VOL. 24, NO. 5
WATER RESOURCES _{B}_{U}_{L}_{L}_{E}_{T}_{I}_{N}
AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES _{A}_{S}_{S}_{O}_{C}_{I}_{A}_{T}_{I}_{O}_{N}
_{O}_{C}_{T}_{O}_{B}_{E}_{R} _{1}_{9}_{8}_{8}
SHORTTERM FORECASTING OF SNOWMELT RUNOFF USING ARMAX MODELS1
J. P. Haltiner and J. D. Saks2
ABSTRACT: Time series models of the ARMAX class were investi
gated for use in forecasting daily riverfiow resulting from combined
The Snowmelt Runoff Model (MartinecRango
_{s}_{n}_{o}_{w}_{m}_{e}_{l}_{t}_{/}_{r}_{a}_{i}_{n}_{f}_{a}_{l}_{l}_{.}
Model) is shown to have a form similar to the ARMAX modeL The
advantage of the ARMAX approach is that analytical model identifica
tion and parameter estimation techniques are available. In addition,
previous forecast errors can be included to improve forecasts and
confidence limits can be estimated for the forecasts. Diagnostic checks
are available to determine if the model is performing properly.
Finally, Kalinan filtering can be used to allow the model parameters
to vary continuously to reflect changing basin runoff conditions. The
above advantages result in improved flow forecasts with fewer model
parameters.
(KEY TERMS: streaniflow forecasting; snowmelt runoff; time series
modeling; Kalman filtering; realtime forecasting.)
INTRODUCTION
Shortterm streamfiow forecasting (several hours to several
days in advance) is important in flood warning, reservoir
operation, recreation, and water quality applications. Rainfall
runoff forecasting at this time scale has been quite inten
sively studied, while combined snowmelt/rainfall runoff model
ing has received less attention.
The use of deterministic physical process models for
shortterm forecasting has a number of drawbacks including
large computer storage requirements, difficulty in including
realtime measured data in the forecast, and overparameteri
zation (more model parameters than can be justified given the
available data). A simpler conceptual model, the "Snowmelt
Runoff Model" (SRM) developed by Martinec and Rango
(Martinec, 1960; Rango and Martinec, 1979) has been shown
to give good results on a number of basins of varying size
(Rango, 1983; Martinec and Rango, 1986). Reliable modeling using the SRM requires accurate parameter estimation, proper
determination of the model form (number of previous runoff
and snowmelt/precipitation terms to include), and measure
ment of snowcovered areas (SCA). Analytical methods to
address the first two requirements have not been previously
presented. In addition, measurement of SCA are expensive
and difficult to obtain on a regular basis. Finally, use of the
model in a forecasting mode could be improved if realtime
information could be used to update the model parameters
on a regular basis.
In this paper, a class of stochastic, timeseries models re
ferred to as ARMAX (Auto RegressiveMoving Average with
Exogenous Inputs) or transfer function models (Box and
_{J}_{e}_{n}_{k}_{i}_{n}_{s}_{,} _{1}_{9}_{7}_{0}_{)} _{a}_{r}_{e} _{u}_{s}_{e}_{d}_{.}
It is shown that the Snowmelt
Runoff Model can be viewed as a particular case within this general class of linear stochastic models. This offers a num
ber of advantages: (1) analytical techniques are available for adapting the model form to basins of varying characteristics
and to varying time frames (daily, hourly, etc.); (2) a num
ber of efficient parameter estimation techniques are available;
(3) confidence limits describing the accuracy of the forecast
can be included with the forecast; (4) diagnostic checks are
available to determine if the model is performing properly;
(5) previous forecast errors can be included in the model to
improve future forecasts; and (6) the model can be cast in "systems format" and the Kalman filter can be used to up
date the parameters or status of the model in real time.
MODEL FORMULATION
The general univariate ARMAX model for river flow
(adapted from Box and Jenkins, 1970) can be expressed as:
^{=}
where:
_{Q}
I
e
p
_{i}_{=}_{1}
^{=}
^{=}
^{=}
q
r
^{+} _{j}_{=}_{0} _{L}_{I} 'tj + k=0 0k 6t—k
(1)
streamfiow;
"moisture input" (combined snowmelt/rainfall);
white noise process;
p,q,r = _{n}_{u}_{m}_{b}_{e}_{r} of previous river flow, input and noise
terms included in the model;
'Paper No. 87063 of the Water Resources Bulletin.
Discussions are open until June 1, 1989.
2Respectively, Principal, Philip Williams and Associates, Pier 35, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, California 94133; and Professor, Colorado State University, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Ft. Coffins, Colorado 80521.
1083
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
Haltiner and Salas
= _{m}_{o}_{d}_{e}_{l} parameters to be estimated; and
t time step.
Next, consider the Snowmelt Runoff Model equation in a
commonly used form (Shafer, et a!., 1982):
^{=}
where:
_{Q}_{t}_{_}_{i}_{K}_{t} ^{+}
_{C}
(T_Tb) S + P } ^{A}^{'} (1—Kt)
(2)
^{=} streamfiow,
C
_{a}_{t}
=
^{=}
_{T}_{t} ^{=}
Tb =
t ^{=}
_{S} _{=}
runoff coefficient,
_{d}_{e}_{g}_{r}_{e}_{e} day factor, air temperature, base temperature,
time step (typically, one day),
snowcovered _{a}_{r}_{e}_{a}_{,}
^{=} precipitation,
A = watershed _{a}_{r}_{e}_{a}_{,}
^{=} recession coefficient, and
^{=} elevation zone.
It can be seen that the forecast of flow at the next time step
is a function of the flow at the current time step and the ef
fective snowmelt/rainfall during the next time step. If we
denote this combined snowmelt/rainfall input from all eleva tion zones as I, let C1.Ø _{e}_{q}_{u}_{a}_{l} the product of C and (1—Kt)
and call the recession coefficient çb1, Equation (2) becomes:
=
i Qt—i + ''o 1t
_{(}_{3}_{)}
where:
3 ii
i ii
^{=} _{i}_{=}_{l} (at(Tt_Tb) St + Pt) A
_{(}_{4}_{)}
Equation (3) can be seen to represent a special case of
Equation (1), without the inclusion of a noise term. The
advantages of using the ARMAX formulation will be presented
in the following sections.
point was at the Del Norte, Colorado, gaging station. Drain
age area above this point is 3419 km2 (1320 mi2), with
elevations ranging from 2432 m (7980 ft) to 4215 m (13,830
ft). Riverflow behavior is dominated by snowpack accumula
tion and melt, resulting in a lowflow (snowpack accumula
tion) period between September and April and a highflow
(snowpack melting) period, which begins in early April and
persists through the summer. This basin was selected because
extensive modeling with the SRM has already been conducted
on the basin (Shafer, et a!., 1982), allowing use of identical
data for model comparison and evaluation.
Daily precipitation, streamfiow, average daily temperature,
and snowcovered area data for the period 1973 to 1980 were
used in the forecasting evaluation. Only the peak flow
period (April to September) in each year was examined.
Precipitation, temperature, and snowcovered area data were
used to calculate the moisture input, I, for each of three
elevation zones using the SRM approach shown in Equation
These zonal moisture inputs were then combined to
represent a single basin moisture input, I, for use in Equa
tion (1). Although the SRM approach to snowmelt was used
in this study to facilitate model comparison, any available
_{(}_{4}_{)}_{.}
snowmelt/precipitation model could be used to calculate the
input term in Equation (1).
MODEL ESTIMATION
Model Format
The first step in estimation is to determine the model
order (the values of p, q, and r) in Equation (1). This can
be done empirically, analytically, or using a combination of
both. Empirical identification is based on examining the
physical processes _{i}_{n}_{v}_{o}_{l}_{v}_{e}_{d}_{.}
(1982) examined hourly flow records for the Rio Grande at
Del Norte and estimated that about 35 percent of snowmelt/
rainfall for a particular day appears as runoff on that same
day and 65 percent on the following day. Using this informa
tion, they determined that the SRM model should include
two input terms. The analytical approach uses the cross
correlation structure between the input and output (flow)
series to identify model order. In this approach, the input
series is "prewhitened" (Box and Jenkins, 1970) by fitting
a standard time series model to the data, resulting in a white
noise process. This same model is then applied to the output
series, and the crosscorrelation at various time lags is calcu
For example, Shafer, et aL
_{l}_{a}_{t}_{e}_{d}_{.}
This crosscorrelation is scaled using the standard
deviation of the transformed input and output processes to
produce an impulse response function:
APPLICATION
^{=}
The ARMAX model described by Equation (1) was used
to forecast daily streamfiows in the headwaters of the Rio
Grande River in southern Colorado. The riverflow forecast
1084
/L1I Q? (k)
^{k}^{=}^{0}^{,} ^{1}^{,} ^{2}^{.}
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
ShortTerm Forecasting of Snowmelt Runoff Using ARMAX Models
where:
v
and
^{=} impulse response function,
^{=}
standard deviation of the transformed in
put and flow series,
^{=} crosscorrelation between the transformed input and flow, and
k ^{=}
time lag.
The impulse response function for daily input/flow data
for the Rio Grande is shown in Figure 1. When compared
with known impulse response curves (Box and Jenkins, 1970),
it indicates that the model should include one past flow term
and two input terms, the same as that identified in Shafer,
et a!. (1982). The analytical approach is especially useful in
complex cases, such as hourly modeling or large basin model
ing, where there may be several time periods of pure delay
and a large number of previous flow and input terms to be
included.
C
C
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
.1. 
— 
I 
.1. 

—..—. 

0 
2 
3 
4 
_{5} 
_{6} 
_{7} 
Log (doys)
_{F}_{i}_{g}_{u}_{r}_{e} 1. ImpulseResponse Function for the Snowmelt/Precipitation Input (impulse) and
Streamfiow (response) on the Rio Grande River.
_{T}_{h}_{e} number of noise terms to be included in the model
will be determined by analyzing the residual series, Ct, after
preliminary estimation of the and c model parameters.
Parameter Estimation
The model parameters (0,
and 0) were estimated using
a nonlinear least squares (NLS) algorithm. In the NLS ap
proach, Equation (1) is solved for e, which represents the
difference between the observed and forecast flows. Param
eters are selected using a NewtonRaphson iterative tech
Under the conditions of sta
_{n}_{i}_{q}_{u}_{e}_{,} _{w}_{h}_{i}_{c}_{h} _{m}_{i}_{n}_{i}_{m}_{i}_{z}_{e}_{s}
tionarity and normality of the data, nonlinear least squares
is an approximate maximum likelthood estimator.
these conditions are not strictly met, the estimator must be
Since
1085
considered suboptimal. Nonetheless, the NLS approach was
found to provide consistent, stable parameter estimates.
Several schemes to account for the variation of basin
hydrologic conditions with the ARMAX model were investi
gated. In the seasonal version, parameters were estimated
on a monthly and biweekly basis. In a second approach, the
level of flow in the river was used as an index of antecedent
moisture conditions.
Six thresholds of flow were chosen
and a set of parameters was calculated for each level. The
Ø parameter is inversely proportional to flow while the 1o
and o parameters (accounting for the current and previous
day's input) are generally proportional to flow (Figure 2).
Thus, increasing flows indicate greater antecedent soil moisture
and correspondingly, an increased amount of snowmelt/rain
fall appearing as streamflow. One interpretation of the sea
sonal behavior of (
,ij
and w1 (Figure 3) is that early in snow
melt season, the proximity of the snowpack to the river re
sults in a majority of a current day's snowmelt appearing as
runoff on that same day. As the season progresses, the snow
pack recedes and most of the snowmelt produced on a given day does not appear as runoff until the following day (repre
sented by the fact that w > c).
Two additional model parameterizations were evaluated.
In the first, the snowmelt and rainfall terms are included in
the model separately. The model for the Rio Grande River
then becomes:
^{=} _{i} —i +
+
where:
Mt =
+ k0 0kt—k
. (T—Tb)(S) ^{}^{}^{}
ii
A
AT = total area, and
P =
' A
_{P}
Al
fl—
3
i
+ ''o't + 'lptl
(6)
In Equation (6), Mt represents an areal average value of
re
the product of degree days and snowcovered area and
presents an areal average value of precipitation. The degree
day factor is now included in the tj and
addition to eliminating the need for estimating the degree
day factor, the model form of Equation (6) allows separate
consideration of the effects of snowmelt and rainfall on river
flow. Perhaps the primary difficulty in using the SRM ap
proach is obtaining values of the snowcovered area (see Equa
tion 2). Because aerial photography is expensive for use on a
regular basis, satellite imagery has received primary emphasis.
Problems associated with satellite data include cloud cover,
_{p}_{a}_{r}_{a}_{m}_{e}_{t}_{e}_{r}_{s}_{.} _{I}_{n}
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
a
U
a
U
a
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0.
_{0}_{.}
_{1}_{0}_{0}_{0}_{.}
2000.
Haltiner and Salas
3000.
4000.
Flow (cfs)
5000.
6000.
7000.
.10
.08
.06
.04
.02
00
8000.
C
C
53 1
53
Figure 2. ARMAX Model Parameter Estimates Based on Flow Thresholds.
41
wo
..wl
0.I
0.8 
0.08 
0.6 
0.06 
0.4 
0.04 
0.2 
0.02 
0.0 
0.0 
April
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Q
F.
Figure 3. Biweekly Estimates of the ARMAX Model Parameters.
^{1}^{0}^{8}^{6}
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
ShortTerm Forecasting of Snowmelt Runoff Using ARMAX Models
estimation between time of satellite passes, and difficulty
in obtaining imagery quickly for use in realtime forecasting.
Alternatives to sateffite imagery include snowcover depletion
curves based on accumulated degree days, or possibly rela
ting areal snow cover to daily snow water equivalent (SWE)
as measured at SNOTEL sites. An approach investigated
here was to eliminate the snowcovered area term from the
model. The melt term in Equation (6) then becomes:
Mt =
3
ii
_{i}
i
(It—Tb) ^{}^{a}^{}^{}^{—}
AT
(7)
The parameters çj and c in Equation (6) must also now
account for the areal extent of snow available for melting, the
"effectiveness" of degree days in causing melt and the amount
of melt to appear as runoff. The parameters w0 and ''
could not be seasonally estimated because of the dramatic
differences year to year in the SCA. It was determined that
the parameters could be allowed to vary on a daily basis
using a Kalman filter to update the parameters based on
measured streamfiow. This has been used in rainfallrunoff
models for a number of years (Todini and Bouillot, 1975)
and initial attempts in snowmelt runoff (Burn and McBean,
1985) appear promising. Daily values of co and oi for the years 1975 and 1976 are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen
that the parameters increase rapidly in the early snowmelt
season, as the degree day effectiveness in causing melt and
soil moisture are both increasing. At the peak of the snowmelt
(a)
150 
— 

WI 

100 

0 

> 

,_ 50 

w 4 

a, 

E 0 

0 0 

0 

i 
i 
i
.i
'J
season, the parameters are approximately constant, as degree
_{d}_{a}_{y} _{e}_{f}_{f}_{e}_{c}_{t}_{i}_{v}_{e}_{n}_{e}_{s}_{s} _{c}_{o}_{n}_{t}_{i}_{n}_{u}_{e}_{s} _{t}_{o} _{i}_{n}_{c}_{r}_{e}_{a}_{s}_{e}_{,} _{b}_{u}_{t} _{s}_{n}_{o}_{w}_{}_{c}_{o}_{v}_{e}_{r}_{e}_{d}
_{a}_{r}_{e}_{a} _{i}_{s} _{d}_{e}_{c}_{r}_{e}_{a}_{s}_{i}_{n}_{g}_{.} _{T}_{h}_{i}_{s} _{l}_{a}_{t}_{t}_{e}_{r} _{f}_{a}_{c}_{t}_{o}_{r} _{b}_{e}_{c}_{o}_{m}_{e}_{s} _{d}_{o}_{m}_{i}_{n}_{a}_{n}_{t} _{a}_{s}
the 'season progresses, and the parameters decrease. It can
also be seen that in the early season, crj (current day's melt)
_{i}_{s} _{d}_{o}_{m}_{i}_{n}_{a}_{n}_{t}_{.} _{A}_{s} _{t}_{h}_{e} _{s}_{e}_{a}_{s}_{o}_{n} _{p}_{r}_{o}_{g}_{r}_{e}_{s}_{s}_{e}_{s}_{,}
(previous day's
melt) becomes more important. The application of Kalman
filtering has some inherent problems. The user must deter
mine the noise covariance matrices in the filter, which deter
mine how rapidly the parameters change. Analytical methods
of estimating these matrices resulted in overestimation and subsequent filter instability. It appears that the problem re
sults from inaccuracies in the measurement and areal averaging
of precipitation and degree days. The fairly large errors in
herent in these data may cause the parameter values to
fluctuate too rapidly.
Two additional advantages of the ARMAX formulation are
the availability of diagnostic checks to determine model
adequacy and the calculation of confidence limits for a fore
cast. The presence of significant autocorrelation in the fore
cast error sequence is an indication of model inadequacy.
This represents the presence of additional "information," in
the data which the model is not using. Tests of the SRM
model and ARMAX models without moving average terms showed the presence of residual autocorrelation. The inclu
sion of moving average terms increased the forecasting ac
curacy of the ARMAX model and eliminated the autocorrela
tion. Confidence limits for the forecast can be obtained using
1
.1.
.1
1
i. • .1.
•
Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aucj. Sep. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sep.
1975
1976
Figure 4. Kalman Filter Estimates of Snowmelt Parameters (Co and i) in the ARMAX
Model Described by Equation (6) and Equation (7) for the Years 197576.
1087
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
Haitmer and Salas
the variance of the forecast errors. Theory and results are
available in Haltiner (1985).
RESULTS
The previously described models were used to make one
and threeday ahead flow forecasts for the period 19731980.
In addition, a simple ARMA(1,l) model which only uses pre
vious values of streamfiow (no snowmelt/rainfall inputs) was
also included; it represents the forecasting accuracy which
can be achieved relatively simpiy without attempting to model the rainfall or snowmelt. Models were compared using a mean
squared error criterion (MSE). The model forecasting results
are presented in Table 1. This table also includes the num
ber of parameters which are estimated during the forecasting
period and an indication of the presence of significant auto
correlation in the forecast errors. Model 1 represents the
Snowmelt Runoff Model described by Shafer, et _{a}_{!}_{.} _{(}_{1}_{9}_{8}_{2}_{)}_{,} adapted to include measured data. Average parameters were
calculated for each 15day period. Model 2 is the simple time
series model with six sets of parameters based on flow thres
holds. Models 3 and 4 correspond to the ARMAX models
described in Equation (1), using a combined snowmelt/rainfall _{i}_{n}_{p}_{u}_{t}_{.} _{M}_{o}_{d}_{e}_{l} _{5} _{i}_{s} the ARMAX model described in Equation
(6), with separate snowmelt and rainfall inputs.
A comparison of the MSE shows that the ARMA(1,1),
which does not include rain or snowmelt, gives the poorest forecasts. The ARMAX Models 3, 4, and 5 _{g}_{i}_{v}_{e} better fore casts with fewer parameters than the SRM model. Since the
form of the SRM and ARMAX models is similar, the smaller MSE of the latter result from the analytical parameter estima
tion techniques and the inclusion of moving average terms. The presence of residual autocorrelation in the SRM model indicates that the model forecasts could be improved by in
cluding the previous model errors in the forecasts.
Figure 5 presents an example of the onedayahead fore
cast and measured streamfiows for the 1973 snowmelt season
using Model 4. (It should be noted that in using the ARMAX
and SRM models in this study, the temperature and precipita
tion input data on the forecast day are assumed known. In operational use, these data would be forecast, using either
the National Weather Service forecast or autoregressive type
forecasts.)
The results in Table 1 were obtained using all eight years
of data for parameter estimation and forecasting. In a true
forecasting situation, the parameters must be estimated sequen
tially, using data available up to the time of the forecast.
To accomplish this, the seasonal and threshold ARMAX
models were reformatted so that the first year's data was
used to estimate model parameters and the model then used
to forecast flows during the second year. Following this, the
model parameters were reestimated using the first two years
of data and the model used to forecast the third year of
flow, etc. The Kalman filter parameter estimation scheme
operates recursively, reestimating the parameters each day
based on past parameter values and the most recent measure
ments. The SRM model could not be included in this com
parison as there is no version currently available which allows
analytical sequential updating of the model parameters.
The results of this experiment for the one, two, and
threeday ahead forecasts are shown in Table 2. The seasonal
model provided the most accurate forecasts, followed by the
Kalman filter scheme. The threshold model resulted in the
highest MSE values.
CONCLUSIONS
The ARMAX formulation of the SRM model appears to
offer a number of advantages over current procedures.
Analytical techniques are available to identify model format
TABLE 1. Comparison of OneDayAhead Forecasting Results for the Period 19731980.
Model
MSE*
No.of
_{P}_{a}_{r}_{a}_{m}_{e}_{t}_{e}_{r}_{s}
Res. Corr. Test
1. SRM 
_{4}_{1}_{.}_{3} 
_{8}_{4} 
Failed 

(seasonal param.) 

2. ARMA(1,1) 
_{5}_{6}_{.}_{3} 
_{1}_{2} 
Passed 

(threshold param.) 

3. ARMAX1 
_{3}_{8}_{.}_{8} 
_{6}_{0} 
Passed 

(combined input/threshold param.) 

_{4}_{.} ARMAX2 
_{3}_{5}_{.}_{1} 
_{8}_{8} 
Passed 

(combined input/seasonal param.) 

5. 
ARMAX3 
_{3}_{3}_{.}_{5} 
_{7}_{8} 
Passed 
(sep. snow/ppt input, seasonal param.)
*MSE = mean square error.
1088
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
ShortTerm Forecasting of Snowmelt Runoff Using ARMAX Models
and estimate model parameters, and diagnostic checks are
available to ensure that the model is operating properly. The
model can be updated in real time using previous forecast
errors; in addition, the Kalman filter can be used to update
the model parameters in real time.
TABLE 2. Comparison of Forecasting Results (19741980)
Using Sequential Parameter Estimation.
Model
_{O}_{n}_{e}_{}_{D}_{a}_{y}
Mean Square Error
TwoDay
ThreeDay
_{1}_{.} Threshold Model 
_{5}_{4}_{.}_{7} 
_{1}_{3}_{4}_{.}_{8} 
_{2}_{0}_{8}_{.}_{0} 
_{2}_{.} Seasonal Model 
_{4}_{9}_{.}_{6} 
_{1}_{1}_{2}_{.}_{9} 
_{1}_{8}_{4}_{.}_{6} 
3. Kalman Filter Model 
_{5}_{0}_{.}_{3} 
_{1}_{2}_{3}_{.}_{7} 
_{2}_{0}_{2}_{.}_{5} 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Colorado Agricultural Experiment
Station Projects COLO 0114 and COLO 0357. Portions of this paper
were presented at the 53rd Annual Western Snow Conference, held
April 1618, 1985, at Boulder, Colorado.
U — &asuqD _{F}_{L}_{O}_{U}
U
,
U.S
4
2$SS
I DAY FORECAST
April
_{M}_{a}_{y}
June
LITERATURE CITED
Box, G. E. P. and G. M. Jenkins, 1970. Time Series Analysis, Fore
casting and Control. HoldenDay Inc., San Francisco, California.
Burn, D. H. and E. A. McBean, 1985. River Flow Forecasting Model
for Sturgeon River. ASCE J. of Hyd. Eng., VoL III, No. 2.
Haltiner, J. P., 1985. Stochastic Modeling of Seasonal and Daily
Streaniflow. Ph.D. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Martinec, J., 1960. The Degree Day Factor for SnowmeltRunoff
Proceedings: General Assembly of Helsinki, 1960.
Commission on Surface Runoff. PubI. lASH No. 51, pp. 468477.
_{F}_{o}_{r}_{e}_{c}_{a}_{s}_{t}_{i}_{n}_{g}_{.}
Martinec, J. and A. Rango, 1986. Parameter Values for Snowmelt
Runoff Modeling. J. Hydrol. 84:197219.
Rango, A., 1983. Application of a Simple SnowmeltRunoff Model to
Large River Basins. Proceedings of the 51st Western Snow Con
ference, Vancouver, Washington, pp. 8999.
Rango, A. and J. Martinec, 1979. Application of a SnowmeltRunoff
Model Using Landsat Data. Nordic Hydrology 10:225238.
Shafer, B. A., E. B. Jones, and D. M. Frick, 1982. Snowmelt Runoff
Modeling in Simulation and Forecasting Modes with the Martinec
Rango ModeL NASA Report CR 170452, Goddard Space Flight
Center, Greenbelt, Maryland.
Todini, E. and D. Bouillot, 1975. A RainfallRunoff Kalman Filter
ModeL In: System Simulation in Water Resources, G. C. Van
steenkiste (Editor). North Holland, Amsterdam.
July
August
September
Figure 5. Comparison of Measured Flows and OneDayAhead
Forecasts for 1973 Using Model 4 of Table 1.
1089
WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.