Skip to content
Prev 21925 / 29559 Next

spacetime EOF implementation - interpretation question

Edzer,

Thanks a bunch for looking in to this!

Just to double check that everything looked correct, I conducted an EOF
analysis on the same data with the R spacetime package on GitHub
<https://github.com/edzer/spacetime> and with the Python eofs
<http://ajdawson.github.io/eofs/api/eofs.standard.html#eofs.standard.Eof>
package.

Here is a link
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/+AndrewVitale/albums/6075420991607598513/6075420995240106354?pid=6075420995240106354&oid=106112792577057082777>
to an album of figures (if you end up checking out the figures, note that
you can zoom in with the mouse wheel).  I've plotted out the first 4 EOFs
(maps) from R and Python, the entirety of the first four PCs (time series)
from R and Python, and the last 365 days of the PCs time series from both R
and Python.  The spatial and temporal patterns look to be qualitatively
similar, although I haven't had a chance to compare them quantitatively yet.

The only reason I decided to normalize the PCs was to try and make it look
more like some papers/books I've seen.  My uncertainty surrounding the
range of PC values was the biggest reason I came to the list with my
questions.  The "EOF Primer" that I sent in my original message (
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~han/Monitor/eofprimer.pdf , pp 11-12, Fig. 2,
3) claims to "standardi[ze the PCs] to have zero mean and unit variance",
and the Python eofs module includes the option of returning scaled PC and
EOF values with two different methods.  It seems that the biggest source of
confusion throughout the process of this analysis has been varying
terminology and slightly different methods all thrown under the EOF blanket.

Thanks again for looking in to this and making such a speedy correction to
the source code.  You've helped tremendously.

-Andrew

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edzer Pebesma <
edzer.pebesma at uni-muenster.de> wrote: