Thank You, Stephen Schneider

Sad news yesterday. Stephen Schneider, a leading climatologist from Stanford University, passed away at age 65, apparently of a heart attack. He was on an airplane, flying from Sweden to London on his way back from a scientific meeting. I didn’t know Schneider personally, and I never had the opportunity to take a class from him while I was at Stanford. But I did get to hear him speak on a couple of occasions, and I can honestly say the first one of these was a small revelation for me.

The winter of my freshman year, I took “Introduction to Earth Systems”, the eponymous introductory course for my major. Each lecture was by a different professor, covering his or her area of expertise. Schneider gave one of the talks on global warming. I was familiar with the basics of climate change from middle school science class and reading the newspaper. But, because of where I was coming from personally, I was predisposed to view it as cut and dried, right and wrong politics. To see not just the policy, but the science of climate change, in moral terms—one more reason why I was right and They were wrong.

Schneider’s lecture allowed me no such luxury. Andy Revkin was right to call him “caustically honest”—within five seconds of taking the podium, he was informing us of the immense uncertainty as to the extent and consequences of manmade climate change. Not just the uncertainty, but the impossibility of certainty when forecasting the climate system 50 or 100 years in the future. “We can’t know what will happen,” he said, “because it hasn’t happened yet.” I was expecting certain science followed by a call to arms. I did not receive it, at least not in the form I was expecting.

For the next 50 minutes, he took us on a wide-ranging tour of the science and politics of global warming, from black-body radiation to why certain skeptics were willfully ignorant, paid hacks, or both. That caustic honesty was present throughout. It was electric. I was unsettled to be thrown into a topic on a level that was both more technical and less certain than any previous experience. Looking back, though, his perspective worked its way into my head. It’s something like the perspective I tried to convey in this post: that dealing with uncertainty about frighteningly important questions is unnerving, to say the least. But ultimately, gauging that uncertainty while trusting in the facts you do know is profoundly liberating. For his part in leading me to that realization, I am truly indebted to Professor Schneider.

Closing his lecture, as the students were already ruffling their papers and bagging their notebooks, he left us with his three commandments of communicating science, which I have yet to forget. “Know thy audience,” he said. “Know thy self. And know thy stuff.”

You will be missed, Dr. Schneider.

2010/07/21

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , — Sam @ 12:56 am

The Lighter Side of Black

Well, it looks like BP has maybe-possibly-if-nothing-else-goes-wrong-at-least-for-now managed to stanch the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, using a tighter-fitting containment cap. And I just stumbled across this video, which I, somehow, had missed before now. BP deals with a boardroom coffee spill…

Heh.

See, it’s funny because in the video, the oil has only been leaking for forty-seven days, but by now it’s been leaking for eighty-seven…

Ah, Christ.

2010/07/15

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — Sam @ 11:10 pm

Grain, Extent, and 8-bit Cities

A friend sent me a link to this cool website a couple of days ago: a guy named Brett Camper has coded it up to show zoomable maps of several major cities, pixellated à la old video game world maps. It’s visually neat, and it also illustrates how observed patterns change with changing scale of observation. What exactly does “scale of observation” mean? The “scale of observation” is not just one value—it comes in several parts. These parts go by several different names; one of the common frustrations with trying to use scale as an organizing concept is that the terminology is often vague and varied. For the purposes of this blog post, I’ll use the terms “grain” and “extent.”

“Grain” refers to the size of the most fundamental sampling unit: a pixel in a satellite image, a net tow on an oceanographic cruise, or a single quadrat in an ecological field study. Values for those examples might be 1 square km of the earth’s surface, 1000 cubic meters of seawater filtered, and a single square meter of a prairie soil, respectively. Any variation within the grain will be averaged out: you can’t tell where the squashed creatures in your net’s cod end came from with any more specificity than that they came from somewhere in the net’s 1000-odd meter track. (There is also the issue of how far apart the sampled units are. In the satellite image, they are contigous, while the net tows might be tens of kilometers apart, and the quadrats separated by tens of meters.)

“Extent” is the total area or distance over which measurements are collected. A satellite image might span a couple thousand kilometers from one side to the other. A long cruise could likewise cover thousands of kilometers, while the prairie grass study would probably only span a few kilometers, at most. Thinking about the grain and extent of your sampling, you can start to imagine the types of patterns and phenomena you would be capable of detecting. To illustrate, look at this clip from 8-Bit Cities, centered above Seattle’s University District—specifically, my office in the UW’s Fishery Science Building.

At this zoom level, you can’t actually see the Fishery Science Building, but if you click the “+” button on the map four times, it will show up. Being zoomed in, the real-world, geographical size of each tile is now smaller that it was zoomed out, and the geographical distance from one side of the map to the other is smaller as well. Both the grain and extent have decreased, and as a result, finer-scale patterns are visible: surface streets and buildings, for example. If you let your eyes go blurry and just look at the patterns as you zoom in and out, you will notice that they look quite different.

You may also notice that as you zoom in, the number of tiles doesn’t actually change. There are always about 26 of them across the map. Though the grain and extent have both changed, their ratio has not. This ratio is known as the “scope,” and it is also an interesting one to ponder. Scope is the extent divided by the grain, and characterizes how densely information is packed inside the boundaries of your measurements. As an example, look at the image below, from Google Maps, showing the same area as the 8-bit map, but with a much smaller grain, and, therefore, a much larger scope (clicking the “+” button four times here will also zoom you in to the same area as above):


View Larger Map

Looks pretty different, huh? We are fairly used to looking at maps, so the loss of relevant information with the 8-bit map is obvious. But for some other space, or measurement, or phenomenon—say, the variance of fish density in space and time in some region—and it is not immediately obvious what the appropriate sampling scales should be to measure the things we’re interested in.

This is just scratching the surface of all the ways you can look at grain, extent, and scope. You can consider them in space, as I did here, or in time, as I tend to do in my thesis work, or in both space and time, or in terms of spectral resolution, or taxonomy…the list goes on. As Camper puts it on 8-Bit Cities:

Maps offer us visual architectures of the world, encouraging us to think about and interact with space in particularly constrained ways. Take some time to think about your surroundings a little differently. Set out on a quest. Be an adventurer.

And as Chuang Chou put it circa 300 B.C., in a truly awesome quote I found at the top of this paper [pdf]:

“This being so,” asked the Earl of the River, “may I take heaven and earth as the standard for what is large, and the tip of a downy hair as the standard for what is small?”

“No,” said the Overlord of the North Sea. “Things are limitless in their capacities, incessant in their occurrences, inconstant in their portions, uncertain in their beginning and ending. For this reason, great knowledge observes things at a relative distance; hence it does not belittle what is small or make much of what is big, knowing that their capacities are limitless.”

2010/07/10

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — Sam @ 12:57 am

Our Hold on the Planet

We asked for rain. It didn’t flash and roar.

It didn’t lose its temper at our demand

And blow a gale. It didn’t misunderstand

And give us more than our spokesman bargained for;

And just because we owned to a wish for rain,

Send us a flood and bid us be damned and drown.

It gently threw us a glittering shower down.

And when we had taken that into the roots of grain,

It threw us another and then another still,

Till the spongy soil again was natal wet.

We may doubt the just proportion of good to ill.

There is much in nature against us. But we forget;

Take nature altogether since time began,

Including human nature, in peace and war,

And it must be a little more in favor of man,

Say a fraction of one percent at the very least,

Or our number living wouldn’t be steadily more,

Our hold on the planet wouldn’t have so increased.

-Robert Frost

My freshman year, in our required Introduction to the Humanities course, one of our assignments was to memorize a poem—any poem. This one was mine, and it’s been a favorite since then. It steps so cautiously around “the just proportion of good to ill.”

2010/07/03

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — Sam @ 12:28 am

Powered by WordPress