COLUMBIA, Mo. – The world’s oceans cover more than 72 percent of the earth’s surface, impact a major part of the carbon cycle, and contribute to variability in global climate and weather patterns. However, accurately predicting the condition of the ocean is limited by current methods. Now, researchers at the University of Missouri have applied complex statistical models to increase the accuracy of ocean forecasting that can influence the ways in which forecasters predict long-range events such as El Nińo and the lower levels of the ocean food chain—one of the world’s largest ecosystems.
“The ocean really is the most important part of the world’s environmental system because of its potential to store carbon and heat, but also because of its ability to influence major atmospheric weather events such as droughts, hurricanes and tornados,” said Chris Wikle, professor of statistics in the MU College of Arts and Science. “At the same time, it is essential in producing a food chain that is a critical part of the world’s fisheries.”
The vastness of the world’s oceans makes predicting its changes a daunting task for oceanographers and climate scientists. Scientists must use direct observations from a limited network of ocean buoys and ships combined with satellite images of various qualities to create physical and biological models of the ocean. Wikle and Ralph Milliff, a senior research associate at the University of Colorado, adopted a statistical “Bayesian hierarchical model” that allows them to combine various sources of information as well as previous scientific knowledge. Their method helped improve the prediction of sea surface temperature extremes and wind fields over the ocean, which impact important features such as the frequency of tornadoes in tornado alley and the distribution of plankton in coastal regions—a critical first stage of the ocean food chain.
“Nate Silver of The New York Times combined various sources of information to understand and better predict the uncertainty associated with elections,” Wikle said. “So much like that, we developed more sophisticated statistical methods to combine various sources of data—satellite images, data from ocean buoys and ships, and scientific experience—to better understand the atmosphere over the ocean and the ocean itself. This led to models that help to better predict the state of the Mediterranean Sea, and the long-lead time prediction of El Nińo and La Nińa. Missouri, like most of the world, is affected by El Nińo and La Nińa (through droughts, floods and tornadoes) and the lowest levels of the food chain affect us all through its effect on Marine fisheries.”
El Nińo is a band of warm ocean water temperatures that periodically develops off the western coast of South America and can cause climatic changes across the Pacific Ocean and the U.S. La Nińa is the counterpart that also affects atmospheric changes throughout the country. Wikle and his fellow researchers feel that, through better statistical methods and models currently in development, a greater understanding of these phenomena and their associated impacts will help forecasters better predict potentially catastrophic events, which will likely be increasingly important as our climate changes.
Wikle’s study, “Uncertainty management in coupled physical-biological lower trophic level ocean ecosystem models,” was funded in part by the National Science Foundation and was published in Oceanography and Statistical Science.
Wikle said. “So much like that, we developed more sophisticated statistical methods to combine various sources of data—satellite images, data from ocean buoys and ships, and scientific experience—to better understand the atmosphere over the ocean and the ocean itself. This led to models…
“Sources of data” = Satellite images, data from ocean bouys and ships, and scientific experience?!
Huh?
More self-serving modelled bullshit.
If only an intrinsically complex physical problem could be unravelled by mere statistics.
Normative and prescriptive statements, characterized by would, should & could, have no inherent or essential truth value.
New Statistical Models Could Lead to Better Predictions of Ocean Patterns and the Impacts on Weather, Climate and Ecosystems
NO THEY CANNOT !!!!!!!!!!!
The “scientific experience” is evaluated only statistically.
In the first paragraph, couldn’t help smiling at the phrase “limited by CURRENT methods”.
“Stephen Richards says:
March 22, 2014 at 1:20 pm
New Statistical Models Could Lead to Better Predictions of Ocean Patterns and the Impacts on Weather, Climate and Ecosystems
NO THEY CANNOT !!!!!!!!!!!
##############
More settled science from skeptics.
“Their method helped improve the prediction of sea surface temperature extremes and wind fields over the ocean, which impact important features such as the frequency of tornadoes in tornado alley and the distribution of plankton in coastal regions—a critical first stage of the ocean food chain.”
Academic flourish. Their study is not critical to the food chain.
“1sky1 says:
March 22, 2014 at 1:17 pm
If only an intrinsically complex physical problem could be unravelled by mere statistics.”
#################################
note they didnt say unravelled.
note they said
“Their method helped improve the prediction of sea surface temperature extremes and wind fields over the ocean,”
Note the difference between “unravelling” and improving a prediction.
I predict that you are 6 feet tall, plus or minus 3 feet.
That’s a prediction, but pretty horrible. It has limited use.
Now I find a pair of your shoes and I note they are size 9. Looking at other data
and the relationship between shoe size and height, I improve my prediction.
Maybe I say You are 6 feet tall, plus or minus 18 inches.
Then I find a pair of your pants and I note the inseam is 34 inches and the bottom
is frayed.
I improve my prediction.. you are 6 feet tall plus or minus 6 inches.
AT no point have I claimed to unravell the mystery of your height, or the history of your height.
I’ve simply used more information to improve my prediction
Here is how it works if I want to figure out where you live from your tweets
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/21/researchers-develop-formula-that-reveals-home-location-based-on-tweets/
And I can figure out the complex problem of what kind of car you like or music you like by looking at certain data.
SVM
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F11531371_50
Chris Wikle: “We developed more sophisticated statistical methods to combine various sources of data—satellite images, data from ocean buoys and ships, and scientific experience—to better fool ourselves that we know what we’re talking about.”
Steven Mosher says:
“More settled science from skeptics.”
1. Why are you painting all skeptics with the same brush? Instead, you should reply to the poster you disagree with. And…
2. Skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Just FYI.
“Wikle and his fellow researchers feel that, through better statistical methods and models currently in development, a greater understanding of these phenomena and their associated impacts will help forecasters better predict potentially catastrophic events, which will likely be increasingly important as our climate changes.”
The abbreviated version:
“Wikle and his fellow researchers are delusional.”
“applied complex statistical models to increase the accuracy of ocean forecasting that can influence the ways in which forecasters predict long-range events such as El Nińo and the lower levels of the ocean food chain”
The food chain is not an event, but I can see where this is going- they’ll find that the food chain is in jeopardy once the model is in place. Food, water, shelter, clothing. Hmm which should we choose for a really scary disaster.
Also statistics can’t discover anything. If you don’t know enough, the statistical data you gather may not be appropriate for task. For example, if you are a blind man measuring the circumference of the legs of elephants without knowing something about what they are, or you have a linearly ignorant assumption of what they are, your statistics will tell you with high “probability” that these trees are all roughly the same circumference and that they invariably are in clusters of four.
Steven Mosher says:
March 22, 2014 at 1:31 pm
More settled science from skeptics.
Brilliant, as always, Mosh.
/sarc
Steve: All predictions are based on statistics.
Steven Mosher says:
March 22, 2014 at 1:31 pm
“More settled science from skeptics.”
sorry loser but that is one of your alarmist statements. Realists don’t talk
that way.
Anytime I hear the word Bayesian I assume some more statistical hocus pocus has arrived..
This article could hardly be more nebulous. I’ve heard pitches for quack medicines that were more specific. Assume “more sophisticated” to mean “overly complex and fragile.”
mr. mosher – please do not become the nicky stokes of WUWT.
As the climate models from 30 years ago to the present generation have failed to predict the ensuing decades of natural climate variability, it is axiomatic that ‘new’ models may be able to do better. When your batting average is ZERO, improvement should be achievable.
Divination by examining steaming chicken guts may do ‘better’.
Voodoo ‘casting dem bones’ may do ‘better’.
Noting increases in wooly worms and acorn nut yields may do better.
A tarot card reading may do better.
The Farmers Almanac has done better.
New Statistical Models Could Lead to Better Predictions of Ocean Patterns and the Impacts on Weather, Climate and Ecosystems…..or not
key word ‘statistical’
Micheal Mann could fly to the moon with rocket smoke coming from his butt.
All that statistics stuff introduces “uncertainty” and we are absolutely morally certain that man is guilty of poisoning the atmosphere with CO2, hence using statistics would be a step backwards.
Reading thermometers would also be a step backwards.
“The ocean really is the most important part of the world’s environmental system because of its potential to store carbon and heat, but also because of its ability to influence major atmospheric weather events such as droughts, hurricanes and tornados,” said Chris Wikle, professor of statistics in the MU College of Arts and Science.
“…which impact important features such as the frequency of tornadoes in tornado alley…”
To begin forecasting tornado frequency alone will require computers several orders of magnitude bigger and faster than currently exist. (did I mention accurately?)
…not holding my breath for this one.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis and his team recognize that todays deterministic Global Climate Models underestimate uncertainty and are incapable of accurate predictions. Koutsoyiannis et al. are leading the way in developing stochastic models especially in hydrology.
The full “tails” probability in natural distributions with some anthroprogenic contributions are the most important issues for engineering calculations when accommodating nature.