text:
WAGMI Games-Cubix Partnership – Mobile PVP Tower Defense Game to Launch in Q1 of 2022
Florida, December 16, 2021 - Cubix will develop a new mobile PVP Tower Defense game under its partnership with WAGMI Games.
Florida, December 16, 2021 - Cubix will develop a new mobile PVP Tower Defense game under its partnership with WAGMI Games.
TopDevelopers.co names Cubix as a leading mobile app development company for November 2021.
Based on its Binance Smart Chain, MicroPets' mobile game version will be built to compete in a bourgeoning market of play 2 earn games.
Upcity.com names Cubix as a top mobile app development company.
Florida, September 27, 2021 – TopSoftwareCompanies.co includes Cubix in its list of top 10+ software development companies in Dubai for September 2021.
Cubix picked among top 8 software development companies by expertise.com
Florida, August 03, 2021 – Cubix has made it to a prestigious list of 30 Top iOS App Development Companies in the USA for 2021.
Florida, September 15, 2021 – Cubix has made it to a prestigious list of 30 Top IOS App Development Companies in the USA for 2021.
Federally Authorized Nonprofit Entity, Brands Foundation, Awards Cubix Brand of the Year Award - 2020.
ITFirms Lists Cubix among Top Blockchain Development Companies and app Developers for August 2021
Designrush Names Cubix in Its List of Top Wearable App Developers for August 2021
As part of a historic agreement, Cubix and the Sindh Bar Council will collaborate to leverage technology for public benefit.
Cubix Has Celebrated Its Anniversary with Awards, Games, Prizes, and Entertainment for Its Valued Employees and their Families.
Cubix to mark its anniversary in grand fashion amid outstanding employee and company success, on June 19, 2021.
Final year students are invited to apply for a 2-year Program to experience the Immense Opportunities the IT World Offers
Cubix Listed in 'Top App Development Firms' category by Appdevelopmentcompanies.co based on hourly cost, company strength, and work experience.
TopDevelopers.co includes Cubix as a leading Hybrid app development company for December 2020.
Mobile app development is our forte, and we never fail to amaze our clients with our enterprise-level mobile apps. GoodFirms recently recognized our excellence by naming us among the Top Mobile App Development Companies in 2020.
Cubix is in the list of top mobile app development companies for July 2020, announced by Find Best Development. Cubix is working on some exciting projects for pandemic-driven businesses.
Cubix is proud to be covered by top magazines and newspapers for its incredible achievement of being recognized as a top social networking app developer. Cubix is committed to delivering intuitive and engaging mobile apps.
With a decade-long experience in developing social networking apps, Cubix is included in the list of best-performing development companies. The renowned research firm named Cubix as a hot-favorite for 2020.


text:
The July General Meeting of the Brentwood Neighborhood Association will be held July 15 at 6:30pm at the Schweitzer Brentwood Library.
by Cindy
As a member, you are eligible to receive free monthly newsletters as well as meeting updates. By completing this form, you are agreeing to receive electronic newsletters from the association.
Brentwood Neighborhood Association's area of benefit includes residents and businesses within:
East: S. Lone Pine Avenue
West: S. Glenstone Avenue
North: E. Sunshine Street
South: E. Battlefield Road
Please see our Contact Us page to email us or submit a form sharing your needs and information.
Brentwood Neighborhood Association

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Extra compressed coco coir for use in all hydroponic systems. Shaped into a 29.5 x 29.5 x 9.5cm unit, weighing approximately 5kg in weight. Each of the Coco BLOCKZ will make 75 litres of pre-washed high quality coco ready for use.
Size / Contents
• 75 litres
• 29.5 x 29.5 x 9.5cm
In Brief
• Pre-washed – low sodium
• Pre-buffered – high in calcium
• Non-fertilised – low EC
How to use
1. Remove all packaging
2. Place Blockz into a minimum 75ltr container
3. Pour water onto Blockz for expansion
4. Once fully expanded, sprinkle into plant pot
Note: For faster expansion use lukewarm water


text:
RONIN opens Digital Recruitment Hub in Lancaster
RONIN International has expanded their operations with a new office, opening a desk research, CATI and digital recruitment hub in Lancaster, UK.
Read Full Article
RONIN International has expanded their operations with a new office, opening a desk research, CATI and digital recruitment hub in Lancaster, UK.
Read Full Article
Good data needs to be focussed and part of a wider strategic approach. RONIN's service, headed by our new Research Director Rob Plant, will provide a unique tailored approach to meet your needs, rather than an off-the-shelf price-tiered solution.
Read Full Article
RONIN consolidates its global opinion former offering: a case study.
In the previous 12 months, RONIN have delivered on an increasing number of projects with thought leaders, opinion formers and senior stakeholders across a range of key sectors, including the media, academic research, non-governmental organisations, senior decision-makers in the public sector and elected officials as well as C-suite participants in the finance, energy, investment, technology and sustainability sectors in over 20 markets.
Read Full Article
We were delighted and incredibly proud of our teams' hard work in winning not one, but two MRS Operations Awards in September, 'Best Data Collection – Telephone' and 'Best Training & Development'. We were also highly commended in 'Operational Excellence'.
Read Full Article
With the new normal slowly decanting in everyone's minds, we have been monitoring response rates carefully over the past few weeks to keep ahead of the curve…
Read Full Article
Please complete the form below with a brief description of your request.
Someone from RONIN will contact you within one business day.
*Denotes a required field
Harling House, 47-51 Great Suffolk Street
London SE1 0BS
Tel. 02070911400
[email protected]


text:
Ferrari FXX K Evo sheds weight, adds downforce
If you thought the FXX K was crazy on its own, think again.
You can always rely on Ferrari to take an already-insane hypercar and make it even crazier.
Say hello to the Ferrari FXX K Evo. It's the most capable variant of the LaFerrari hybrid hypercar to date, improving on many of the already-improved-upon parts from its track-only FXX K variant. The FXX K Evo is available both as a standalone car and as an upgrade package for owners of the FXX K. You do own one, don't you?
The FXX K's improvements focus on aerodynamics and weight. The rear now sports a twin-profile fixed wing, as opposed to the standard FXX K's dual winglets. The rear wheel arches have larger vents to improve airflow and increase downforce, and both bumpers were tweaked, along with the underbody.
Ferrari claims the FXX K Evo will generate 1,410 pounds of downforce at 124 mph, and at max speed, that number rises to more than 1,830 pounds. This is a 23 percent improvement over the "regular" FXX K, and nearly double that of the road-legal LaFerrari. Despite all the additions, Ferrari claims it's lighter than the standard FXX K, but it did not give a specific curb weight.
As with the FXX K and LaFerrari, the FXX K Evo relies on a hybrid powertrain. An 860-horsepower V12 mates to an electric motor to produce a net 1,050 hp. Power reaches the rear wheels by way of a seven-speed, dual-clutch transmission.
Changes to the interior are minimal. The screen that stands in for the rearview mirror is now larger, measuring 6.5 inches. There's also a new steering wheel with integrated shift paddles.
Since it's not road legal, owners get the chance to pilot these cars in something called the XX program. Along with the Enzo-based FXX and the 599-based 599 XX, FXX K Evo owners get the chance to drive their cars on nine different tracks around the world. Ferrari brings the cars and support staff to the tracks, and the owners just have to show up and drive. When you're paying more than $3 million for a car, though, it had better include its own support staff.


text:
About Tanya George
I have been a candidate for Councillor at Kiama Council on two occasions: Once with Ruth Devenney's team and secondly on a Kiama Greens team.
I have been increasingly concerned with the current direction of Kiama Council, in relation to environmental policies, development consents, lack of transparency, governance and a lack of genuine community consultation. This became most apparent for me when Kiama Council announced the proposal for a boardwalk along Minnamurra River. Although I have previously been on two tickets for councillor, I had not felt the urgency to be selected as I do presently.
There is a paucity of diverse and environmental voices on this current council and a serious lack of gender balance. Until we address this imbalance I feel that our Council doesn't reflect the community within which it governs and doesn't serve the common values we hold dear in our municipality. The qualities I can bring to the position of Kiama Councillor is a strong sense of social and environmental justice and the need to protect our most vulnerable in the community.
I am not afraid to speak my mind and can converse with all sections of our community with compassion, I am also a good listener. I am science literate and can absorb and comprehend significant amounts of information in a short time frame; most appropriate for Council Business papers.
As a casual Secondary Teacher I will not be employed in a full time work capacity and hence am able and determined to work extremely hard in the capacity of councillor as a voice for our environment.
EDUCATION: 1988 KANAHOOKA High School HSC completed 1989-1992
UOW – Bachelor of Nutrition 1993-1994
TAFE NSW – Diploma of Conservation and Land Management 2008-2009
Certificate III TAFE – NSW Animal Husbandry 2010
Kiama Community College – Certificate III Business Administration 2010-2015
UOW – Bachelor of Science Education
EMPLOYMENT: 1989-1993 Waitress- Various businesses
1990-2000 Secondary Maths Tutor – Self Employed
1993-1995 Wollongong Hospital – Provisional Dietitian 2004-2010
Bush Regenerator- Self-employed and for various Bush regeneration companies
2016- Present Casual Secondary Science Teacher- Various High Schools
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES: 1990- Present Coordinator of Bombo Headland Landcare Group
2017- Present Secretary Landcare Illawarra
2018- Present Member of Friends of Minnamurra River
1990- Present Active in various environmental/Animal welfare/Human Rights groups (Amnesty, Animals Australia, The Wilderness Society, Extinction Rebellion and others)
Hits: 114


text:
Design and hand made soda lime glass multi-functional home ware vase in set.
Copyright © Beijing Plus Fortune Technology Co.,LTd. All rights reserved 京ICP备19007658号-2 Powered by www.300.cn Our version is not compatible with browser under IE 8.0
Contact Us
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.com
Tel:+86 10 8158 0818
Address:Room 1010, No.4 building,
Haojing International Innovative Industry Park,
Daxing District ,Beijing, 100176, China
Our Products
Boro Glass Tube & Rod
Chinese Inside Painting Bottle
Other Luxury Glass Hand Crafts
Page view:
Product Name:
Art glass crafted vase-Miss Langui
Affiliate classification:
Other Luxury Glass Hand Crafts
I want to make an inquiry
product description
Violet petal glass vase ,it is made of soda lime glass material,mouth blown processing crafts,sized max. dia.190, H320mm
Corresponding parameter set not found, please add it in property template of background
Previous Product
Hand made glass dinnerware-Emerald halo
Hand made glass dinnerware-Violet palms glass tray
Next Product


text:
As executive vice president of business development at Microsoft, Peggy Johnson is responsible for driving strategic business deals and partnerships across various industries with key customers, strategic innovation partners, OEMs, key accounts, third-party publishers and industry influencers. Prior to this role, Johnson spent 24 years at Qualcomm where she held various leadership positions across engineering, sales, marketing and business development. Most recently, Johnson served as executive vice president of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and president of global market development where she was responsible for commercializing new business opportunities and developing strategic relationships for the company. Notably, she was responsible for Qualcomm's global marketing organization and oversaw Qualcomm Labs, a wholly owned subsidiary of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., that served as an incubator focused on launching new businesses and products, as well as exploring new market segments for Qualcomm technologies. Johnson also served as a member of Qualcomm's executive committee. Prior to joining Qualcomm, Johnson worked as an engineer for General Electric's Military Electronics Division. Johnson earned her bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from San Diego State University. She represents the United States on the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Business Advisory Council and serves as a board member for Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. She has been recognized by multiple organizations, including Connected World Magazine ("2014 Women of M2M List"), Women in Technology International ("2013 Hall of Fame Award"), STEM ("100 Women Leaders in STEM, 2012″), Athena ("2011 Pinnacle Awards") and Fierce Wireless ("Most Influential Women in Wireless, 2011″).
Sarayu Sundar, Ph.D.
Dr. Sarayu Sundar serves as a Higher Education Research Associate with the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) at the University of Colorado


text:
Many expected Paul George would sign with his hometown team, the Los Angeles Lakers, this summer, but he surprisingly elected to return to the Oklahoma City Thunder. George chronicled his free-agency decision in a three-part documentary project with ESPN, dubbed My Journey. Check out all three episodes below.
In the third and final episode, which dropped Tuesday, George explains his thought process in choosing the Thunder over the Lakers.
"I 100 percent appreciate Laker Nation for wanting me to come back home, wanting me to play in front of them," George says. "I wanted to come here a year ago prior to going to OKC. Unfortunately, [I] wasn't traded to [the] Lakers. Lakers didn't grab me. I was traded to Oklahoma. That has been a beautiful thing for me."
It seemed like a cop-out explanation, considering George had the power to choose whichever team he wanted this summer, and the five-time All-Star quickly caught heat on Twitter.
Paul George must think Lakers fans don't understand what Free agancy is
Look at this guy, is he for real?!
PG banned from LA
Paul George thought the lakers were gonna gut the roster for him. Blame the pacers not us . Sounding like a bitter ex 😂😂😂😂
Didn't this dude and his people come out and make it clear that last year was gonna be a 1 year rental cause he intends on signing with the Lakers this summer 🤔🤨 this dude is losing my respect everyday now smh 😪
Paul George "They didn't trade for me" we were not obligated to trade for you! We owe you nothing . Like you owe us nothing by not signing with us.. have fun in Oklahoma City see you in the playoffs and keep our name out of your mouth. With your dumb ass 3 part special.
Oklahoma City traded Victor Oladipo—who turned into this year's Most Improved Player—and Domantas Sabonis for George, making a gamble that paid off.


text:
Evaluating the impact of model complexity on flood wave propagation and inundation extent with a hydrologic–hydrodynamic model coupling framework
Fluvial flood events are a major threat to people and infrastructure. Typically, flood hazard is driven by hydrologic or river routing and floodplain flow processes. Since they are often simulated by different models, coupling these models may be a viable way to increase the integration of different physical drivers of simulated inundation estimates. To facilitate coupling different models and integrating across flood hazard processes, we here present GLOFRIM 2.0, a globally applicable framework for integrated hydrologic–hydrodynamic modelling. We then tested the hypothesis that smart model coupling can advance inundation modelling in the Amazon and Ganges basins. By means of GLOFRIM, we coupled the global hydrologic model PCR-GLOBWB with the hydrodynamic models CaMa-Flood and LISFLOOD-FP. Results show that replacing the kinematic wave approximation of the hydrologic model with the local inertia equation of CaMa-Flood greatly enhances accuracy of peak discharge simulations as expressed by an increase in the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) from 0.48 to 0.71. Flood maps obtained with LISFLOOD-FP improved representation of observed flood extent (critical success index C=0.46), compared to downscaled products of PCR-GLOBWB and CaMa-Flood (C=0.30 and C=0.25, respectively). Results confirm that model coupling can indeed be a viable way forward towards more integrated flood simulations. However, results also suggest that the accuracy of coupled models still largely depends on the model forcing. Hence, further efforts must be undertaken to improve the magnitude and timing of simulated runoff. In addition, flood risk is, particularly in delta areas, driven by coastal processes. A more holistic representation of flood processes in delta areas, for example by incorporating a tide and surge model, must therefore be a next development step of GLOFRIM, making even more physically robust estimates possible for adequate flood risk management practices.
Globally, the number of exposed population and assets as well as casualties and economic damage due to flooding increased greatly in recent decades (Hirabayashi et al., 2013; Jongman et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2013; Winsemius et al., 2016). To better predict and understand current and future flood hazard as well as to plan mitigation and adaption measures, several numerical models, so-called global flood models (Trigg et al., 2016; Ward et al., 2015) were developed to provide current and future estimates.
Current global flood models, however, are tailor-made for certain applications and excel at, for instance, their representation of hydrologic processes, computationally efficient routing, or hydrodynamic surface flow processes. Depending on model structure and workflow, each model therefore has specific advantages and shortcomings. Also, there are marked differences between the spatial resolutions, affecting both the range of physical processes to be simulated and the applicability of model output maps (Beven et al., 2015; Bierkens et al., 2015).
Additionally, different physical processes may be governing at different spatial scales. For instance, 1-D hydrodynamics may be appropriate for large-scale or even global applications, explicitly modelling floodplain flow with 1-D and 2-D models can be vital for more local assessments. Depending on the envisaged application, modelling set-ups must thus be able to reflect the importance of various flood triggers by integrating across the relevant physical processes and spatial scales. Answering the question of how much complexity is needed can have benefits in avoiding not only under-fitting but also over-fitting of the problem (Neal et al., 2012b). For instance, applying higher-order approximations of the shallow water equations may be disproportionate for high-gradient regions where channel flow is the main physical process to consider while it is very much needed if inundation patterns in flat delta areas are simulated.
For simulating physical processes and hazards across spatial scales without adding just another new model, flexible computational frameworks are viable means as they can be designed depending on envisaged application. One example is the "plug-and-play" model coupling tool pyMT (Python Modeling Tool; https://csdms.colorado.edu/wiki/PyMT, last access: 23 July 2019) developed by the CSDMS (Community Surface Dynamics Modelling System; Syvitski et al., 2014), which, however, focusses on the whole range of Earth-surface models. By providing the flexibility to couple models depending on the application, fit-for-purpose coupled models can be created. For instance, one can address different processes that govern at different spatial (and temporal) resolutions by nesting local high-resolution 2-D models in large-scale 1-D models only where these processes are relevant. This is in contrast to other approaches aiming at combining floodplain runoff with river channel routing via predefined lateral inflows (Biancamaria et al., 2009; Felder et al., 2017; Lian et al., 2007).
To our knowledge, the development and application of flexible model coupling frameworks specifically designed for large-scale coupled hydrologic and hydrodynamic modelling is very limited. For example, GLOFRIM, a framework for integrated hydrologic–hydrodynamic modelling, was developed and applied recently (Hoch et al., 2017b, 2018). Both studies coupled the coarse-resolution global hydrologic model PCR-GLOBWB (Sutanudjaja et al., 2018) with the fine-resolution hydrodynamic models Delft3D Flexible Mesh (Kernkamp et al., 2011) and LISFLOOD-FP (Bates et al., 2010) set up for a fraction of the studied basin only. These studies showed that coupling hydrologic processes with more advanced hydrodynamic processes improves both representation of inundation along reaches as well as the simulation of flood wave propagation.
As the coupling framework was, however, still limited to large-scale hydrologic models and local 1-D–2-D hydrodynamic models covering the floodplains, flood-triggering processes outside the domain of the hydrodynamic models might be hampered because of the simplified routing still executed by the hydrologic models.
Adding a river routing component to the model coupling framework allows for potentially improved flood wave propagation throughout the entire domain (Zhao et al., 2017) and makes it possible to focus the computationally heavy 2-D hydrodynamics on even smaller domains. Consequently, it would be possible to create various coupled models with different levels of complexity depending which model and model types are combined for which fraction of the study area.
To assess whether and under which circumstances model coupling is beneficial for yielding improved discharge and inundation extent and how additional layers of complexity may benefit output accuracy, we tested different coupling designs of different complexity. Hence, the overarching research objectives of this study are to gain insights into the opportunities as well as challenges of (a) establishing a modular and flexible model coupling framework and (b) applying coupling configurations of different complexity to two case studies.
To this end, GLOFRIM was evolved by creating a more modular framework, extending the models contained, providing a plug-and-play tool allowing for spatially explicit coupling of hydrologic and hydrodynamic models. To enhance process and scale integration, we added the global river routing model CaMa-Flood (Yamazaki et al., 2011) to improve runoff routing over entire catchments. In addition, we added the wflow hydrologic modelling platform (Schellekens et al., 2019) to give the end-user a greater choice which hydrologic model to use and at which spatial resolution.
With its revised concept, we envisage two applications as the core of the new GLOFRIM 2.0 framework: (a) fast routing of runoff over large domains and (b) detailed local inundation modelling for smaller "spatially nested" areas such as river deltas. In addition, GLOFRIM can also be applied for benchmarking hydrologic and hydrodynamic models.
In the remainder of this article, we will first describe GLOFRIM and the models contained briefly. The benefit of applying a flexible model coupling framework for large-scale inundation modelling is then tested by two applications in the Amazon and Ganges–Brahmaputra basins. We conclude with recommendations and an outlook for future applications in integrated flood hazard modelling and assessment.
GLOFRIM 2.0 continues and extends the online and spatially explicit model coupling approach of the previously published framework GLOFRIM 1.0 (Hoch et al., 2017b). With GLOFRIM 1.0 it was possible to couple the global hydrologic model PCR-GLOBWB (Sutanudjaja et al., 2018) with the hydrodynamic models Delft3D Flexible Mesh (Kernkamp et al., 2011) and LISFLOOD-FP (Bates et al., 2010) by employing the Basic Model Interface (BMI; Peckham et al., 2013). In the new GLOFRIM version, the models CaMa-Flood (CMF; Yamazaki et al., 2011) and wflow (WFL; Schellekens et al., 2019) have been added. In its current version, GLOFRIM has been tested for one-way coupling only; that is, model output can be exchanged from one model to another but not interchangeably. While this is entirely sufficient for the presented showcases documenting the advances of GLOFRIM, the full potential of online coupling will only be tapped if two-way coupling is also fully supported.
For further information on the motivation, design, and technical implementation of the BMI itself and within GLOFRIM, we refer to the mentioned articles as well as the online documentations of the BMI (https://csdms.colorado.edu/wiki/BMI_Description, last access: 23 July 2019) and GLOFRIM (https://glofrim.readthedocs.io, last access: 23 July 2019).
We decided to employ the BMI concept since it is non-invasive, avoiding entanglement of code from different models. In addition, the coupling workflow and design can be designed flexibly and altered easily. Flexible coupling via interfaces allows for other models to be added to GLOFRIM once the BMI is implemented and homogenised with CSDSM BMI standards (https://bmi-spec.readthedocs.io/en/latest/, last access: 23 July 2019). The BMI standard was expanded by adding a step to the initialisation of the models. In this step, prior to the actual model initialisation, only the configuration is initialised, which allows for changing parameters of the individual models. Furthermore, a common time definition between all models was adopted. In addition to the BMI, a submodule was added which interprets the model grid type and spatial domain. Using this sub-module, a spatial index of the 2-D domain (and 1-D network if present) is constructed, which allows for straightforward spatially explicit coupling of models.
2.2 The supported models
Hereafter, the three models used for the two test cases are briefly outlined. For a complete overview of all five available models currently included in GLOFRIM as well as for a more detailed description of the models, we refer to the Supplement "GLOFRIM 2.0 and description of supported models", the GLOFRIM online documentation, and the model-specific description papers.
PCR-GLOBWB (PCR; Sutanudjaja et al., 2018) is a global hydrologic model solving the water balance for the entire global terrestrial surface at a daily time step. It is forced with meteorological data such as precipitation, evaporation, and temperature, which drive hydrologic processes in two vertically stacked soil layers as well as a bucket-type groundwater module. For all applications, we employed PCR at 30 arcmin spatial resolution, which is equivalent to around 50 km × 50 km at the Equator.
By default, resulting surface runoff can be routed solving the kinematic wave approximation. To allow for a fair comparison and at least minimum simplistic interaction between channel and floodplain volumes, the "DynRout" extension of PCR was used.
2.2.2 CaMa-Flood
CaMa-Flood (CMF; Yamazaki et al., 2011) simulates the floodplain hydrodynamics of continental-scale rivers globally employing an adaptive time stepping scheme. Since it solves the 1-D local inertial equation (Bates et al., 2010; Yamazaki et al., 2013) and only changes in water storage are prognosticated, simulations are computationally efficient. Another advantage is that CMF is a global model and therefore model data exist for the entire terrestrial surface, reducing the need to manually set up the model. Yet, this possibility is also provided in case more accurate local data are available. Output is provided at 0.25∘ spatial resolution, but inundation depth can be downscaled to 0.005∘ for more accurate assessments.
LISFLOOD-FP (LFP; Bates et al., 2010) solves the local inertia equations for both channels and floodplains using a sub-grid channel scheme (Neal et al., 2012a) and adaptive time stepping, allowing for simulating flow not only in longitudinal but also lateral directions. By explicitly simulating floodplain flow, inundation dynamics such as velocity and duration as well as channel–floodplain interactions such as return flows can be captured.
LFP can be discretised at any spatial resolution but is typically employed for fine-resolution assessment of inundation dynamics. The required input data can be produced using common GIS programmes and do not require extensive pre-processing.
2.3 Possible coupling realisations
We envision GLOFRIM as a plug-and-play tool where the user can design the coupled model depending on required model complexity. With the increased number of models contained by GLOFRIM 2.0, the number of possible combinations increased too; see Fig. 1. We define three categories of models: (i) hydrologic models computing runoff from meteorological data (PCR and WFL; purple in Fig. 1); (ii) routing models focussing on simulating water transport along a 1-D river network (CMF; yellow in Fig. 1); and (iii) hydrodynamic models determining discharge for both 1-D river networks and 2-D floodplain areas (DFM and LFP; red in Fig. 1).
While combination (1) in Fig. 1 was already applied and assessed in previous work (see Hoch et al., 2017a, b), we merely focus on possibilities (2) and (3) in this study. To test the combinations, we designed two separate test cases to achieve the research objectives: while in test A we assess the opportunities and challenges for advancing the simulation of flood wave propagation by coupling large-scale hydrology with a routing model, test B aims at investigating the benefit of nesting a high-resolution 1-D–2-D hydrodynamic model into large-scale models for improved local inundation mapping.
3.1 Test A: improving large-scale routing and benchmarking hydrology
3.1.1 Model set-up
One possible application of GLOFRIM is routing hydrologic output over large distances, using more sophisticated flow solvers than implemented in global hydrologic models. To assess the value added, the routing scheme of CMF replaced the kinematic wave approximation as implemented in PCR-DynRout with the local inertia equations in the Amazon River basin. In addition to the more advanced solver, the channel network of CMF is resolved at a finer spatial resolution than PCR (Fig. 2).
Both CMF and PCR are models with global extent. Consequently, we did not have to create basin-specific discretisations but could use the already existing default model set-up after clipping to the needed extent. PCR contains only a Manning's roughness coefficient for channels which was set to 0.03 s m. The channel roughness coefficient of CMF was aligned with PCR, and the floodplain roughness coefficient was set to 0.10 s m. No a priori calibration was performed but roughness coefficients were selected merely based on previous model applications. For spatially explicit model coupling, simulated surface runoff per PCR cell was provided to CMF using BMI functions and subsequently interpolated within CMF using model-internal routines.
3.1.2 Model validation
We separately ran PCR-DynRout and CMF coupled to PCR (PCR → CMF hereafter) for the period 2007 until 2009, preceded by 2 years of spin-up for both models. As a test basin we focussed on the Amazon River basin as it is characterised by pronounced flood wave propagation and long travel distance. To validate our runs and obtain information on a wide range of time series properties, we used observed discharge from ORE-HYBAM (http://www.ore-hybam.org/index.php/eng, last access: 23 July 2019) at Óbidos and calculated the total Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) and its individual components (linear correlation KGE_r, bias ratio KGE_β, and variability KGE_α) as well as the Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) for extra emphasis on peak flow simulations. For all time series analyses we used the hydroGOF package for R (Zambrano-Bigiarini, 2017). Also, we compared the average time difference between observed and simulated peak discharge (τ) by averaging the annual time gap between observed and simulated peak discharge.
3.1.3 Results and discussion
Results show that, although the identical runoff volumes are routed, obtained discharge estimates vary greatly, particularly with respect to the timing of peak discharge (Table 1) and the hydrograph smoothness (Fig. 3). In general, both set-ups have skill as expressed by both KGEs being greater than 0.7. While differences in total KGE are marginal, PCR-DynRout only shows better performance when assessing KGE_α, indicating that simulated variability represents observations better. PCR → CMF, in turn, is less biased (it is in fact not biased at all as indicated by a KGE_β of 1) compared to PCR-DynRout. The difference in KGE_β, indicating a difference in simulated flood volume of 6 % between the models, is to some extent caused by the coarse model resolution of PCR, which results in an overestimation of 1 % of the catchment area compared to CMF, which determines the catchment boundary at a sub-grid level. As a result, a greater volume is routed with PCR-DynRout than with the coupled CMF model. Quantifying the effect of other factors such as the role of evaporation and groundwater infiltration as simulated by PCR-DynRout but not PCR → CMF was outside the scope of this study, yet previous work indicates that these hydrologic processes may impact both discharge volume and flood extent (Hoch et al., 2018).
Also, the correlation KGE_r of PCR → CMF with observation is better than with PCR-DynRout, most likely due to the ruggedness of the hydrograph simulated by PCR-DynRout. This ruggedness, we suspect, stems from the faster response of the kinematic wave approximation in combination with the derived river slopes of PCR-DynRout compared to the local inertia approximation of CMF. In addition, the first-order routing and volume distribution scheme of PCR-DynRout may have impacted model results.
It is particularly the difference in NSE that is of interest for flood hazard modelling as this measure is most sensitive towards bias of peak discharge. Here, we see that the coupled model PCR → CMF greatly outperforms PCR-DynRout. This finding is in line with previous research showing that the kinematic wave approximation applied by most GHMs (global hydrologic models) is not suitable for peak flow simulations (Hoch et al., 2017a, b; Yamazaki et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2017). Particularly for catchments with low gradients such as the Amazon River basin, the absence of local acceleration and advection terms results in lower peak discharge accuracy.
Related to this finding is that a marked difference can be found in the average time difference between simulated and observed peak discharge. While PCR-DynRout, on average, predicts peak discharge more than 2 months earlier than observed, adding the CMF routing reduces this to 4 d. As it is particularly the correct timing of peak discharge that is important for operational flood forecasting, results show that the higher model complexity of CMF with respect to river routing may be beneficial for more actionable model results.
3.2 Test B: the benefit of local floodplain hydrodynamics
Employing explicit floodplain flow solvers may be particularly essential for low-lying and flat delta areas, but not throughout the entire basin as runtimes would increase greatly. Thus, GLOFRIM allows for spatially nested modelling; that is, the local hydrodynamic model is embedded in the basin-wide hydrologic and routing models.
3.2.1 Model set-up
In test B, we assess the impact of adding hydrodynamic models for both the river routing as well as floodplain inundation processes. We compared three model coupling configurations with increasing complexity: PCR-DynRout, PCR → CMF (see configuration 2 in Fig. 1), and PCR → CMF → LFP (see configuration 3 in Fig. 1) for the Ganges–Brahmaputra basin. While PCR still provides the runoff forcing for CMF for the entire catchment, various boundary conditions apply for the hydrodynamic model; that is, upstream discharge from CMF, local runoff from CMF, and downstream water level dynamics as prescribed within LFP itself (in this case 0 m).
Similar to test A, we used the global default model set-ups of PCR and CMF and clipped them to the extent of the Ganges–Brahmaputra basin. What is different to test A is, however, that we had to perform a calibration of CMF floodplain roughness coefficients and channel depth due to initially insufficient accuracy of discharge by PCR → CMF. Therefore, we applied a Manning's coefficient of 0.03 s m for PCR as well as for both river and floodplains in CMF. Channel depth was also increased by changing the first factor from its default value 0.14 to 0.20 in the subsequent equation:
where B is channel depth (m) and Rup is the annual maximum of 30 d moving average of upstream runoff (m3 s−1).
For the LFP model, we made use of the underlying surface elevation and channel dimension raster data of CMF at 18 arcsec and created a LFP discretisation for a small domain at the river delta at identical spatial resolution (Fig. 4).
3.2.2 Model validation
To assess the quality of discharge simulations, we calculated the KGE and its components as well as the NSE based on simulated and observed values for two locations: Hardinge Bridge in the Ganges River and Bahadurabad in the Brahmaputra River (see Fig. 4). Observed values were kindly provided by the Institute of Water Modeling, Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh Water Development Board. As both locations lie outside the LFP domain, we could only validate the PCR-DynRout and PCR → CMF at those two locations and therefore had to perform a separate analysis of the PCR → CMF → LFP run. For this, we qualitatively compared the model results from all three model settings at a (arbitrarily chosen) location close to the river mouth (see Fig. 4), setting simulated discharge from all three set-ups into relation. In contrast to test A, we desisted from determining τ as there is more than one peak per flood season, which complicates an unambiguous analysis.
Additionally, the simulated inundation maps were compared with observed imagery. Therefore, PCR and CMF maps were first downscaled to a resolution of 1 km and 500 m, respectively, making use of their model-specific downscaling routines. As validation data, 8 d composite MODIS imagery of 2007 was used (see Kotera et al., 2016) as this year was characterised by strong monsoon-induced inundations (Islam et al., 2010).
We compared simulated results from 18 August 2007, the day of maximum total flood extent in the CMF model, of all models with the corresponding 8 d composite MODIS image. The motivation for this approach was threefold: first, to not use LFP output as its output validation should be unaffected by previous decisions, second, because downscaled CMF output has a higher resolution than PCR, and third, to be able to assess differences in both timing and magnitude of simulated inundation extent. To guarantee comparability, maps of both observed and simulated flood extent were clipped to the LFP model domain and resampled to 500 m spatial resolution applying the nearest neighbour approach.
Inundation extent was validated for all set-ups following the approach of Fewtrell et al. (2008). Thereby, the hit rate H, the false alarm ratio F, and the critical success index C were determined for each inundation map with respect to observed MODIS extent. H, F, and C were computed with the subsequent equations where Nobs and Nsim indicate the number of inundated cells according to observations and the simulation result under consideration, respectively.
All parameters can vary between 0 and 1. While H=1 shows that all inundated cells in the benchmark data are also inundated in the comparison data, F=1 indicates that the inundated cells in the comparison are entirely false alarms with respect to the benchmark. The critical success rate C, in turn, should be 1 for perfect agreement, thereby penalising for both under- and overestimation.
3.2.3 Results and discussion
Simulated discharge
Validating discharge simulated by PCR-DynRout and PCR → CMF at Hardinge Bridge (Ganges River) and Bahadurabad (Brahmaputra River) shows slightly opposite behaviour than the previous test A. For both the Ganges and the Brahmaputra, PCR unexpectedly outperforms the coupled set-up, with results generally being more accurate for the Ganges River (Fig. 5, Table 2).
These results show that added models with higher complexity do not always yield actually better results, as in this case the local inertia equations solved by CMF did not outperform the kinematic wave approximation of PCR. The local inertial equation is derived by neglecting only the advection term in the shallow water equations as advection is insignificant for many natural river and floodplain flow conditions with low gradients (de Almeida and Bates, 2013; Hunter et al., 2007; Yamazaki et al., 2013). The kinematic wave approximation, however, only accounts for channel and friction slope. While the reduced physics are less impacting for high-gradient areas, such as mountainous areas, or areas with clearly incised river channels, the Ganges–Brahmaputra basin is characterised by its large and flat floodplains. From a theoretical point of view, models applying the local inertia equations should therefore outperform simpler routing schemes in this study area. Yet, this is not the case and thus points to one of the key structural challenges with such cascading one-directional model coupling: while the most advanced hydrodynamic schemes can be added, the overall model accuracy still depends greatly on model data and parameter uncertainties, calibration, and both the meteorological and hydrologic forcing. Recent research showed, for instance, that the meteorological data set used can be a key control of discharge accuracy (Towner et al., 2019). Note also that PCR-DynRout and CMF use different topography and river bathymetry data as well as different river network concepts (i.e. flexible location of waterways (FLOW; Yamazaki et al., 2009) in CMF compared to eight directions toward neighbouring cells (D8) in PCR DynRout) to derive the routing schematisation. The differences in modelled discharge can therefore not only be attributed to the difference in approximation of the shallow water equations.
Benchmarking simulated discharge from PCR, PCR → CMF, and PCR → CMF → LFP corroborates that including 2-D floodplain flow processes reduced the volume routed along the main river channel whereas the timing of peak discharge does not deviate markedly between the coupled set-ups (Fig. 6). In combination with the simulated flood extent of PCR → CMF → LFP (Fig. 7d), the difference in discharge rate in the main channel can be attributed to the additional flow through a smaller side channel, which is only possible if 2-D flow is explicitly modelled. Even though no validation is possible due to the lack of observed data within the LFP domain, the already prevailing underestimation of discharge by PCR → CMF lets one speculate that PCR → CMF → LFP is less accurate in resembling discharge magnitude. Since CMF and LFP use the same underlying data for deriving river geometry and floodplain topography, we assume that model-internal input-data-independent factors result in the deviations between the CMF and LFP. At the current stage, unfortunately, an unambiguous explanation cannot be made yet as a further investigation exceeds the scope of this study.
Inundation extent
Simulating inundation maps can benefit greatly from adding 2-D hydrodynamic floodplain flow computations. Validating the downscaled inundation maps from PCR and PCR → CMF with the modelled results of PCR → CMF → LFP shows significant deviations between model set-ups (Fig. 7). In fact, results insinuate that acceptable representation of inundation patterns as expressed by the critical success index C can only be achieved by also accounting for floodplain flow and discharge through side channels (Table 3).
Table 3 furthermore shows that, despite having comparable false alarm ratios, the hit rate H is much higher for PCR → CMF → LFP and, in turn, so is the critical success index C. The differences in hit rate largely result from simulated inundations along smaller water bodies, especially compared to PCR → CMF, and from simulating the extent across the entire river floodplain, which is particularly not the case for PCR (Fig. 7). It is for those areas, which may not necessarily be directly adjacent to the main river stem, that downscaling procedures based on volume or water depth distribution curves may not suffice to represent the actual locally relevant flood-triggering processes, leading to a low hit rate.
It is interesting to see that PCR → CMF does not show any inundation for a part of the main river reach of the Ganges–Brahmaputra. This is the result of the combination of the unit catchment scheme used in CMF where different river reaches may have different geometry and the static downscaling approach. The deviations to PCR → CMF → LFP are hence a function of model-internal specifications as the underlying input data are identical. Consequently, this comparison hints at a positive impact of models with higher complexity explicitly modelling floodplain flow instead of downscaling, and that the threshold for LFP to predict excess channel volume may be lower than for CMF.
Despite all efforts to make the validation as fair as possible, there are still some limitations that must be kept in mind. For example, inundation patterns of the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta are largely affected by tide and surge dynamics (Ikeuchi et al., 2015). Since we discretised all models with a steady 0 m water level boundary, it must be acknowledged that a perfect fit between observations and simulations would not be possible. In addition, the downscaling routines of PCR and PCR → CMF employ different approaches and data, resulting in locally marked differences in results. Aligning the routines was, however, outside of the scope of this study. The arising issues of different inundation extent due to different model routines and data was already discussed by other studies and remains subject to ongoing debate on how to minimise the gap between models (Bernhofen et al., 2018; Hoch and Trigg, 2019; Trigg et al., 2016). Last, it is important to state that no calibration of the models with respect to simulated flood extent was performed. While this gives a fair picture of what a model is capable of under genuine conditions, the values presented here do not reflect that actual potential of each model.
We developed GLOFRIM 2.0, a globally applicable framework for integrated hydrologic–hydrodynamic modelling, to evaluate the added value of model coupling and applying models with varying complexity for discharge and flood extent simulations, testing it in two case studies. By combining hydrology and hydrodynamics in a plug-and-play way, it is possible to integrate across a suite of flood hazard drivers and design different coupled models, each having another level of varying complexity while maintaining identical spatially varying model forcing.
In this context, the main conclusions are as follows.
For discharge simulations, applying models with higher complexity is beneficial. By replacing the kinematic wave approximation with the local inertia equations, obtained results can be improved given the model schematisation and runoff forcing itself are accurate. Including more complex 1-D and 2-D hydrodynamic processes does not further improve discharge simulations compared to 1-D simulations.
For inundation extent simulations, employing a model capable of explicitly simulating floodplain flow and channel–floodplain interactions at a fine spatial resolution outperforms less complex models, particularly those using a downscaling approach. Using a 1-D or 2-D model can be of added value for those areas where no river network is present.
Results therefore suggest that including additional layers of complexity can indeed benefit model accuracy, yet this depends on the output variable under consideration. This means that for some applications opting for less complex model compositions suffices to obtain accurate results, possibly even at shorter runtimes.
In addition, the findings lead to several important conclusions concerning wider implications of coupling different models and model components.
(Re-)calibration of coupled model may be needed when replacing a native process from one model, for instance the kinematic wave routing in PCR, with the same process in another model, for instance routing based on the local inertia equations. While we did calibrate the Manning coefficient and channel depth parameters of CMF in the present study, new strategies for the calibration of coupled models might be required before yielding improved results.
Before full use can be made of adding models with higher complexity, it should be ensured that the model forcing (here runoff) is accurate. Wrongly timed runoff routed with simplistic routing schemes can still yield the right results for the wrong reasons; runoff simulated by hydrologic models needs to be validated before employing in a modelling cascade.
Our evaluation furthermore shows that including floodplain flow and discharge through secondary channels is paramount for accurately simulated inundation maps. Notwithstanding the best performance of this set-up, a critical success index of 0.46 indicates that only around half of the actual extent is correctly captured by the model, leaving much room for improvement. For example, a thorough analysis of the used DEM may help to reveal whether water is trapped in local depressions, hampering return flows and therefore increasing the flood extent unnecessarily. Possible problems could be solved by hydraulic conditioning (Yamazaki et al., 2012) or by updating the model data with the newly developed MERIT-DEM (Yamazaki et al., 2017). It is hence worth noting that in this study, we did not optimise the schematisations of the models involved for the sake of an untarnished evaluation of the impact of their complexity. Yet, GLOFRIM 2.0 can also be applied for more bespoke studies where optimised schematisations may be used, and thus overall evaluation scores will most likely increase strongly. Furthermore, as the river networks for CMF and PCR-DynRout are set up following a different conceptualisation, it was not possible to eliminate the effect of river schematisation from the shallow water equation approximation.
Despite the progress made in integrating various drivers of flood hazard, this is still limited to fluvial processes. Despite the predicted increase in fluvial flood hazard, most low-lying delta regions are under even greater threat from coastal flood events (Tessler et al., 2015; Visser et al., 2012). Additionally, compound events of simultaneous high discharge and high sea level will have to be included in future flood hazard estimates in many delta regions (Ikeuchi et al., 2017; Ward et al., 2018). Thus, it will be necessary to integrate fluvial and coastal flood hazard too. One avenue would be to use dynamic sea level boundaries. Another, more advanced, option would be to include surge and tide models into GLOFRIM such as the Global Tide and Surge Reanalysis product (Muis et al., 2016) once they are equipped with a Basic Model Interface. In addition to increasing the number of representable processes, future work will also focus on testing and further developing a two-way coupling scheme which would allow for more complex integrations and a mutual update of prognostic variables between models. By linking hydrologic, routing, and hydrodynamic models, we can establish a model cascade which can simulate the inundation-driving processes from the mountains to the coast. As such, GLOFRIM 2.0 can be a key tool for more holistic future modelling studies researching the effect of the interplay of meteorology and hydrology, river routing, and floodplain dynamics on flood hazard and risk. Being designed as a plug-and-play tool, flexible coupling frameworks could thus provide scientific evidence supporting decision-making and risk management for a wide range of conditions.
GLOFRIM 2.0 code is stored online and free to use, spread, and modify under the GNU GPL 3.0 license at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3364388 (Hoch et al., 2019). The model input data as well as schematisations and scripts used for the analysis can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3346803 (Eilander and Hoch, 2019) under the MIT license. For further information regarding GLOFRIM v2.0 and the currently supported models, we refer to the relevant papers as well as to the supplement.
The supplement related to this article is available online at: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-19-1723-2019-supplement.
We would like to acknowledge that this work has profited from equal contributions of JMH, DE, and HI. Thus, JMH, DE, and HI were all responsible for restructuring and adding code, performing test runs, and validating model results. FB and HI implemented the BMI adapters into CaMa-Flood while FB and JMH implemented them into LISFLOOD-FP. JMH and DE designed the updated workflow of GLOFRIM 2.0. All authors contributed to the paper.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article is part of the special issue "Advances in computational modelling of natural hazards and geohazards". It is a result of Geoprocesses, geohazards – CSDMS 2018, Boulder, USA, 22–24 May 2018.
We want to thank Willem van Verseveld and Mark Hegnauer (both Deltares) for the help with WFLOW as well as Rens van Beek and Edwin Sutanudjaja (both Utrecht University) for the help with PCR-GLOBWB. Observed river discharge data for the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers were kindly provided by the Institute of Water Modeling, Bangladesh, and the Bangladesh Water Development Board.
Jannis M. Hoch was financed by the EIT Climate-KIC programme under project title "Global high-resolution database of current and future river flood hazard to support planning, adaption and re-insurance". Dirk Eilander received funding from NWO VIDI (grant no. 016.161.324). Hiroaki Ikeuchi was financially supported by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI (grant no. JP16J07523.)
This paper was edited by Albert J. Kettner and reviewed by Guy J.-P. Schumann and one anonymous referee.
Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., and Fewtrell, T. J.: A simple inertial formulation of the shallow water equations for efficient two-dimensional flood inundation modelling, J. Hydrol., 387, 33–45, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.027, 2010.
Bernhofen, M., Whyman, C., Trigg, M. A., Sleigh, P. A., Smith, A. M., Sampson, C. C., Yamazaki, D., Ward, P. J., Rudari, R., Pappenberger, F., Dottori, F., Salamon, P., and Winsemius, H. C.: A first collective validation of global fluvial flood models for major floods in Nigeria and Mozambique, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 104007, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae014, 2018.
Beven, K., Cloke, H., Pappenberger, F., Lamb, R., and Hunter, N.: Hyperresolution information and hyperresolution ignorance in modelling the hydrology of the land surface, Sci. China Earth Sci., 58, 25–35, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-014-5003-4, 2015.
Biancamaria, S., Bates, P. D., Boone, A., and Mognard, N. M.: Large-scale coupled hydrologic and hydraulic modelling of the Ob river in Siberia, J. Hydrol., 379, 136–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.054, 2009.
Bierkens, M. F. P., Bell, V. A., Burek, P., Chaney, N., Condon, L. E., David, C. H., de Roo, A., Döll, P., Drost, N., Famiglietti, J. S., M., Gochis, D. J., Houser, P., Hut, R., Keune, J., Kollet, S., Maxwell, R. M., Reager, J. T., Samaniego, L., Sudicky, E., Sutanudjaja, E. H., van de Giesen, N., Winsemius, H., and Wood, E. F.: Hyper-resolution global hydrological modelling: what is next: "Everywhere and locally relevant," Hydrol. Process., 29, 310–320, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10391, 2015.
de Almeida, G. A. M. and Bates, P.: Applicability of the local inertial approximation of the shallow water equations to flood modeling, Water Resour. Res., 49, 4833–4844, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20366, 2013.
Eilander, D. and Hoch, J.: DirkEilander/glofrim_v2.0-experiments: nhess publication release, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3346803, 2019.
Felder, G., Zischg, A., and Weingartner, R.: The effect of coupling hydrologic and hydrodynamic models on probable maximum flood estimation, J. Hydrol., 550, 157–165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.052, 2017.
Fewtrell, T. J., Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., and Hunter, N. M.: Evaluating the effect of scale in flood inundation modelling in urban environments, Hydrol. Process., 22, 5107–5118, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7148, 2008.
Hirabayashi, Y., Mahendran, R., Koirala, S., Konoshima, L., Yamazaki, D., Watanabe, S., Kim, H., and Kanae, S.: Global flood risk under climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 816–821, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911, 2013.
Hoch, J. M. and Trigg, M. A.: Advancing global flood hazard simulations by improving comparability, benchmarking, and integration of global flood models, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 034001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf3d3, 2019.
Hoch, J. M., Haag, A. V., van Dam, A., Winsemius, H. C., van Beek, L. P. H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Assessing the impact of hydrodynamics on large-scale flood wave propagation – a case study for the Amazon Basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 117–132, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-117-2017, 2017a.
Hoch, J. M., Neal, J. C., Baart, F., van Beek, R., Winsemius, H. C., Bates, P. D., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: GLOFRIM v1.0 – A globally applicable computational framework for integrated hydrological–hydrodynamic modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3913–3929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3913-2017, 2017b.
Hoch, J. M., Van Beek, L. P. H., Winsemius, H. C., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Benchmarking flexible meshes and regular grids for large-scale fluvial inundation modelling, Adv. Water Resour., 121, 350–360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.09.003, 2018.
Hoch, J. M., Eilander, D., Ikeuchi, H., and Baart, F.: openearth/glofrim: NHESS article release, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3364388, 2019.
Hunter, N. M., Bates, P. D., Horritt, M. S., and Wilson, M. D.: Simple spatially-distributed models for predicting flood inundation: A review, Geomorphology, 90, 208–225, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.021, 2007.
Ikeuchi, H., Hirabayashi, Y., Yamazaki, D., Kiguchi, M., Koirala, S.,Nagano, T., Kotera, A., and Kanae, S.: Modeling complex flow dynamics of fluvial floods exacerbated by sea level rise in the Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna Delta, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 124011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/12/124011, 2015.
Ikeuchi, H., Hirabayashi, Y., Yamazaki, D., Muis, S., Ward, P. J., Winsemius, H. C., Verlaan, M., and Kanae, S.: Compound simulation of fluvial floods and storm surges in a global coupled river-coast flood model: Model development and its application to 2007 Cyclone Sidr in Bangladesh, J. Adv. Modeling Earth Syst., 9, 1847–1862, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS000943, 2017.
Islam, A. S., Haque, A., and Bala, S. K.: Hydrologic characteristics of floods in Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna (GBM) delta, Nat. Hazards, 54, 797–811, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9504-y, 2010.
Jongman, B., Ward, P. J., and Aerts, J. C. J. H.: Global exposure to river and coastal flooding: Long term trends and changes, Global Environ. Change, 22, 823–835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.004, 2012.
Kernkamp, H. W. J., Van Dam, A., Stelling, G. S., and de Goede, E. D.: Efficient scheme for the shallow water equations on unstructured grids with application to the Continental Shelf, Ocean Dynam., 61, 1175–1188, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10236-011-0423-6, 2011.
Kotera, A., Nagano, T., Hanittinan, P., and Koontanakulvong, S.: Assessing the degree of flood damage to rice crops in the Chao Phraya delta, Thailand, using MODIS satellite imaging, Paddy Water Environ., 14, 271–280, 2016.
Lian, Y., Chan, I.-C., Singh, J., Demissie, M., Knapp, V., and Xie, H.: Coupling of hydrologic and hydraulic models for the Illinois River Basin, J. Hydrol., 344, 210–222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.08.004, 2007.
Muis, S., Verlaan, M., Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C. J. H., and Ward, P. J.: A global reanalysis of storm surges and extreme sea levels, Nat. Commun., 7, 11969, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11969, 2016.
Neal, J., Schumann, G., and Bates, P.: A subgrid channel model for simulating river hydraulics and floodplain inundation over large and data sparse areas: Floodplain Inundation Over Large Areas, Water Resour. Res., 48, W11506, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012514, 2012a.
Neal, J., Villanueva, I., Wright, N., Willis, T., Fewtrell, T., and Bates, P.: How much physical complexity is needed to model flood inundation?, Hydrol. Process., 26, 2264–2282, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8339, 2012b.
Peckham, S. D., Hutton, E. W. H., and Norris, B.: A component-based approach to integrated modeling in the geosciences: The design of CSDMS, Comput. Geosci., 53, 3–12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.04.002, 2013.
Schellekens, J., Van Verseveld, W., Euser, T., Winsemius, H. C., Thiange, C., Bouaziz, L., Tollenaar, D., and De Vries, S.: openstreams/wflow: master-unstable, available at: https://github.com/openstreams/wflow, last access: 9 August 2019.
Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, R., Wanders, N., Wada, Y., Bosmans, J. H. C., Drost, N., van der Ent, R. J., de Graaf, I. E. M., Hoch, J. M., de Jong, K., Karssenberg, D., López López, P., Peßenteiner, S., Schmitz, O., Straatsma, M. W., Vannametee, E., Wisser, D., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arcmin global hydrological and water resources model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2429–2453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2429-2018, 2018.
Syvitski, J. P. M., Hutton, E. H., Piper, M., Overeem, I., Kettner, A., and Peckham, S. D.: Plug and play component modeling – the CSDMS 2.0 approach, in: Proceedings of the 7th Intl. Congress on Env. Modelling and Software, International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, San Diego, 2014.
Tessler, Z. D., Vörösmarty, C. J., Grossberg, M., Gladkova, I., Aizenman, H., Syvitski, J. P. M., and Foufoula-Georgiou, E.: Profiling risk and sustainability in coastal deltas of the world, Science, 349, 638–643, 2015.
Towner, J., Cloke, H. L., Zsoter, E., Flamig, Z., Hoch, J. M., Bazo, J., Coughlan de Perez, E., and Stephens, E. M.: Assessing the performance of global hydrological models for capturing peak river flows in the Amazon basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 3057–3080, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-3057-2019, 2019.
Trigg, M. A., Birch, C. E., Neal, J. C., Bates, P. D., Smith, A., Sampson, C. C., Yamazaki, D., Hirabayashi, Y., Pappenberger, F., Dutra, E., Ward, P. J., Winsemius, H. C., Salamon, P., Dottori, F., Rudari, R., Kappes, M. S., Simpson, A. L., Hadzilacos, G., and Fewtrell, T. J.: The credibility challenge for global fluvial flood risk analysis, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 094014, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094014, 2016.
Visser, H., Bouwman, A., Ligtvoet, W., and Petersen, A.: A statistical study of weather-related disasters: past, present and future, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the Hague/Bilthoven, the Netherlands, 2012.
Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Weiland, F. S., Bouwman, A., van Beek, R., Bierkens, M. F. P., Ligtvoet, W., and Winsemius, H. C.: Assessing flood risk at the global scale: model setup, results, and sensitivity, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019, 2013.
Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Salamon, P., Simpson, A., Bates, P., De Groeve, T., Muis, S., de Perez, E. C., Rudari, R., Trigg, M. A., and Winsemius, H. C.: Usefulness and limitations of global flood risk models, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 712–715, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2742, 2015.
Ward, P. J., Couasnon, A., Eilander, D., Haigh, I. D., Hendry, A., Muis, S., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Winsemius, H. C., and Wahl, T.: Dependence between high sea-level and high river discharge increases flood hazard in global deltas and estuaries, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 084012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad400, 2018.
Winsemius, H. C., Aerts, J. C. J. H., van Beek, L. P. H., Bierkens, M. F. P., Bouwman, A., Jongman, B., Kwadijk, J. C. J., Ligtvoet, W., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., and Ward, P. J.: Global drivers of future river flood risk, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 381–385, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2893, 2016.
Yamazaki, D., Oki, T., and Kanae, S.: Deriving a global river network map and its sub-grid topographic characteristics from a fine-resolution flow direction map, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 2241–2251, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-2241-2009, 2009.
Yamazaki, D., Kanae, S., Kim, H., and Oki, T.: A physically based description of floodplain inundation dynamics in a global river routing model, Water Resour. Res., 47, W04501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009726, 2011.
Yamazaki, D., Baugh, C. A., Bates, P. D., Kanae, S., Alsdorf, D. E., and Oki, T.: Adjustment of a spaceborne DEM for use in floodplain hydrodynamic modeling, J. Hydrol., 436–437, 81–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.045, 2012.
Yamazaki, D., de Almeida, G. A. M., and Bates, P. D.: Improving computational efficiency in global river models by implementing the local inertial flow equation and a vector-based river network map: Speeding Up Global River Model Simulations, Water Resour. Res., 49, 7221–7235, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20552, 2013.
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Tawatari, R., Yamaguchi, T., O'Loughlin, F., Neal, J. C., Sampson, C. C., Kanae, S., and Bates, P. D.: A high-accuracy map of global terrain elevations: Accurate Global Terrain Elevation map, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 5844–5853, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL072874, 2017.
Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.: hydroGOF: Goodness-of-fit functions for comparison of simulated and observed hydrological time series, available at: https://github.com/hzambran/hydroGOF (last access: 9 August 2019), 2017.
Zhao, F., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Frieler, K., Schewe, J., Ostberg, S., Willner, S., Schauberger, B., Gosling, S. N., Schmied, H. M., Portmann, F. T., Leng, G., Huang, M., Liu, X., Tang, Q., Hanasaki, N., Biemans, H., Gerten, D., Satoh, Y., Pokhrel, Y., Stacke, T., Ciais, P., Chang, J., Ducharne, A., Guimberteau, M., Wada, Y., Kim, H., and Yamazaki, D.: The critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 075003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7250, 2017.


text:
Thu, 12 December 2019
Stock Market will be moving higher but not greatly so. Could be warning signs flashing in Q1 & Q2 of 2020.
Gold Q1 rally might not happen till February. A coupl of decent rallies in 2020 for gold, perhaps holding and waiting. No end of the year rally coming. Perhaps a minor rally in December from mid to late December, but no sticking power.
Oil Need a weekly close over $60 but otherwise the trend is still down, to around $46. It's a multi-year trend taking place. OPEC is attempting to lower production and increase prices. Something negative could always his the market. Risk turns to the unexpected.
Interest Rates continue to decline to lower rates and then on to a new advance later. Long term cycles point to the middle of 2020 as the most likely time for the next significant top in rates. Between now Q2 we could see rates edge lower. In June/July 2020 there could be a significant reversal of the 30 year trend towards lower rates.
Dollar Confined to a tight trading range for the foreseeable future. Could see a decline in late December. Could see a more significant bottom in January/February. Not a necessarily a significant change in the trend. Still hasn't recpatured its previous highs. Would need to see it break beneath the 94-95 level.
Direct download: Eric_Hadik_12.Dec.19.mp3
Category:general -- posted at: 8:01am EDT
Thu, 12 December 2019
The situation in Canada continues to deteriorate at an alarming pace. Bankruptcies/insolvencies are rising rapidly. So goes Canada, so goes the US? When in doubt cut rates, it always works. Danielle believes the country needs to diversify and develope new businesses. Let's not forget about China's worsening economy and its inability to revive the its exports. How will Canada be affected?
Direct download: Danielle_Park_12.Dec.19.mp3
Category:general -- posted at: 8:00am EDT


text:
A mob gathered in front of Sen. Lindsey Graham's home in Washington, D.C. early this morning — banging bongos along with pots and pans. Neighbors were awakened with strobe lights and vile chants.
In a separate video posted on Twitter – organizers of the mob action were seen practicing how to break down the senator's front door.
We must ensure that all of our elected leaders are protected.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Social media is cracking down on Conservative content. Many of you have complained that you never see our content in your news feeds. There's only one way to fight back — and that's by subscribing to my FREE weekly newsletter. Click here.
Video Thread: This morning, activists with @ShutDown_DC and @sunrisemvmt used strobe lights, instruments and chants to "wake up @LindseyGrahamSC" outside his house in Washington DC to demand he not confirm a replacement for #RBG on the Supreme Court until after the inauguration. pic.twitter.com/31It0cQTJj— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) September 21, 2020
HAPPENING NOW. Outside Sen Lindsay Graham's house in DC. Call to "wake him up." pic.twitter.com/PqQJoxsBMK— Christina Bobb (@christina_bobb) September 21, 2020
*** BREAKING! ***— Millie Weaver ?? (@Millie__Weaver) September 21, 2020
ATTENTION – @SunriseMvmtDC is training agitators for a potential riot at @LindseyGrahamSC's home at 6:00am tomorrow morning!
This exclusive video shows them practicing kicking in his front door & more. Please help get the word out!@FBI @DCPoliceDept pic.twitter.com/GXjEwL7jos
Leftwing concert outside @LindseyGrahamSC house in DC this morning. pic.twitter.com/dxHGnjkETT— Matthew Miller (@mattmiller757) September 21, 2020


text: Brass standard meter, engraved with the signature of the maker, Ferat. The length of this standard is provided either by the ends of the bar (which has two recesses for the purpose) or by the distance between two lines engraved on its surface. The date of manufacture was determined from two letters from Francesco Favi in Paris to the Superintendent of the Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale of Florence, Giovanni Fabbroni, who had commissioned the purchase of such an instrument.


text:
Bang Bags
The first in a long line of shooting bags to come. Bang bags have been developed using decades of firearms experience to drive it towards its purpose. Eliminating the excess and cutting it down to what a shooter absolutely needs to conduct their operations. Whether it be a back country hunter, sportsman, long range precision rifle competitor to the military and law enforcement snipers. Filled with Git-Lite fill, ultra-lightweight polypropylene beads that aren't affected by the environment give you the shooter an ultimate edge.
The virtue of the Bang Bag is that it attaches to whatever rifle system you may have. The primary means of attachment is with an integral Quick Detach (QD) sling mount. This mount can be used where ever a QD attachment is placed. Whether on the stock/chassis or on the fore end or rail of your rifle to use as a forward rest. A picatinny QD mount or a MLOK QD mount will give the shooter even more adaptability to employ their Bang Bag.
If you, the shooter doesnt have a system to utilize these features, the Bang Bag has sewn in corded loops that will give you the ability to attach it to your grandfathers hunting rifle to stabilize it like he never imagined. Whatever the need, the Bang Bag has the solution.
Material: 500D Codura
Weight: 10.3oz
Size: 8.5" Tall 5.5" Wide 1.5" Deep (when flattened)
Fill: Git Lite Polypropylene


text:
Remember that air fryer you bought ages ago that you never really use? It's time to take it out of storage and dust it off because we've got a variety of recipes that will make you remember why you were excited about it in the first place!
Our low-carb Air Fryer Jalapeno Poppers recipe is the perfect healthy spin on the deep-fried poppers that you normally get served at restaurants. They are full of the same flavor and amazing texture you've come to love, but without the carbs that you don't need.
Jalapeno peppers are the star of this recipe. They are non-starchy and provide a wide range of micronutrient vitamins, including vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin B6, vitamin K, and vitamin E.
Jalapeno peppers are also a good source of the antioxidant carotenoid capsaicin, which has anti-obesity properties due to its thermogenic effect (*). It works by "heating up" your metabolism so you burn more calories.
According to one study, capsaicin may help reduce the desire to eat fatty, sweet, and salty foods. It also reduces the desire to eat food overall and helps promote greater satiety after meals. Lastly, capsaicin helps improve cardiovascular and metabolic health (*).
This recipe also calls for cream cheese and cheddar cheese, which are high in protein, calcium, and vitamin A. Cheese and peppers are combined with bacon for a salty, creamy, and crunchy texture.
Be sure to look for a brand of bacon that is as minimally processed as possible. It should come from organic, pasture-raised sources and be free from antibiotics, hormones, nitrates, added sugars, and preservatives.
Traditional jalapeno poppers are often breaded and deep-fried in unhealthy oils. This recipe is incredibly light and delicious, thanks to the use of the air fryer. Plus, there is no breading or gluten required!
Serve these with your favorite low-carb dipping sauce or enjoy them as they are!
Let's Do It!
Cut the jalapenos in half long-wise. Use a spoon to clean the seeds out from inside.
Combine the cream cheese, cheddar cheese, parsley, bacon, and sea salt in a bowl. Mix well.
Add the cream cheese mixture to each jalapeno pepper half.
Preheat the air fryer to 370 degrees F. Grease the air fryer basket with olive oil and place the stuffed peppers inside. Cook for 7 minutes.
Serve sprinkled with crushed bacon and your favorite low-carb dipping sauce.
More Low Carb Jalapeno Poppers Recipes You Can Try:
- Instant Pot Jalapeno Popper Chicken Casserole
- Keto Jalapeno Beef Rouladen
- Bacon Wrapped Cream Cheese Stuffed Jalapenos
- Jalapeno Popper Chicken Casserole
Air Fryer Jalapeno Poppers
- Cut jalapenos in half lengthwise. Use a spoon to scrape off the ribs and seeds.
- In a bowl, combine cream cheese, cheddar cheese, chopped parsley, crushed bacon, and sea salt.
- Fill each jalapeno half with the prepared cheese mixture.
- Preheat your air fryer to 370F. Grease an air fryer basket with olive oil and arrange stuffed jalapeno halves inside in a single layer. Cook for 7 minutes.
- Serve sprinkled with some more crushed bacon.


text:
When you're closing your cottage up for winter, there are a few things you can expect, like organizing your storage shed and cleaning up your garden. One thing you might not be ready for is a snake slithering along your front lawn—or in the bathroom.
Recently, a young boy in P.E.I. was startled when he walked into a restroom at Brackley Beach and saw a garter snake in a stall. But, don't be alarmed—it's normal to see a higher number of snakes around at this time of year.
We can blame it on Canada's cold weather. Since snakes don't produce their own body heat and rely on the sun for warmth, they gather together when winter kicks in to hibernate and stay alive.
Fall is the perfect time to start prepping for this phenomenon, which means snakes will be more active and present than usual. Depending on where you live or cottage, you may see them going underground or trying to work their way into soil, rocks, logs, or bedrock fissures.
One fact about snakes (and here are 14 more) is that they need to find a place that doesn't freeze in order to hibernate—it either has to be far enough underground or close to a man-made structure, such as the foundation of a building.
In order to find those spots, sometimes a journey is involved. The reptiles around Ojibway Prairie Nature Provincial Reserve in Windsor, Ont., are currently on the move and being noticed, sadly, because they're being killed.
The Windsor Essex County Environment Committee recommended temporarily closing two roads in the community due to the high snake traffic. It was reported that between 2015 and 2018, according to Jonathan Choquette, a conservation biologist, 1,243 snakes were found dead on the roads, and that blocking off vehicular traffic would increase survival by up to 50 per cent.
So, if you're driving in Windsor, or anywhere else this time of year, drive carefully and be on the lookout for snakes.
Featured Video


text: Perhaps the Fifteen-year-olds does not have to be of excrement, but if they want under-stake way to obtain intimate, masturbating is a great way to be sexual together, say to the wild author of the love, reached via their movable telephone. Like woman and consumer, flesh tube masturbation to make the correct decisions on sexuality is harder than buying and obtaining a maintained car. Desemejante of the neighbors nosy of flesh tube masturbation nanaimos Daryl Clark, these is the people classes who come peacefully. Whenever it disappointment ignited something, abierto something, reduced to the minimum something, etc, this voice of the chicks resonated on his loudspeakers, oh my ass is so the whales even can hear it firmly when it hisses. Original Fleshlight are classic, the others are just a clone. When it comes to masturbating with the Fleshlight, some users demand realism while others prioritise sensation. Most guys arent that lucky. The Speed Bump, in contrast, is an extreme sensation throughout the whole use, right from the start. The material just facilitates the flesh tube masturbation fantasy. This is the toy 21. Century for chaps. Flesh tube masturbation within everyone the superskin has employment three different multiplicity of speed impacts, torn and miracle superwaves - each choice gives you another level OS feeling. But, while Roxy of far reflected on the concept of the Canadian sex, a nebulous memory began to swim before their eyes.


text:
More often than not, the trade deadline winds up being anti-climactic. Between large contracts, seven-way wild-card races and a condensed time frame, it's awfully hard to find a deal involving superstar players that is suitable to all sides. The 2005 deadline, unfortunately, has been no exception; we pundits are stuck with the scraps of Geoff Blum and Kyle Farnsworth and a whole bunch of almosts and coulda-beens.
Nevertheless, sometimes the coulda-beens are news unto themselves. Even though a deal was not consummated, it's remarkable that the Boston Red Sox, bathing in cash, coming off a championship and in the midst of a heated pennant race, were seriously contemplating trading Manny Ramirez, who remains one of the best hitters in baseball.
What's also been surprising is the lack of editorial opinion on the deal. Under ordinary circumstances, a contending team considering trading one of its best hitters, a couple of its best prospects and a heap of cash would trigger a lot of questions about the sanity of that team's general manager. In this case, nobody has suggested that Theo Epstein has lost his mind, nor has there been much discussion about whether the deal would be a good one for the Sox. Much of that, I think, is because the would-be trade is awfully tough to analyze from a traditional, on-the-field perspective. The reason the Sox might have traded Ramirez would be to get out of the remaining years of his huge contract. There isn't much debate that Ramirez, even if he ages reasonably well, isn't going to be worth what the Sox will be paying him through 2008. But in order to analyze the deal, you have to have some notion of exactly how much Ramirez's remaining contract years are likely to cost the Red Sox. That's fairly tough to do, but we're going to give it a try.
Ramirez is scheduled to make $23.2 million this year (a figure that includes the final prorated chunk of his signing bonus), $19 million in 2006, $18 million in 2007 and $20 million in 2008. His contract also includes team options for 2009 and 2010, but at such a steep price ($20 million per year) that it's safe to attribute no material economic value to them; they're not going to be picked up.
What sort of return on investment are the Red Sox likely to get for their money? Let's walk through a quick, four-step process:
- Step 1: Determine the marginal cost of Ramirez's contract. This is straightforward. We take Ramirez's annual salary and subtract from it the major-league minimum salary of $317,000, the amount Red Sox are obligated to pay to whichever player fills Ramirez' roster slot. This produces a marginal cost of:
2005 $22.88 million 2006 $18.68 million 2007 $17.68 million 2008 $19.68 million
- Step 2: Estimate Ramirez's on-field productivity. This would ordinarily be very tricky to do, but fortunately we have PECOTA, which uses comparable players to estimate a ballplayer's performance several years into the future. PECOTA estimated, prior to this season, that Ramirez would be worth 7.8 wins above replacement (WARP) this year, 6.4 WARP in 2006, 5.1 WARP in 2007 and 4.1 WARP in 2008.
Ramirez losing essentially half his value in the span of four years might seem like a fairly steep decline, but it has plenty of precedent. Ramirez's top comparable is Albert Belle, who hung up his spikes after his age-33 season. Also ranking high among his comps are Sammy Sosa and Dick Allen, who lost their skills plenty fast. Certainly, there are also some more favorable names on the list–guys like Frank Robinson and Tony Perez who aged well–but considering that there's some chance of a steep decline for Ramirez (possibly triggered by injury), and a near certainty of at least some decline, PECOTA's estimate seems reasonable. In fact, it may be too generous. Ramirez is on pace to finish at about 6.9 WARP this year, a fair bit worse than the preseason forecast, but for simplicity's sake, we'll go ahead and leave his PECOTA forecast as is.
- Step 3: Translate on-field productivity into cash. This is the trickiest part of the problem. We might have a pretty good idea of how many wins Ramirez is worth, but there hasn't been a lot of work done recently on just how much money a win is worth, in terms of increased ticket sales, media exposure, postseason sales and so forth. What's more, this number surely varies from team to team: a big-market team like the Mets that doesn't fill its stadium probably gets more cash benefit from an additional win than, say, the Padres do.
But there is another approach to the problem, which is to determine how much teams are willing to pay for an additional win. In an analysis of last winter's free-agent market, I determined that the market price of an additional win is about $2.14 million dollars. We'll use that as our working estimate, which leads to a marginal revenue product (MRP) for Ramirez as follows:
Year WARP MRP 2005 7.8 $16.69MM 2006 6.4 $13.70MM 2007 5.1 $10.91MM 2008 4.1 $8.77MM
- Step 4: Deduct output from cost to determine the marginal gain or loss associated with a contract. This is mostly just a simple subtraction problem, but we'll add a couple of additional wrinkles for the sake of completeness. First, both MRP and cost need to be prorated for 2005, since most of the season has been completed, and since most of Ramirez's contract has already been paid. We'll use one-third as our multiplier, since about two-thirds of the season has been played to date. Second, since a dollar today is worth more than the same dollar tomorrow, we need to discount future years of the contract to account for the time value of money. In order to do that, we'll apply a neutral discount rate of 5% per year. That gives us the following result:
Manny Ramirez 2005(ROY)* 2006 2007 2008 Total Marginal Salary $7.63 $18.68 $17.68 $19.68 $63.67 WARP 2.6 6.4 5.1 4.1 18.2 Market Value $5.56 $13.70 $10.91 $8.77 $38.95 Net Value -$2.06 -$4.98 -$6.77 -$10.91 -$24.72 Discounted @ 5% -$2.06 -$4.75 -$6.14 -$9.42 -$22.37 * Rest of Year
We estimate that the net present value (NPV) of Ramirez's remaining contract is negative $22.37 million dollars. Put another way, if Ramirez offered to let the team buy out the rest of his contract for $22.5 million, the Sox would benefit from taking him up on his offer. Thus, it's pretty easy to see why the Sox are almost obligated to listen to offers that could reduce the financial burden associated with Ramirez, even if some of these offers might marginally reduce their chances of repeating their World Series championship.
Since a deal was never consummated, we can't know exactly what the Red Sox would have been willing to give up to get this $22.37 million liability off their books. But according to this Jayson Stark column, the Red Sox were at least reasonably close to agreeing to a deal in which they would have given up Ramirez, Hanley Ramirez, Jon Lester and $15 million in cash and received Aubrey Huff and Mike Cameron in return. Would this have been a good deal for the Sox?
We can estimate the NPV for the other player contracts in the same way that we did for Ramirez. This is straightforward in the case of the veterans, who are locked into multi-year deals of their own, but more difficult for the prospects. Let's start with Aubrey Huff:
Aubrey Huff 2005(ROY)* 2006 Total Marginal Salary $1.39 $7.18 $8.57 WARP 1.9 5.2 7.1 Market Value $4.14 $11.13 $15.27 Net Value $0.91 $3.95 $4.86 Discounted @ 5% $0.91 $3.76 $4.67
Huff is owed $4.5 million in 2005 and $7.5 million in 2006; after that, he can become a free agent. He hasn't quite lived up to his preseason PECOTA projection, which means that this estimate may be slightly too generous, but this still looks like a pretty cheap contract in the near-term. We estimate that the NPV associated with Huff's remaining contract is positive $4.67 million.
Mike Cameron:
Mike Cameron 2005(ROY)* 2006 2007 Total Marginal Salary $1.89 $7.68 $6.18 $15.75 WARP 1.8 3.4 3.1 8.3 Market Value $3.85 $7.28 $6.63 $17.76 Net Value $1.96 -$0.13 $0.15 $1.98 Discounted @ 5% $1.96 -$0.13 $0.14 $1.97
Cameron's contract includes a team option at $6.5 million in 2007; if the team does not exercise that option, he'll be owed a $500,000 buyout. PECOTA estimates that Cameron's market value in 2007 will be $6.63 million, making it worthwhile to exercise that option, so we've gone ahead and included that year of the contract. All told, his contract looks like a slight net positive for an acquirer.
The economic value of a prospect comes in his first six years of major-league service, when he'll provide value to his team either essentially free of charge (before becoming arbitration-eligible) or at a material discount below market rates (arbitration years). To my knowledge, there hasn't been a study done of just what sort of discount a team can anticipate during a player's arbitration years, but it's clear that 1) arbitration awards or settlements tend to run at least somewhat below what a player would be paid in the free market, and 2) this discount tends to decrease–he makes a larger fraction of his market value–as the player's service time increases. My educated guesstimate is that we're looking at something like this for a typical player:
MLB Year 1 $350,000 salary MLB Year 2 $500,000 salary MLB Year 3 40% of market salary MLB Year 4 60% of market salary MLB Year 5 70% of market salary MLB Year 6 80% of market salary
Both Ramirez and Lester look like they're fairly close to major-league ready, especially for a team like the Devil Rays, so we'll assume that their first major-league seasons are in 2006, at which time their arbitration clocks start running. Each will be 22 next season, and assuming they stick in the majors, both would become free agents after their age-27 seasons in 2011.
PECOTA's five-year forecasts give us estimates of each player's value through 2009. For Ramirez, those numbers are 2.5 wins (2006), 2.8 (2007), 2.6 (2008) and 3.0 (2009). He'll be at his age 26-27 peak in the two years that follow, so we'll make a reasonable extrapolation outward and assume 3.5 wins above replacement in 2010, and 4.0 in 2011. Note, by the way, that these WARP estimates are the weighted average, accounting for both favorable and unfavorable outcomes. If Hanley Ramirez becomes a regular major-league shortstop, he'll probably be worth somewhat more than 4.0 WARP in his age-27 season, but there are some unresolved questions about Ramirez' ability. He hasn't had a great year in Portland, and we have to hedge those favorable outcomes against the substantial chance that he isn't able to establish himself, and is worth very little to his club.
Applying Ramirez's PECOTA forecast and the assumptions about his salary from above, we come up with the following estimate of his value:
Hanley Ramirez 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Marginal Salary $0.03 $0.18 $2.23 $3.85 $5.24 $6.85 $18.38 WARP 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.0 3.5 4.0 18.4 Market Value $5.35 $5.99 $5.56 $6.42 $7.49 $8.56 $39.38 Net Value $1.77 $1.94 $1.11 $0.86 $0.75 $0.57 $7.00 Discounted @ 5% $1.69 $1.76 $0.96 $0.70 $0.59 $0.43 $6.12
We figure the NPV of Hanley Ramirez's contract (more properly, the NPV of the right to sign him to cheap contracts) to be $6.12 million. Intuitively, that seems pretty reasonable for a B or B+ hitting prospect.
Lester is the player involved in this conversation whose season has deviated most substantially from PECOTA's expectations. He's taken to Double-A very well. I'm going to go ahead and append an additional 0.5 wins/year to his forecast; I think PECOTA will do something similar when we run his new projection this winter. That said, any pitching prospect has substantial risk associated with him until he's demonstrated the ability to stay healthy for multiple major-league seasons, and pitchers don't experience the same predictable improvement in the age 23-26 range that offensive players do, so we shouldn't fudge upward too much. We'll estimate that Lester is worth 2.0 wins/year in 2010 and 2011, the years that aren't covered by his PECOTA forecast.
Jon Lester 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Marginal Salary $0.03 $0.18 $1.11 $2.05 $3.00 $3.42 $9.80 WARP 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.0 10.3 Market Value $3.42 $3.85 $2.78 $3.42 $4.28 $4.28 $22.04 Net Value $1.13 $1.22 $0.56 $0.46 $0.43 $0.29 $4.08 Discounted @ 5% $1.08 $1.11 $0.48 $0.38 $0.34 $0.21 $3.59
We arrive at a NPV of $3.59 million for Lester.
We can evaluate the entire trade from the Red Sox's perspective by adding up the estimated NPVs of the players involved in the discussions, and subtracting out the reported $15 million ransom that the Red Sox would pay to the Mets:
Manny Ramirez +$22.37MM Aubrey Huff +$ 4.67MM Mike Cameron +$ 1.97MM Hanley Ramirez -$ 6.12MM Jon Lester -$ 3.59MM Cash -$15.00MM --------------------------- Net Value +$ 4.29MM
The Red Sox gain about $22 million from shedding Ramirez's contract, and an additional $7 million or so from picking up Huff and Cameron at reasonable prices. In order to accomplish this, they must part with about $10 million worth of prospects and $15 million in cash. All told, the Stark version of the deal looks like it would have been a slight net positive for Boston, to the tune of about $4 million. That said, $4 million is not a large margin of error in the modern baseball economy, and you can make some other, reasonable kinds of assumptions that push the deal to about break-even, or just below it.
It's no wonder, in other words, that the Red Sox were pushed just about to the brink with the proposed transaction. Theo Epstein may have been getting some value here, but only a little bit, especially considering some intangible factors like a potential public backlash against trading a superstar, or the additional marginal value associated with wins for a team that is in the midst of a tight pennant race. Remove Lester from the equation, or add a decent prospect or two coming in return–the Red Sox were reportedly trying to do both of these things–and the case for the deal becomes much clearer.
No matter how you slice it, the deal looks like a terrible one for the Mets. They'd reportedly have been giving up Lastings Milledge–probably worth between $7-$8 million under this methodology–in addition to getting a raw deal on the valuation of Ramirez's contract.
Frankly, I find it refreshing to go through a process like this on a deal that the Red Sox seemed to regard as fairly close to break-even, and come to the conclusion that the trade would, in fact, have been just about break-even for the Red Sox's bottom line. The names and numbers involved in the reports you've seen about the almost-trade are not pulled out of thin air–the Red Sox almost certainly have gone through a process exactly like this, and that's why they were willing to offer exactly what they were. It might seem cut-throat or Machiavellian to evaluate a deal in this fashion, but that's the perspective that a championship-caliber front office needs to apply.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.Subscribe now


text:
You'll receive a PDF of the resist template for the wet felted coin purse. It fits a 3.3″ coin purse kiss clasp. Be sure to print at actual size and without margins. To ensure proper printing, I have included a 1 inch ruler on the page so you can check to see if it printed to the correct size.
Felted Coin Purse Pattern – Free Printable Download
Free printable coin purse pattern to make a resist for a wet felted coin purse. Use it to make your own purse or follow along with my tutorial on how to make a felted coin purse.
Availability: In stock
You may also like…
DIY Light Up Mickey Ears Tutorial and Template (PDF)$5.00 Add to cart


text:
Advanced Search
Microsoft on Tuesday announced an Automatic HTTPS preview feature for the Microsoft Edge browser.
The Automatic HTTPS feature is currently available to Microsoft Edge Insider program participants using either the "Canary" or "Developer" distribution channels. It's available using version 92 of the Edge browser, but testers have to turn it on to use it.
Automatic HTTPS promises better security when users browse Web sites that still use the old HTTP protocol, where the connections aren't encrypted. Sites based on HTTP permit so-called "man-in-the-middle" types of attacks. Under this scheme, traffic can be intercepted and altered by an attacker. Moreover, users can be redirected to other sites than the ones they have selected.
Automatic HTTPS Preview Options
Microsoft's Automatic HTTPS preview gives end users a couple of options. They can set the feature to "switch to HTTPS only on websites likely to support HTTPS." Alternatively, they can opt to "always switch from HTTP to HTTPS," although there could be more connection errors using this latter option.
The first option, switching to sites likely to support HTTPS, is based on a list that Microsoft keeps. This option also upgrades the site's "same-host active subresources" to HTTPS. It turns out that some sites use a mixture of HTTPS and HTTP, which can be a security issue.
Examples of such active content subresources include "scripts, iframe sources, and fetch() requests," Microsoft explained. Its best-practices advice to Web site developers is to use HTTPS across both site documents and subresources.
In some cases, site developers may have added support for HTTPS, but they haven't required the use of it. Microsoft described that circumstance as offering "a short window of opportunity to attackers before the site can redirect to the more secure protocol." Some sites don't even redirect users to HTTPS. Microsoft's Automatic HTTPS feature seems to be a response to those two circumstances.
The Automatic HTTPS Edge browser feature seems to be very much akin to the Electronic Frontier Foundation's HTTPS Everywhere browser plug-in, which was launched a decade ago. The main difference appears to be that Microsoft's Automatic HTTPS feature is built into the Edge browser, rather than being a plug-in that needs to be installed.
Compliance Extension for Chrome Browser
In other browser security news, Microsoft late last month announced the commercial release of the Microsoft Compliance Extension for the Google Chrome browser.
The extension can be leveraged by organizations to enforce Microsoft Data Loss Prevention policies when users access files containing sensitive information. It's available here from the Google Chrome Web Store and it lets organizations use Chrome as an approved browser.
The Compliance Extension for Chrome can do things like block the printing of sensitive files. It can restrict file uploads to just trusted service domains. IT pros can view Chrome-related events in the Microsoft 365 Compliance Center portal.
The classification of files happens via the Microsoft Information Protection labeling scheme, which tracks more than "150 sensitive information types." The extension also works with Microsoft Defender and Insider Risk Management solutions.
The Compliance Extension for Chrome feature depends on organizations using the "Microsoft 365 Compliance Suite." It also apparently requires having a Microsoft 365 E5 subscription.
About the Author
Kurt Mackie is senior news producer for 1105 Media's Converge360 group.
Microsoft has improved the remediation process when users authenticating via on-premises methods are deemed to be at risk by the Microsoft Entra ID Protection service, per a Thursday announcement.
As Microsoft's new AI assistant gets into more hands this week, let's break down some of my impressions.
Microsoft on Wednesday gave notice that its Exchange Online e-mail tamper protections are planned for completion in 2024, which may entail some backend changes by IT departments.
Azure Automation provide IT with the ways to make their jobs more interesting. Got a task you're sick of doing? Automate it away!
The new update, rolling out for some, includes a preview of Microsoft's AI-powered Windows Copilot.
Subscribe on YouTube
More Summits
More Webcasts
More Tech Library