Modeling for understanding v. modeling for numbers
Rastetter, Edward B.
MetadataShow full item record
I draw a distinction between Modeling for Numbers, which aims to address how much, when, and where questions, and Modeling for Understanding, which aims to address how and why questions. For-numbers models are often empirical, which can be more accurate than their mechanistic analogues as long as they are well calibrated and predictions are made within the domain of the calibration data. To extrapolate beyond the domain of available system-level data, for-numbers models should be mechanistic, relying on the ability to calibrate to the system components even if it is not possible to calibrate to the system itself. However, development of a mechanistic model that is reliable depends on an adequate understanding of the system. This understanding is best advanced using a for-understanding modeling approach. To address how and why questions, for-understanding models have to be mechanistic. The best of these for-understanding models are focused on specific questions, stripped of extraneous detail, and elegantly simple. Once the mechanisms are well understood, one can then decide if the benefits of incorporating the mechanism in a for-numbers model is worth the added complexity and the uncertainty associated with estimating the additional model parameters.
Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2016. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Springer for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Ecosystems 20 (2017): 215-221, doi:10.1007/s10021-016-0067-y.
The publisher requires that this item be embargoed until 2017-11-10. Please check back after 2017-11-10.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Historical and idealized climate model experiments : an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity Eby, Michael; Weaver, Andrew J.; Alexander, K.; Zickfeld, K.; Abe-Ouchi, A.; Cimatoribus, A. A.; Crespin, E.; Drijfhout, S. S.; Edwards, N. R.; Eliseev, A. V.; Feulner, G.; Fichefet, T.; Forest, C. E.; Goosse, H.; Holden, P. B.; Joos, Fortunat; Kawamiya, M.; Kicklighter, David W.; Kienert, H.; Matsumoto, K.; Mokhov, I. I.; Monier, Erwan; Olsen, S. M.; Pedersen, J. O. P.; Perrette, M.; Philippon-Berthier, G.; Ridgwell, Andy; Schlosser, A.; Schneider von Deimling, T.; Shaffer, G.; Smith, R. S.; Spahni, R.; Sokolov, Andrei P.; Steinacher, M.; Tachiiri, K.; Tokos, K.; Yoshimori, M.; Zeng, Ning; Zhao, F. (Copernicus Publications on behalf of the European Geosciences Union, 2013-05-16)Both historical and idealized climate model experiments are performed with a variety of Earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs) as part of a community contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...
Incorporating ‘recruitment’ in matrix projection models : estimation, parameters, and the influence of model structure Cooch, Evan G.; Cam, Emmanuelle; Caswell, Hal (2010-07)Advances in the estimation of population parameters using encounter data from marked individuals have made it possible to include estimates of the probability of recruitment in population projection models. However, ...
Zhang, Huai-Min (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1995-02)Inverse modeling activities in oceanography have recently been intensified, aided by the oncoming observational data stream of WOCE and the advance of computer power. However, interpretations of inverse model results ...