-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Drifts 20: individual seasonality analysis #61
Comments
Some weird casesSometimes the seasonality is not 365 days?Sometimes there is quite some discrepancy between multi- and reference comparisonI wonder whether this could be the case due to constant addition of barometers from 2010 to 2015 (cf. #62)? The KNMI reference plot is very stable over a very long timeframe. So this case seems to be good for future multi-reference assessment. Sometimes multi-comparison is much more noisy than KNMI reference cmparisonNot sure why... |
So what can one conclude from all this?
|
when browsing through literature, the higher variance during winter as well as seasonal variations are indeed real effects. Here's an example , no access to the paper unfortunately, but there are many examples out there |
the seasonal variation is usually explained by temperature: cold air is more dense and heavier than warm air, hence lower air pressure in summer |
BAOL033X is indeed an interesting case. I would consider this the 'perfect' timeseries with seasonality and variance as expected and stable. One seasonality peak in the DFTF-plot and no drift sign at all afterwards. I guess this is how the DFTF of an unsuspected series should look like. Unfortunately, there aren't many cases like this |
We do indeed see higher variance during non-summer period, but we do not see the seasonal effect as well-pronounced as in the example from the paper (which is around 20 cmH2O). This is a similar plot but with KNMI data (#56) where pressure is averaged over months (Drifts 31): Higher variance during non-summer is obvious, but there is no dip in pressure during summer. The blue line is the loess-smoothed curve. So although the explanation of colder thus denser air during winter resulting in higher pressure makes sense to me, I fail to see it in our "valid" data. (i.e. if that statement was true, we would see the seasonal effect in all barometers, including KNMI.) So from my understanding up to this point, seasonal effect I can only interpret through some failing mechanism (cf. temperature) of the barometer. (Which thus would also mean that the Chinese researchers had a failing barometer.) |
Here we look at the seasonality of the series, and whether there are any patterns that can be deduced from it. (This is in contrast to #50 where we looked at the whole dataset.) An example:
Some explanations for the graphs:
I.e. the variance/noise is clearly changing from winter to summer time, but not the amplitude of the measurements, hence no periodicity. This is something which was detected on the whole dataset also: Drifts 03: Seasonality effects of air pressure #50.
The Y-axis is the average intensity of the periods and the red vertical line signifies the 365.25 days period. (Note1: frequency = 1/period). (Note2: DFT/FFT was uninformative here since its resolution is constant in frequency, not in period: i.e. for higher periods, the resolution was very low and unusable for plotting.) (Note3: no windowing function is used: the aliasing affect should normally only have effect on high frequencies, and we start our DTFT at period > 2 days.)
Why do we use both glmnet and DTFT?
The DTFT gives an overall picture, over all periods, while glmnet would only show relevant "peaks". Also, glmnet approach is more robust in case there are discontinuities in the data, which sometimes happens. (This seems apparent from these many plots, but based on theory I do not see why that should be the case.)
Difference is noise between multi- and reference comparison?
I would expect lower noise in multi-comparison plots, but this is not always the case. It might have to do with barometer availability and difference in heights. I.e. if you have 200 barometers as reference, and suddenly you remove 100 from the coast region (which is lower than main land), then this would result in shift of the difference (red) curve. So compensation for height seems necessary. In #62 the barometer availability is analyzed. Anyway, I think that for the drift detection algorithm, we should first start with a selection of good barometers at same height, spread all over Flanders, and work with that for start.
This pdf contains all the plots.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: