From: David Schneider <dschneid@ucar.edu>
To: Darrell Kaufman <Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu>
Subject: Re: spatial pattern
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:23:38 -0600
Cc: Nick McKay <nmckay@email.arizona.edu>, Caspar Ammann <ammann@ucar.edu>, Bradley Ray <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>, Miller Giff <gmiller@colorado.edu>, Otto-Bleisner Bette <ottobli@ucar.edu>, Overpeck Jonathan <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Bo Vinther <bo@gfy.ku.dk>

   I don't think we should go there. Any PC analysis on proxy data will be picked apart by the
   skeptics, even if it yields some useful insight, and I don't recall there being anything
   too exciting in the pattern given the limited amount of data.

   Dave
   On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Darrell Kaufman <[1]Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu> wrote:

     Dave and Nick:
     I've been thinking about the remaining holes in the manuscript. Spatial patterns are
     important. At one point we explored the spatial pattern of the PC scores. I think it
     would be good to bring this up in the SOM. I could make a dot map showing the site
     locations and their correlations with PC1. The upshot would be that the proxy types are
     not uniformly distributed, and there are too few records to discern any spatial patterns
     from any geographical or proxy-type bias (e.g., high-elevation ice cores).
     Thoughts?
     Darrell

References

   1. mailto:Darrell.Kaufman@nau.edu

