You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
<spanid="tab:A-datasummary16">Table 5.1: </span>Data summary in CSIEM V1.6 (ingested) data-set. Please note that other data-sets are included in the CSIEM data-lake that may not appear on these images. Please refer to the data snapshot link above for the current data summary list.
105
+
<spanid="tab:A-datasummary16">Table 6.1: </span>Data summary in CSIEM V1.6 (ingested) data-set. Please note that other data-sets are included in the CSIEM data-lake that may not appear on these images. Please refer to the data snapshot link above for the current data summary list.
105
106
</caption>
106
107
<thead><tr>
107
108
<thstyle="text-align:left;font-weight: bold;color: white !important;background-color: #14759e !important;">
<p>The aim of this section is to compare the modelling results against historical data collected within Cockbrun Sound and surrounding waters (where available), with outputs of various generations of the CSIEM. The model performance in predicting a range of relevant variables such as salinity, temperature, nitrogen, phosphorus and total chlorophyll-a, are assessed with a set of statistical metrics, and other supporting analyses.</p>
90
91
<p>This appendix is in progres during the active development of the model and being updated with the CSIEM modelling as it evolves.</p>
<p>A “high-level” annual-scale analysis of the model is undertaken for each model version during development. This is to provide a synoptic scale assessment of how key variables are preodcited with different model configurations.</p>
96
97
<p>Time-series validation plots including the statistics for each site are available via the links in the below table (Table <ahref="#tab:A-testing"><strong>??</strong></a>). The tables are organised based on model generation, in addition to a comparison of the performance of the model generations (termed ‘multi’).</p>
<spanid="tab:A-testing4">Table 5.3: </span>Model results for GEN 2.1 nWV nSDG simulation (Generation 2.1 model without wave or dynamic sediment modules engaged.)
107
+
<spanid="tab:A-testing4">Table 6.3: </span>Model results for GEN 2.1 nWV nSDG simulation (Generation 2.1 model without wave or dynamic sediment modules engaged.)
107
108
</caption>
108
109
<thead><tr>
109
110
<thstyle="text-align:left;font-weight: bold;color: white !important;background-color: #14759e !important;">
<spanid="tab:A-testing3">Table 5.4: </span>Model results for GEN 2 nWV nSDG simulation (Generation 2 model without wave or dynamic sediment modules engaged.)
134
+
<spanid="tab:A-testing3">Table 6.4: </span>Model results for GEN 2 nWV nSDG simulation (Generation 2 model without wave or dynamic sediment modules engaged.)
134
135
</caption>
135
136
<thead><tr>
136
137
<thstyle="text-align:left;font-weight: bold;color: white !important;background-color: #14759e !important;">
0 commit comments