World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2008 2008
DOI: 10.1061/40976(316)562
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flood Frequency Confidence Bounds — Art, Science, or Guess!

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Uncertainty in the flood frequency analysis may arise not only from limited data, but also from (i) stream gauge measurement errors (Neppel et al, 2010), (ii) possible nonstationarity of the series due to climate change (Khaliq et al, 2006) and (iii) uncertain fitting of a discharge-frequency (Q-f) relationship to the AMFS 1967-2009 dataset (Countryman and Tustison, 2008). Here, only the latter uncertainty was modelled and simulated.…”
Section: Flood Frequency Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Uncertainty in the flood frequency analysis may arise not only from limited data, but also from (i) stream gauge measurement errors (Neppel et al, 2010), (ii) possible nonstationarity of the series due to climate change (Khaliq et al, 2006) and (iii) uncertain fitting of a discharge-frequency (Q-f) relationship to the AMFS 1967-2009 dataset (Countryman and Tustison, 2008). Here, only the latter uncertainty was modelled and simulated.…”
Section: Flood Frequency Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%