See page 16:

The various models only differ in the way they capture the ascent to spatial 
autocorrelation until the range. Subtle differences—in my experience (for 
epidemiological and biological data) an exponential model suffices.

typing with thumbs—pls excuse typos and autocorrections

On Feb 8, 2018, at 3:36 AM, Anna Fornasiero 
<<>> wrote:

ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or 
click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. If it looks 
suspicious, send it as an attachment to<><>

Hi I'm not a geostatistic expert.
I'm trying to interpolate raingauges precipitation measures using
radar precipitation as covariate.
The resulting field obtained by KED is filled of precipitation even
over the sea where neither raingauges nor radar have measured
precipitation. The result changes if I reduce the maximum distance of
the  variogram computation   (i.e. 20 km), but I have no idea on what
produces this change. Using 20 km of maximum distance the variogram
shape is poor.
The variogram shape is well defined starting from 50 km of maximum
distance, but in this case the precipitation is spread over the sea .
I didn't note any substantial difference changing the fitting model of
the variogram: exponential, spherical or gaussian.
Any suggestion?

R-sig-Geo mailing list<>
Sent from the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. This email 
and any files transmitted with it may contain confidential information and are 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
addressed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept 
for the presence of computer viruses.

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

R-sig-Geo mailing list

Reply via email to