Wednesday, May 16, 2012

4324.txt

date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:44:05 +0000 (GMT)
from: Martin Juckes <M.N.JuckesatXYZxyzac.uk>
subject: MITRIE -- a new draft
to: mitrie -- Anders Moberg <andersatXYZxyzu.su.se>, Eduardo Zorita <Eduardo.ZoritaatXYZxyzs.de>, hegerl@duke.edu, Jan Esper <esperatXYZxyz.ch>, Keith Briffa <k.briffaatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, Martin Juckes <M.N.JuckesatXYZxyzac.uk>, Myles Allen <m.allen1atXYZxyzsics.ox.ac.uk>, Nanne Weber <weberatXYZxyzi.nl>, t.osbornatXYZxyz.ac.uk

<x-flowed>

Hello,

here is a new draft -- I've tried to incorporate comments -- please accept
my apologies if something you suggested is still not in. From the new
reconstructions I've done the conclusion is that the compositing approach
is more robust than inverse regression. I think I need to add a little
more to back up the interpretation -- this comes from looking at the
regression coefficients: with inverse regression the reconstruction is
dominated by a small number of proxies.

cheers,
martin
</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_04.pdf"

Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\mitrie_04.tex"

No comments:

Post a Comment