Figure
5 . Performance of each model configuration for multiple temporal
aggregations. Each box shows the interquartile range, with the median
marked as the central line. A 95% confidence interval for the estimate
of the median is represented by the notched portion. Outliers are shown
as open circles.
3.2 Diagnostic analysis
In section 3.1 we demonstrated that the NN configurations were able to
consistently outperform the SA configuration for both latent and
sensible heat flux predictions at a half-hourly timestep. The range of
performance differences shown in Figure 4 demonstrates that the NN-based
simulations are significantly different from the physically-based
representation in SA. Consequently, water and energy partitioning in the
NN configurations is likely much different than in SA. To explore the
effect of the new NN-based parameterizations on the simulated water
cycle we first compared the simulated evaporative fraction (ET/P) to the
observed (Figure 6). In all three model configurations the KGE values
tend to be higher for sites where the simulated evaporative fraction
closely matches the observed value.