A Transect of Gridcell Plots at 7.5 S

I think that there is too much preoccupation in the analysis of NH urban gridcells. As an exercise, I plotted the ACFs and gridcells for a transect at 7.5S from 177.5W to 177.5E. The presentation here is not very pretty but I think that the graphs are interesting taken as a whole. I draw no conclusions, other than it’s quite puzzling to see the difference between the patterns in adjacent gridcells and one would like to see some detailed analysis justifying the details.









































































3 Comments

  1. John A
    Posted Aug 24, 2005 at 4:14 AM | Permalink

    Now that I know this, what do I do?

  2. Paul
    Posted Aug 24, 2005 at 6:05 AM | Permalink

    Looking at a map of the world, you’ve chosen a strip just below the equator where only 60 deg of longitude are covered by land. The remaining 320 deg are covered by water, mostly the Pacific Ocean. This is also a very uninhabited portion of the globe, 30 deg are covered by the Amazon jungle and the Peruvian Andes with the remaining 30 covered by central Africa. I’d be surprised if there is any but the most spotty coverage by weather stations along this strip. The few with continuous coverage are going to be at big cities. It looks like Jakarta, Indonesia is dead center of this strip and Lima, Peru may be included. Both are huge old colonial third world cities. No doubt the quality control at the weather stations was of the absolute highest for all their years of data collection. And there is no UHI either.

    It would help if you could plot the weather stations on a world political map to get a better idea of where this data was taken.

    The 1998 El Nino is quite visible in the temp records from -127.5E to -82.5E but no where else.

  3. TCO
    Posted Aug 26, 2005 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

    Damnit Steve. Take the time to post a sentence or two explaining the “so what”. That gives me a motivation to dig into the methodology if I want to. But I don’t even see where this is going. Obviously you saw something that looked fishy, but it is not explicitly stated. You can still retain some caveats and say that you are just investigating. But give an explanation of what is motivating you.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,382 other followers

%d bloggers like this: