610
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 7:15:03 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 3:45:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Basin
Statewide
Title
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations of the US Geological Survey Some Statistical Tools in Hydrology
Date
1/1/1969
Prepared By
USGS
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />SOME STATISTICAL TOOLS IN HYDROLOGY <br /> <br />37 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />on the time of year. Thus, the duration curve <br />is merely the distribution of daily means that <br />has occurred. It ClLIl be considered an estimate <br />of the distribution during a future period sev- <br />eral years long. <br />On the other hand, frequency curves of <br />annual flood peaks ClLIl be interpreted as prob- <br />ability curves because the individuals are <br />unrelated and homogeneous. Most low-flow <br />frequency curves can be similarly interpreted, <br />but occasionally a serially correlated sample <br />will be found. <br />Tbe effect of using nonhomogeneous data in <br />a regression problem is shown by figure 25 in <br />which is plotted 4 years of monthly mean dis- <br />charge for e":9h of the 12 calendar months for <br />two stations, one in Turkey lLIld one in Idaho. <br />The relation looks fairly good, but there is <br />actually no relation between the two streams <br />for a particular calendar month. The apparent <br />relation using all calendar months arises be- <br />cause the yearly cycle of streamflow in Idaho <br />resembles that in Turkey. Discharges in winter <br />months are low lLIld in spring snowmelt months <br />are high. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />500 <br /> <br />" <br />z <br />-0 <br />~&3 <br />0", <br />z", <br />..w <br />b"- <br />"'", <br />~'" <br />OW <br />... <br />Lu uJl00 <br />"", <br />~2 <br />"'" <br />o=> <br />!!!o <br />Oz <br />z- <br />~ri <br />"'''' <br />'" <br />>-=> <br />~t-:. <br />...", <br />z- <br />0'" <br />",g <br />~ <br />in 10 <br />100 <br /> <br />oOc! <br />xNov <br />^ Dee <br />D isn <br />() Feb <br />.. Ma.rch <br />4. Apr <br />II May <br />. June <br />. July <br />... Aug <br />m'Sept <br /> <br /> <br />1000 4000 <br />MONTHLY MEAN DISCHARGE OF SOUTH FORK <br />BOISE RIVER NEAR FEATHERVILLE, IDAHO, <br />IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND <br /> <br />Figure 2S.-Spurious relation using nonhomogeneous data. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Less extreme conditions are shown by rela- <br />tions between .monthly mean discharges from <br />contiguous basins. For example, there is no <br /> <br />relation between monthly mean discharges of <br />Lake Fork above Moon Lake, Utah, and <br />Duchesne River at Provo River Trail, Utah, <br />for the calendar month of January; there is a <br />fair relation for the calendar month of June <br />(fig. 26). With few exceptions the relation be- <br />tween monthly discharges from two adjacent <br />drainage basins for a particular calendar month <br />is not the same as the relation for a different <br />calendar month. When monthly discharges for <br />all calendar months are used together, the <br />computed correlation coefficient will be too high <br />lLIld the computed standard error will be an <br />average of the standard errors for the individual <br />calendar-month relations. <br /> <br />Outliers <br /> <br />Many factors influence the flow of a stream; <br />some exert great influence at one time and none <br />at another; most exert effects which are inter- <br />related with effects of other factors. Only It <br />few factors ClLIl be included in a regression used <br />to estimate streamflow, and the efferts of these <br />factors are onl:y approximated. Consequently <br />there is a scatter of points about the regression <br />line and occasionally a wild point occurs (see <br />fig. 18 for an example). Such wild points are <br />called outliers in statistics, lLIld statistical <br />tests are available for use in determining <br />whether or not a particular point should be <br />rejected as not belonging to the group. It seems <br />questionable whether outliers in hydrologic <br />lLIlalyses should be rejected on the basis of a <br />statistical test. Consider the wild point in figure <br />18. If the precipitation had been about 7 inches <br />instead of 3.4 inches, the point would not be <br />wild. It is possible that precipitation at the <br />higher elevations in the Jarbidge River basin <br />was much greater than at Three Creek. If it <br />were, the same thing could happen again and <br />more weight should have been given to that <br />point in the analysis. However, if some of the <br />data for that year are found to be unreliable <br />we could reject the point. <br />Acton (1959) devoted a short chapter to the <br />rejection of unwanted data. He says, in part" <br />"But the plain truth is that physical scientists <br />and engineers need not be encouraged to ignore <br />obstinate outlying data-rather they need to <br />be held in check". <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.