backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 118 comment(s) - last by Major HooHaa.. on Jun 19 at 7:00 AM

Microsoft says the answer to bad models is not to give up on modeling, but to develop better models

New York City is home to some of the world's most attractive models;  it is also home to some of the least attractive ones, presented yearly to the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The current state of global warming modeling has been rather poor, detracting both from research indicating anthropogenic influence and that which contraindicates it.  The result is that the debate about climate control, an issue which effects major economic policy decisions, is monopolized by this distraction.

Microsoft Research ecologist Drew Purves acknowledges that this problem is one of the largest ones confronting global warming researchers.  He and researchers at Princeton University and universities in Madrid, Spain are calling on the international research community to not throw out modeling or focus on the poor current models, but rather to develop new, better models.  In particular, they point out a rather common sense start point -- as forests and other plant populations form the crux of the carbon balance, a better understanding of their effects and how to model them needs to be developed and needs to help form the foundation of future models.

Examining deforestation, forest populations and how they effect the carbon balance is both essential and possible with current technology, believes Purves.  While atmospheric equations are important, it's illogical to leave out one of the most important carbon utilities on Earth, forests.  Atmospheric dynamics are well known, but forests, with over 1 trillion trees, from 100,000 species, are still a mystery for lack of knowledge.  What we do know is that these trees hold as much carbon as is currently in the atmosphere, and additionally support two-thirds of the planet's biodiversity.

Purves and Princeton's Stephen Pacala published a paper "Predictive Models of Forest Dynamics", which explores a new branch of modeling dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which simulates forests in the past, present, and future and their effects on climate. Purves states:

[DGVMs] have shown that forests could be a crucial part of the way the Earth's climate responds to man-made CO2 emissions, but insufficient understanding of forests, and insufficient data and computing power, have made their predictions highly uncertain.  This kind of uncertainty helps climate skeptics, who erroneously conclude that because the Earth is a complex but poorly understood system, we should not change our behavior. However, we suggest that the convergence of recently developed mathematical models, improved data sources and new methods in computational data analysis could produce more realistic models. That would give us truly invaluable information to help manage the world's forests and understand their impact on our climate.

Indeed, climate change skeptics are quick to pounce on such models.  However, Purves aptly points out that it is counterproductive to merely blast deficient models, rather it is favorable to acknowledge the deficiency and work towards remedying it.

Says Pacala, "Until now, one of the most important pieces of the climate change jigsaw has been missing.  We argue that we can significantly further our understanding of forest dynamics if scientists work together to use new computational techniques and data sources — provided governments and others make more data available in useful forms. We feel that these discoveries could unlock the climate change mysteries of forests on a global scale in as little as five years."

The pair's paper appears in the journal Science.  Also appearing in the journal is a joint study entitled "Animal vs Wind Dispersal and the Robustness of Tree Species to Deforestation," written by Daniel Montoya from the Universidad de Alcalá in Madrid and Purves in Cambridge, with Miguel A. Rodríguez of the Universidad de Alcalá and Miguel A. Zavala of Centro de Investigación Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CIFOR) in Madrid.  Both papers are available here, from Microsoft.

The new study provides intriguing insight into forest growth and resiliency based on vast data sets collected from 90,000 tree plots in Spain.  It found that three common species of tree that are wind pollinated are far more vulnerable to deforestation than others.  Also it found that no animal seed disperser existed in the ecosystem anymore, leaving several animal dispersed species very vulnerable.

Montoya explains how this research could be applied to smarter conservation efforts, stating, "By applying various methods in computational data analysis to a large source of forest data, we have confirmed that, in Spain at least, plants with animal-dispersed seeds are less vulnerable to habitat loss, because animals provide trees with an intelligent dispersal mechanism, traveling and distributing seeds between areas of remaining forest. In contrast, a wind dispersal method is more susceptible to habitat loss, as seeds are more likely to fall in inhospitable environments. Using methods like this, conservationists can identify the species at most risk following deforestation, and use this knowledge to develop new strategies to mitigate the effects of widespread habitat loss and help to protect species diversity."

Microsoft's Purves says it's not just about the trees and animals either; he states, "It is imperative that we create the tools and science to accurately understand the reaction of ecosystems to climate change and other forces — not just for plants and animals, but for our children and succeeding generations."

Purves is the leader of the Computational Science Research at Microsoft Research Cambridge.  His multidisciplinary team features ecologists, biologists, neuroscientists, mathematicians and computer scientists.  Their goals is to develop novel theories, better models, and better computational resources to tackle societal challenges such as climate change, declining biodiversity, and gaining an understanding of how life functions on a most basic scale.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 1
A lot of folks have devoted a lot of words to attacking the whole idea of anthropogenic causes of climate change. I think the whole ozone thing is a definite example of how man can drastically change his environment simply by using those CFCs in the environment. Some environmental scientists are now suggesting that should the ozone close up, it may aid global warming.

Someone once said that a good reason to be a Christian is that if there is no God, then you haven't lost anything. I say if environmentalists are wrong about CO2 causing global warming, then by going to non-pollution-based energy sources, we aren't going to be harming anything at all. If, by contrast, they're right, then the gamble of not doing anything to curb our abuses of the environment is going to cause some catastrophes that we cannot really predict.

Sure, the scientists aren't perfect. Everyone knows that. However, CO2 are a bad pollutant in cities. This is a fact which is unequivocally proven: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf is just a tip of many articles which clearly demonstrate the ill effects of CO2.

Hence, it shouldn't be hard to say that the elimination of the cause(s) of CO2 will be beneficial to everyone in cities. This in itself makes the effort and cost worthwhile. The cessation of anthropogenic CO2 contributions to the atmosphere will not adversely affect the environment. Other practices, such as clear cutting of old growth forest, should be prevented. Many argue that there are jobs in old growth harvesting. However, it's inevitable that all old growth forests cannot sustain our practices indefinitely. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is inevitable that we will have to stop - either when the trees are all gone, or we can make a conscious choice and preserve these, now, incredibly rare masterpieces of nature.

Regardless of the climate models that scientists create, we are cooking up a lot of problems that are foreseeable by anyone who isn't blinded by greed either by douche-bag or poop sandwich politicians.

So, let's stop debating over the fallibility of climate models and agree that they're an expensive hobby which may one day lead to a better understanding of our world, but that the data is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should cease our destructive behavior. I don't doubt that we can't stop ourselves - not at the cost of a McDonald's burger or a logger's job. I'm too pessimistic about the collective intelligence of man to believe that we might actually make the right decisions.




RE: The real heart of the issue
By Lupinicus on 6/14/2008 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your amazing post. It is often hard for me to read through the comments on a DailyTech global warming article. So many people dismiss what it says out of hand. I totally agree with your points here. I have thought for quite a while that it is silly to assume we are having no effect on the climate. I don't want to debate whether carbon dioxide is THE greenhouse gas to worry about or not, but we are obviously putting various gases into the atmosphere that either were never there before or never there at these concentrations. Why wouldn't we want to fix that problem? We have plenty of examples of what happens when we let pollution run rampant. Why don't we want to try to prevent something like global warming from happening?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By dever on 6/16/2008 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Someone once said that a good reason to be a Christian is that if there is no God, then you haven't lost anything. I say if environmentalists are wrong about CO2 causing global warming, then by going to non-pollution-based energy sources, we aren't going to be harming anything at all.
So you're advocating government enforced religion?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2008 5:16:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "I say if environmentalists are wrong about CO2 causing global warming, then...we aren't going to be harming anything at all."

You mean, other than the tens of trillions of dollars wasted on fighting a problem which doesn't exist -- resources which could have instead been spent to save literally millions of lives?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 7:33:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
tens of trillions of dollars wasted on fighting a problem which doesn't exist


See, this is a big mistake that you've made. I know that you're a conservative and a southerner (I believe you've mentioned this fact yourself, though it has been obvious), so I don't think you'll be able to really grasp that learning to become safer and cleaner are worthwhile goals regardless. These millions of dollars are being spent to save, literally, millions of lives. If CO2 and other pollutants can be eliminated in cities, then cities will become much healthier places to live. This is a fact. You can argue global warming either way until you're blue in the face, and due to its great complexity, neither one of us can say we have conclusive evidence. However, the issue of CO2 in city pollution is conclusive: it is harmful for our health. The fact that it may also be causing issues for the globe is a debate I can't win with you since you're not interested in speculation built on facts. I think if it was only China that was creating the CO2, and America wasn't, you'd be only too happy to say that they're causing global warming, rather than feeling unhappy that some people are trying to make people change.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2008 8:01:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "I know that you're a conservative "

No I'm not.

> "and a southerner...so I don't think you'll be able to really grasp that learning to become safer and cleaner are worthwhile goals"

Ah, Southerners are less intelligent than the rest of the nation? In any case, the mistake you're making is in regarding CO2 as "unclean". The fact is its crucial to all life on earth. As CO2 levels have risen, so has plant growth. Research has shown that NPP (Net Primary Production) of all planetary biomass is up dramatically. That's the result of rising CO2 levels.

Still worse, the diatribe against clean and beneficial CO2 has taken focus away from truly toxic pollutants. The belief that fighting the nonexistent problem of global warming has other benefits entirely is fallacy, plain and simple.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/14/2008 11:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "I know that you're a conservative "
No I'm not.


Actually I think what people find a bit irking is that sometimes you speak with a tinge of righteousness, people might find it confronting that they cant get their point across to you as you are a much better speaker/writer than they are.

I also think that a some of the time you're taking the moral high ground in a conservative view which might be geared towards economically safe rather than "gaia earth friendly safe"

I think with a great majority of people not at all understanding the global warming debate, for the meanwhile it may be safer to stay on the liberal side of the fence in terms of actions until we all can come to a semi consensus as to what actions can be taken.

People with "gaia earth friendly safe" intentions may not have the right information but at least their intentions are good. It only takes a little education here whereas if your belief system is totally in the opposite direction, its going to be much tougher.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By ebakke on 6/15/2008 12:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It only takes a little education....

It also doesn't take much to teach people that "global warming is destroying the earth" is a hoax.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/15/2008 2:53:22 AM , Rating: 1
Didn't you say at some point that you hate liberal politics and that you're a Republican?

It's not that Southerners are less intelligent, it's just that they seem to care less about the environment, and seem ready to disregard the harmful effects that their lives have on the general public whenever it they feel that any part of their way of life is threatened. We have folks like that in Canada too. They are most strongly concentrated in Alberta and are virtually indistinguishable from southern Americans. They too have a lot of oil, don't really care about Natives unless it means stealing more of their land, and favor old growth profits over old growth forests.

In any case, you therefore support the idea that gasoline based automobiles shouldn't have to change, that they should continue to degrade our environment? My opinion is that they're terrible polluters to our environment. The money being spent to find less toxic sources of energy is well worth it if we're able to find solutions, even if it does take billions of tax dollars to make it happen.

I don't doubt that there are many other problems in addition to CO2. Ozone creation and CO in cities are other problems.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
> "Didn't you say at some point that you hate liberal politics and that you're a Republican?"

No. It's clear your own biases are coloring your perceptions.

> "In any case, you therefore support the idea that gasoline based automobiles shouldn't have to change, that they should continue to degrade our environment? "

You can't seem to grasp the point. The $45 trillion dollars the IAE is proposing doesn't include one red cent for eliminating our reliance on "gasoline-based automobiles". In fact, the vast majority of all AGW "solutions" have nothing whatsoever to do with actually reducing pollution.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By barjebus on 6/16/2008 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Agree'd.

wordsworm:

It's called pascal's wager and fails terribly. With regards to the religious pascal's wager, the reason it fails is that there are far too many religions out there that could possibly be correct. If we look at past religions, God's or Deities vary widely; and indeed, we cannot make any assumptions as to whether this God or God's is actually personally interested in our worship of that God or God's, and thus we cannot exclude any single previous religion on this planet.

Since it's impossible to make any assumptions as to whether God has revealed himself yet, or that we're still just searching for him, we can't conclude with any certainty that even our current religions meet any criteria for attaining an afterlife, let alone whether there's an afterlife at all! Without assumptions, we become open to an infinite number of possibilities as to the nature and character of God or the Gods. So if we can't even quantify the number of religions out there, the number of ways that might be the wrong way to worship God, it's infinitely impossible to be right. I don't think I'm explaining this well, but whatevs.

This same theory holds true for global warming. There are so many factors that can be causing this, so many future variables that are unforeseeable that can negate any changes we make (i.e. if we get new sunspots, volcanic explosions, new technology that isn't based on fossil fuels) that it is in fact not better to believe (or in this case) act on the current knowledge but rather to wait until we have some real data that supports it. As it stands there are piles of contradictory evidence that is particularly damning, and yet the common refrain from the global warming community is that the models are "improving" or can't "factor everything in yet".

So until that time, count me in the camp that doesn't chase down infinitely impossible probabilities.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2008 11:23:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
See, this is a big mistake that you've made. I know that you're a conservative and a southerner (I believe you've mentioned this fact yourself, though it has been obvious), so I don't think you'll be able to really grasp that learning to become safer and cleaner are worthwhile goals regardless.


Ok. You make a nice opening +5 rated post sharing your opinion in a mature manner. Then you follow it up showing your true colors. This statement is completely assumptive, insulting, and inflammatory.

quote:
These millions of dollars are being spent to save, literally, millions of lives.


There is ZERO, repeat, ZERO evidence, proof, or observational method to even make such a claim. How dare you. Millions of people will die from global warming ?

quote:
If CO2 and other pollutants can be eliminated in cities, then cities will become much healthier places to live.


But they can't be. Can they ? No, they can't. CO2 is something every living thing breathes out. Its something water vapor produces. In fact, even calling this a deadly pollutant is stretching the truth in anything less then heavy quantities. Which we are so far away from right now its not even funny. 30 parts per MILLION is not deadly !

quote:
However, the issue of CO2 in city pollution is conclusive: it is harmful for our health.


Another lie. It is POTENTIALLY harmful to our health at extremely high levels. Nothing even remotely CLOSE to what we're breathing now. And by " close " I mean thousands of times more. Know what else is harmful to your health in large doses over an extended time ? Pure oxygen ! Are you going to ban that ?

Only Al Gore actually believe that CO2 directly drives our global climate. Fact is, the past three years were colder than the models predicted, and guess what ? CO2 levels went UP slightly during that same period.

quote:
I think if it was only China that was creating the CO2, and America wasn't, you'd be only too happy to say that they're causing global warming, rather than feeling unhappy that some people are trying to make people change.


You just really don't get it. This isn't about making the world a better place or making people change. This is about socialism, fear, and control. If you don't think these people are out there then just take a good hard look at the ones behind the global warming movement.

Do you really think a few dollars here and there is what we're against ? Without economic freedom we have NO freedoms. These people won't stop until you are eating as much food as THEY think you should. Driving the cars THEY think you should. Buying the clothes THEY think you should. And you will go along with it, like an lamb to slaughter, because you honestly believe they are doing it so save the world ?

Paranoid conspiracy theory ranting ? Think again. Its already starting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7419724.stm

quote:
Under the scheme people would be given an annual carbon limit for fuel and energy use - which they could exceed by buying credits from those who use less.


So basically if the " Environmental Audit Committee " has their way, everyone in the UK will be given set yearly " carbon limit " to purchase fuel and power with. Once you go over that, you have to buy more " carbon points " from someone else. Or what ? I don't know. I guess you just can't buy gas or power your house anymore.

Are you reading this Wordswrom ? Do you understand yet ? If reading this story doesn't anger you, you have lost something as a human.

This is about POWER ! Thats it. Who decides how many " carbon points " someone gets ? The government, thats who. Bingo ! Under the guise of " saving the earth " you would be willing to sell your rights ? Your economic freedom. Your quality of life !! The ability to even CHOOSE how you power and heat your home. How much you can drive. What vehicle you drive because, god forbid, you get a big car and eat up all your " carbon points ". Forget the fact that you make plenty of money, can afford it, and its YOUR choice. Not anymore its not.

Forget socialism. This is downright communism ! If something like this were to even be allowed to pass in the UK BILLIONS of people will suffer. Suffer ! How can you use potential health risks to justify the economic OPPRESSION of billions ?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By ebakke on 6/15/2008 12:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have access to a "Worth Reading x15" button, so all you get is this measly post.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 2:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you :) Your post is far from measly.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Nyamekye on 6/15/2008 3:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Great discussion, however... ripping each others post to shreds in a viscous manner does not make you seem more informed on the subject.

And, an after thought. Since we don't even fully understand how many cycles in the planet work it will be impossible to understand which direction to follow. The planet is billions of years old, we have only around 5000 years (we may have more) of precisely recorded history - and science can only tell so much.

Sadly, the decisions we make about global warming will be educated guesses until we know exactly what is happening. But, it will be supposedly to late by that time if there is danger is global warming, and we will waste money now if there isn't.

Reducing poisonous gasses and cutting our energy dependence is good though, gas have gone up, up, up in the USA.