Project

General

Profile

« Previous | Next » 

Revision 100e95ca

Added by Adam M. Wilson almost 11 years ago

Adding a new option 2b

View differences:

climate/research/LST_evaluation.html
259 259
<h1>TMax~LST relationship seasonal variability</h1>
260 260

  
261 261
<p>First let&#39;s explore the variability of the TMax~LST relationship by month, grouped by tile.  In this plot grey lines indicate a Tmax~LST regression within each tile (stations may be present in multiple tiles). Variability among grey lines represents spatial variability in the fitted lapse rate and the heavy black line is overall mean relationship (by month).
262
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/RZbujnI.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-4"/> </p>
262
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/KYSRkMV.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-4"/> </p>
263 263

  
264 264
<h1>Comparison of monthly means with 3-month moving window</h1>
265 265

  
266 266
<p>Here we compare the monthly means with a three month moving window (e.g. January mean LST with December-February mean LST).  Note that the relationship is very good (R<sup>2</sup> &gt;0.95) but slightly weaker in winter months, likely due primarily to seasonal minimums.  Heavy black line is 1:1, and thin line is the fitted regression.</p>
267 267

  
268
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/aAmbMaz.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-5"/> </p>
268
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/kInQcBr.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-5"/> </p>
269 269

  
270 270
<h1>Comparison of monthly means with 2-month moving window that does not include the month</h1>
271 271

  
272 272
<p>Here we compare the monthly means with a two month moving window that does not include the month of interest (e.g. January mean LST with December and February mean LST, but not including the January LST).  Heavy black line is 1:1, and thin line is the fitted regression.</p>
273 273

  
274
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/AeJ0AFq.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-6"/> </p>
274
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/8AfNmiq.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-6"/> </p>
275 275

  
276 276
<p>Now let&#39;s look at the differences between the 1-month and 2-month LST values.  These represent a measure of how wrong we would be if we only had data from the two surrounding months and not the month in question.  </p>
277 277

  
278 278
<pre><code class="r">histogram(dlst2$lst - dlst2$lst2m, col = &quot;grey&quot;, xlab = &quot;Anomolies (1 month - 2 month means)&quot;)
279 279
</code></pre>
280 280

  
281
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/qIlsdWo.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-7"/> </p>
281
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/7E9SHnc.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-7"/> </p>
282 282

  
283 283
<p>The 95th quantile of the absolute value is only 4.2, so the differences are quite small. From this analysis, it appears that broadening the temporal window will maintain a relatively consistent estimate of LST (R<sup>2</sup> ranged from 0.88-0.9) even when using only data from the surrounding months.</p>
284 284

  
285 285
<p>Let&#39;s see how the seasonal cycle is represented by these proxies for a few randomly selected stations.  Here the red line is the observed TMax data, the heavy black line represents the mean LST in that month, and the green line is a three-month moving window, while the purple line is the 2-month window (not including the month of interest).</p>
286 286

  
287
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Ve0mC1C.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-8"/> </p>
287
<p><img src="http://i.imgur.com/wOsUVGT.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-8"/> </p>
288 288

  
289 289
<h1>Processing Options</h1>
290 290

  
......
378 378
d4l = melt(d4, id.vars = c(&quot;station&quot;, &quot;month&quot;), measure.vars = c(&quot;value&quot;, &quot;pred&quot;))
379 379
</code></pre>
380 380

  
381
<p>Let&#39;s see what that looks  for the 10 example stations above. The blue line is the observed LST value and the pink line is the predicted LST from the sinusoidal function.
382
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/oNteXlf.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-10"/> </p>
381
<p>Let&#39;s see what that looks  for the 10 example stations above. The red line is the observed LST value and the black line is the predicted LST from the sinusoidal function.
382
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/WYgS7qx.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-10"/> </p>
383 383

  
384 384
<p>And a histogram of the residuals for these stations:
385
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/1z4IHQs.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-11"/> </p>
385
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/qRekbih.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-11"/> </p>
386 386

  
387 387
<p>Not bad&hellip; Now let&#39;s drop 25% of the observations from each station and do it again:
388
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/6zkd5CB.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-12"/> </p>
388
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/n6ZP6yB.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-12"/> </p>
389 389

  
390 390
<p>And the  of residuals for these 10 stations with 25% of the observations removed:
391
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/c1Wyh9J.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-13"/> </p>
391
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/8Z1Niwd.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-13"/> </p>
392 392

  
393 393
<h3>Apply this function to the full CONUS dataset described above.</h3>
394 394

  
395 395
<p>Now look at the distributions of the residuals for the full conus dataset.
396
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/od4iR2S.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-14"/> </p>
396
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/iSdwpOe.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-14"/> </p>
397 397

  
398 398
<p>And summarize the residuals into RMSE&#39;s by station:
399
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/KIV2rBk.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-15"/> </p>
399
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/M29nxV1.png" alt="plot of chunk unnamed-chunk-15"/> </p>
400 400

  
401 401
<p>So the vast majority of stations will have a RMSE of &lt;5 using this simple method even if 25% of the data are missing.</p>
402 402

  

Also available in: Unified diff