This is a first summary of the methods comparison for the interpolation of maximum temperature (tmax) in Oregon. More updates will come in term of coding. Five methods are compared: Kriging, GWR, GAM, CAI and Fusion. I used six procedures for accuracy assessment: 1) accuracy metrics, 2) multisampling, 3) accuracy in term of closest training station, 4) map visualization 5) accuracy in term of density of stations, 6) accuracy profiles at specific stations.

This is the first part of the additional analyses that was carried out following the five methods comparison. This presentation was shown early November during the IPLANT meeting.
It includes:
1) comparison of accuracy with results using all stations at the monthly time scale
2) screening of LST and ELEV_SRTM with a quick look at LST monthly and TMax averages over year 2010
3) simplified models for CAI and comparison to fusion with Kriging

Codes relevant to the analyses can be found in the repository:
-production of boxplots to compare the five methods and maps of predicted surface: f82d4df1
-transects,accuracy assessment in term of distance to closest training station and multi-sampling: 5e7d95a7
-checking of extremes values in LST and elevation, exploratory analyses: c352e9e1

This is the second part of the additional analyses on method comparison.This presentation focuses on the analyses of residuals at GHCN station locations and the comparison of CAI and fusion interpolated surfaces.
The presentation includes:
1) detailed plots to compare fusion (kriging) and CAI (Kriging) for two dates: 20100103 and 20100901
2) Study of differences between CAI and fusion predictions using the interpolated surface and covariates (LST and ELEV_SRTM)
3) Transects through the predicted surfaces in relation to elevation (ELEV_SRTM).

Codes related to the analyses can be found here:
residuals analyses update on plots of residuals per elevation classes: d07e9853
residuals analyses, spatial transects through stations with difference and elevation: 30f84063