Closure to "Probability Distribution of Low Streamflow Series in the United States" by Charles N. Kroll and Richard M. Vogel

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the issues raised by V. K. Minocha on our above referenced paper. Below each of the three points raised in the discussion are addressed. 1. The first point raised was that 'The authors should have reaffirmed the choice of distribution using a goodness of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of hydrologic engineering 2003-09, Vol.8 (5), p.297-298
Hauptverfasser: Kroll, Charles N, Vogel, Richard M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We appreciate the opportunity to clarify the issues raised by V. K. Minocha on our above referenced paper. Below each of the three points raised in the discussion are addressed. 1. The first point raised was that 'The authors should have reaffirmed the choice of distribution using a goodness of fit measure as given by Hosking and Wallis (1997), that works directly with the L-moment statistics. The discusser's second claim is an important point, yet appears unfounded. He suggests choosing a distribution based on its ability to provide 'accurate quantile estimates even if the model's assumptions are changed in a plausible way'. In this paper we never address the issue of quantile estimation, only issues of distributional fit. There are numerous ways to assess the uncertainty of quantile estimators, but that was not a goal of this paper and thus they are not discussed here.
ISSN:1084-0699
1943-5584
DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2003)8:5(297.2)