You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
@farhadsalimi, @ozjimbob The 2009 work for the 2011 paper used a rolling centred 90 day mean.
NB -45 and + 44 after reading the SAS CMOVAVE info as this is what it does when given an even number (90).
I also believe it is not really worth it, but not because Katsouyanni used
yearly. I suspect they did that because it was easier not because they
thought it wouldn't matter.
I think we should check what is difference between your 3 monthly calendar
season approach and my rolling 3-mo-centred approach.
But not this week.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:14 PM, farhadsalimi [email protected]
wrote:
@farhadsalimi, @ozjimbob The 2009 work for the 2011 paper used a rolling centred 90 day mean.
NB -45 and + 44 after reading the SAS CMOVAVE info as this is what it does when given an even number (90).
Is this worth recreating in R? Latest codes at https://github.com/swish-climate-impact-assessment/BiosmokeValidatedEvents/blame/master/inst/doc/impute_aphea2_sydney_pm25.Rmd#L200
use calendar seasons DJF (Summer), MAM, JJA, SON.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: