Difference in the aggregated results and summation of monthly

[Farshad171]

Hi, I have been using the package quite extensively for my dataset. I feel (if no mistake) that the result from annual aggregation (flux) directly from the package is substantially different for some years than if we simply sum the 12 months result from monthly series obtained from the package. Is there a way to make sure that the package is not giving inconsistent result?

[aappling-usgs]

Hi Farshad, could you supply an example?

[Farshad171]

Hi Alison, Attached are the sample and flow data. Directly from package sum the monthly 2011 1752.7 1711.9 2012 796.7 599.42 *2013 1680.5 2284.5* *2014 1440.1 1296.56 * Thanks

…

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 5:11 PM, Alison Appling ***@***.***> wrote: Hi Farshad, could you supply an example? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#231 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQq0iNNFXc1sM6NiZ8zU8694wNikUXg9ks5tm-q8gaJpZM4TNXVj> .

-- Best regards, Farshad Shafiei PhD student in Limnology University of Saskatchewan 112 Science place Saskatoon SK, S7N 5E2 Tel: 306-715-1660 Email: fsh.shafiei@Gmail.com https://ca.linkedin.com/in/farshad-shafiei-8376a939

[aappling-usgs]

Sorry, I'm not seeing any files attached. And could you also share your relevant code, please, so that I can reproduce the above numbers locally?

[Farshad171]

Sorry, I sent them via email.
Here they are:

SSRPOUT.xlsx
SSRFlow.xlsx

[aappling-usgs]

Great, and some code to reproduce the issue?

[Farshad171]

My codes are basically what I have from your paper and just organized in an order for my entire data set for different type of nutrients. Is not anything modified. I start from reading the samples and step by step to the aggregation function. Hope that makes sense.

[aappling-usgs]

You could still save me some time, and I'd appreciate it, if you shared your actual code for TP to generate the numbers you shared above.

[Farshad171]

Sure, let me rerun and get it organized in a way that makes sense. I will send it to you as soon as done. Thanks

[Farshad171]

So, I ran the model again for one variable and now the result are perfectly matched. I don't know what happened but the result I initially had the issue with were from few months ago. I will probably rerun all my analysis to make sure there is no inconsistencies. Anyhow, I think it is solved! Sorry for inconvenience and thanks for help :)

[aappling-usgs]

Great, thanks for retrying and sharing the result!