Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 2.2K
- Programming with Categories Course 24
- Exercises - Programming with Categories Course 15
- Mini-Talks - Programming with Categories Course 3
- Applied Category Theory Course 341
- Applied Category Theory Seminar 4
- Exercises - Applied Category Theory Course 149
- Discussion Groups 50
- How to Use MathJax 15
- Chat 487
- Azimuth Code Project 108
- News and Information 147
- Azimuth Blog 149
- Azimuth Forum 29
- Azimuth Project 189
- - Strategy 108
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 711
- - Latest Changes 701
- - - Action 14
- - - Biodiversity 8
- - - Books 2
- - - Carbon 9
- - - Computational methods 38
- - - Climate 53
- - - Earth science 23
- - - Ecology 43
- - - Energy 29
- - - Experiments 30
- - - Geoengineering 0
- - - Mathematical methods 69
- - - Meta 9
- - - Methodology 16
- - - Natural resources 7
- - - Oceans 4
- - - Organizations 34
- - - People 6
- - - Publishing 4
- - - Reports 3
- - - Software 21
- - - Statistical methods 2
- - - Sustainability 4
- - - Things to do 2
- - - Visualisation 1
- General 41
Options
Blog - El Niño project (part 8)
I'm now going to write some articles in this series that will help me prepare for my talk at NIPS. Since my title is "Climate Networks", I need to talk about climate networks! The Ludescher et al paper gives an example, but it doesn't talk much about the general idea, and they do rather little with the network (more precisely, weighted graph) that they construct: they only compute the average link strength. Now I want to review some other literature on climate networks. I'll write the article here:
Comments
Okay, I think this blog article is ready for review! It has limited goals, and I think those goals are met. See what you think.
Okay, I think this blog article is ready for review! It has limited goals, and I think those goals are met. See what you think.Any comments? One could argue that I should talk more about the "meat" of the paper. I think I'll just add some graphs showing link strengths as a function of distance. This will lead up nicely to Graham Jones' graphs of correlations as a function of distance.
Any comments? One could argue that I should talk more about the "meat" of the paper. I think I'll just add some graphs showing link strengths as a function of distance. This will lead up nicely to Graham Jones' graphs of correlations as a function of distance.The best, picture worth a thousand words.
It reads really well and lacks that fluff I see in the related publications, it delivers the concepts.
Dara
> think I’ll just add some graphs showing link strengths as a function of distance. The best, picture worth a thousand words. It reads really well and lacks that fluff I see in the related publications, it delivers the concepts. DaraGood work, with clear explanations of interesting material.
Sorry I don't have enough available CPU time to think it through in greater depth right now. In lieu of this, a couple of points on the text itself.
Compare to what? Consider another verb here.
I suggest abridging the quoted passages in the conclusion, and adding some interpretation to it. As it stands now, it feels a bit disjoint from the main text, and has a diluting effect on the piece as a whole.
Good work, with clear explanations of interesting material. Sorry I don't have enough available CPU time to think it through in greater depth right now. In lieu of this, a couple of points on the text itself. > This time I'd like to compare a different paper on climate networks: Compare to what? Consider another verb here. I suggest abridging the quoted passages in the conclusion, and adding some interpretation to it. As it stands now, it feels a bit disjoint from the main text, and has a diluting effect on the piece as a whole.The focus on a different paper is good. The point that comes across on first read is that the ENSO phenomenon can be so strong that it will disrupt the climate links that normally occur. That is what the new paper adds in comparison to the Ludescher paper.
The focus on a different paper is good. The point that comes across on first read is that the ENSO phenomenon can be so strong that it will disrupt the climate links that normally occur. That is what the new paper adds in comparison to the Ludescher paper.The only thing that leaps out at me is more something to think about: their climatological average is taken over all years in the dataset. It would be nice to know how sensitive the results are to that: it wouldn't surprise me if it was essentially the same using just the years in the first half, and would preserve the ability to use the second half adls test data for any algorith.s. but I'm not sure it's actually worth a comment in the article.
The only thing that leaps out at me is more something to think about: their climatological average is taken over all years in the dataset. It would be nice to know how sensitive the results are to that: it wouldn't surprise me if it was essentially the same using just the years in the first half, and would preserve the ability to use the second half adls test data for any algorith.s. but I'm not sure it's actually worth a comment in the article.I can't see any images. My browser says
for a while then gives up.
I think the post needs an earlier mention and (informal) comparison with Ludescher et al. The definitions look very similar, and the papers share 3 (I think) authors. I'd bet they also share code, and hence, probably, exact definitions too.
I can't see any images. My browser says ~~~~ Connecting to math.ucr.edu... ~~~~ for a while then gives up. I think the post needs an earlier mention and (informal) comparison with Ludescher et al. The definitions look very similar, and the papers share 3 (I think) authors. I'd bet they also share code, and hence, probably, exact definitions too.Hi, folks. I accidentally posted the blog article before making some of the changes you suggested. I'll make some now.
David Tweed wrote:
To Ludescher's paper, but I guess that wasn't obvious!
Graham wrote:
Well, I don't think I'll have time to compare it to Ludescher, but I should clearly mention them.
I'm hoping now is to quickly run through a number of different papers on climate networks before I give a talk on this stuff in a month and a half. The resulting blog articles will be rather hasty and dry. For example, that's why I just quoted the discussion in the Berezin et al paper instead of digesting it. Sorry, but I gotta rapidly get myself up to speed! I'm at the limit of my capacity, going crazy teaching two advanced courses, writing grant proposals and getting ready for this talk.
Graham wrote:
I hope that's fixed now. Sometimes the UCR math department computer crashes. It looks fine to me now.
Hi, folks. I accidentally posted the blog article before making some of the changes you suggested. I'll make some now. David Tweed wrote: > Compare to what? To Ludescher's paper, but I guess that wasn't obvious! Graham wrote: >I think the post needs an earlier mention and (informal) comparison with Ludescher et al. Well, I don't think I'll have time to compare it to Ludescher, but I should clearly mention them. I'm hoping now is to quickly run through a number of different papers on climate networks before I give a talk on this stuff in a month and a half. The resulting blog articles will be rather hasty and dry. For example, that's why I just quoted the discussion in the Berezin _et al_ paper instead of digesting it. Sorry, but I gotta rapidly get myself up to speed! I'm at the limit of my capacity, going crazy teaching two advanced courses, writing grant proposals and getting ready for this talk. Graham wrote: > I can’t see any images... I hope that's fixed now. Sometimes the UCR math department computer crashes. It looks fine to me now.John wrote:
You can hold me responsible for that question :)
I was just suggesting a wording change, since formally it looked like the sentence was missing an argument.
John wrote: > David Tweed wrote: > > Compare to what? You can hold me responsible for that question :) I was just suggesting a wording change, since formally it looked like the sentence was missing an argument.John said
And beyond mine! I've been busy writing this paper and the software that it describes, but no other significant responsibilities. Anyway you have now mentioned Ludescher et al enough for me.
John said > I’m at the limit of my capacity And beyond mine! I've been busy writing [this paper](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/10/09/010199) and the software that it describes, but no other significant responsibilities. Anyway you have now mentioned Ludescher et al enough for me.Thanks guys... sorry for mixing up the two D. T.'s.
Looks like an interesting paper, Graham!
Thanks guys... sorry for mixing up the two D. T.'s. Looks like an interesting paper, Graham!Speaking of reviewing other papers on climate networks, Tupikina et al. (2014) could be interesting. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here yet. One result from the abstract: "While this real-world [common component evolution function] displays a high degree of network persistence over large time lags, there are distinct time periods when common links break down. This phasing of these events coincides with years of strong El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomena, confirming previous studies."
Speaking of reviewing other papers on climate networks, [Tupikina et al. (2014)](http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/21/705/2014/npg-21-705-2014.html) could be interesting. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here yet. One result from the abstract: "While this real-world [common component evolution function] displays a high degree of network persistence over large time lags, there are distinct time periods when common links break down. This phasing of these events coincides with years of strong El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomena, confirming previous studies."