Re: AI-GEOSTATS: Re: generalize kriging variance to average-based estimators different than

[JW]

 Hello Everybody,   What is lacking  in the latest spirited defense of the practice of assuming spatial dependence, interpolating by kriging, selecting the BLUP (whatever happened to the BLUE?) and smoothing the BLUP’s pseudo variance to perfection, is a reference to the Journelian doctrine that spatial dependence may be assumed unless proven otherwise, although with the proviso that “classical Fischerian [sic!] statistics” not be applied to prove otherwise. What should I read in the reference to “missing assumption of stochastic independency between observations”? Does it refer to the same spatial dependence that may still be assumed in accordance with Journel’s 1992 doctrine? Assuming spatial dependence does precede interpolating by kriging, doesn't it?   What I do not understand is what happened to degrees of freedom. I was taught quite a while ago that measured values give degrees of freedom but functionally dependent (calculated) values are not so giving. So what gives? Who changed the rules? When? Why? Are degrees of freedom for sets of measured values with identical weights not longer positive integers? Isn't it true that degrees of freedom for sets of measured values with variable weights become positive irrationals? Last year this matter came up on ai-geostats. Did the concept of degrees of freedom disappear in 2005 just like the variance of the single distance-weighted average did in the 1960s?   Geostatistical software converted Bre-X’s bogus grades and Busang’s barren rock into a massive phantom gold resource. In contrast, vexatious ANOVA proved the intrinsic variance of Busang’s gold to be statistically identical to zero. Is the Kolmogorov-Wieder-BLUP-Prediction perhaps to blame for Bre-X’s Busang, Hecla’s Grouse Creek, and other shrinking reserves and resources? I don’t care if BLUPs surf along coastlines or impact shrimp counts, infect bacteria counts in culture dishes, and so on. What I do care about is that the geostatistical practice of assuming spatial dependence, interpolating by kriging, selecting the BLUE (or is it the BLUP?), and smoothing its pseudo variance to perfection, no longer be applied to reserve and resource estimation!   Several times I've asked IAMG’s brass and JMG’s brains to explain why the true variance of the single distance-weighted average was replaced with the pseudo variance of a set of distance-weighted averages but to no avail! Don't count on my presence in Europe next spring for a free mini-workshop. On the contrary, I’ll offer a fee based workshop for recovering geostatisticians in Vancouver next spring.   Kind regards, Jan W Merks