Big Data in Earth system science and progress towards a digital twin

Machine Learning


  • Yang, C. et al. Big Earth Data analytics: a survey. Big Earth Data 3, 83–107 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldocchi, D. et al. FLUXNET: a new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem-scale carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 82, 2415–2434 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. et al. Social sensing: a new approach to understanding our socioeconomic environments. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105, 512–530 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitcraft, A. K. et al. No pixel left behind: toward integrating Earth observations for agriculture into the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals framework. Remote Sens. Environ. 235, 111470 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, M. & Shelton, T. Geography and the future of Big Data, Big Data and the future of geography. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 3, 255–261 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model. Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, T., Tansley, S., Tolle, K. & Gray, J. The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery (Microsoft Research, 2009).

  • Kitchin, R. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data Soc. 1, 2053951714528481 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichstein, M. et al. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature 566, 195–204 (2019). Provides a comprehensive overview of deep learning for Earth system science.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieves, M. Digital twin: manufacturing excellence through virtual factory replication. White Paper 1, 1–7 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barricelli, B. R., Casiraghi, E. & Fogli, D. A survey on digital twin: definitions, characteristics, applications, and design implications. IEEE Access. 7, 167653–167671 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Raj, P. in Advances in Computers Vol. 121, 267–283 (Elsevier, 2021).

  • Rasheed, A., San, O. & Kvamsdal, T. Digital twin: values, challenges and enablers from a modeling perspective. IEEE Access. 8, 21980–22012 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Abdeen, F. N. & Sepasgozar, S. M. E. City digital twin concepts: a vision for community participation. Environ. Sci. Proc. 12, 19 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. K., Ong, S. K. & Nee, A. Y. C. State-of-the-art survey on digital twin implementations. Adv. Manuf. 10, 1–23 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tao, F., Zhang, H., Liu, A. & Nee, A. Y. C. Digital twin in industry: state-of-the-art. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 15, 2405–2415 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P., Stevens, B. & Hazeleger, W. A digital twin of Earth for the green transition. Nat. Clim. Chang. 11, 80–83 (2021). Provided a conceptual framework of the digital twin of Earth.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Voosen, P. Europe builds ‘digital twin’ of Earth to hone climate forecasts. Science 370, 16–17 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, P. et al. The digital revolution of Earth-system science. Nat. Comput. Sci. 1, 104–113 (2021). Discussed the revolution in digital Earth systems and proposed the concept of an efficient software infrastructure for the Earth-system digital twin.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Latif, M. The roadmap of climate models. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2, 536–538 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellnhuber, H. J. ‘Earth system’ analysis and the second Copernican revolution. Nature 402, C19–C23 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W. et al. The emergence and evolution of Earth system science. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 54–63 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, G. E., Osindero, S. & Teh, Y.-W. A fast learning algorithm for deep belief nets. Neural Comput. 18, 1527–1554 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, G. E. & Salakhutdinov, R. R. Reducing the dimensionality of data with neural networks. Science 313, 504–507 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnih, V. et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. Nature 518, 529–533 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L. & Moore, A. W. Reinforcement learning: a survey. J. Artif. Int. Res. 4, 237–285 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousavi, S. M. & Beroza, G. C. Deep-learning seismology. Science 377, eabm4470 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergen, K. J., Johnson, P. A., de Hoop, M. V. & Beroza, G. C. Machine learning for data-driven discovery in solid Earth geoscience. Science 363, eaau0323 (2019). Gave a comprehensive overview of the state of machine learning in the solid Earth geosciences and solutions to broaden and accelerate these capabilities.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, L. et al. A comparison of monoscopic and stereoscopic 3D visualizations: Effect on spatial planning in digital twins. Remote Sens. 13, 2976 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, P. et al. Digital twin Earth — Coasts: developing a fast and physics-informed surrogate model for coastal floods via neural operators. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.07100 (2021).

  • Tao, F. et al. Digital twin-driven product design, manufacturing and service with Big Data. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 94, 3563–3576 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, D. W. Geoengineering. Nature 409, 420–420 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, M. G. et al. Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat. Commun. 9, 3734 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Parson, E. A. Geoengineering: symmetric precaution. Science 374, 795–795 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong McKay, D. I. et al. Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points. Science 377, eabn7950 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oza, N. et al. NASA Earth Science Technology for Earth System Digital Twins (ESDT) https://essopenarchive.org/doi/full/10.1002/essoar.10509965.1 (ESS Open Archive, 2022).

  • Yang, C., Raskin, R., Goodchild, M. & Gahegan, M. Geospatial cyberinfrastructure: past, present and future. Comput. Environ. Urban. Syst. 34, 264–277 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Dax, G., Nagarajan, S., Li, H. & Werner, M. Compression supports spatial deep learning. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 16, 702–713 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, D. A. & Dongarra, J. Exascale computing and Big Data. Commun. ACM 58, 56–68 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mystakidis, S. Metaverse. Encyclopedia 2, 486–497 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, H., Chen, F., Sun, Z., Liu, J. & Liang, D. Big Earth Data: a practice of sustainability science to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sci. Bull. 66, 1050–1053 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Liu, F. & Fang, M. Harmonizing models and observations: data assimilation in Earth system science. Sci. China Earth Sci 63, 1059–1068 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gettelman, A. et al. The future of Earth system prediction: advances in model–data fusion. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn3488 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrassi, A., Bocquet, M., Bertino, L. & Evensen, G. Data assimilation in the geosciences: an overview of methods, issues, and perspectives. WIREs Clim. Change 9, e535 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, H., Fox-Kemper, B., Pearson, B., Roberts, M. & Klocke, D. The small scales of the ocean may hold the key to surprises. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 496–499 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, T. et al. Climate goals and computing the future of clouds. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 3–5 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, B. et al. DYAMOND: the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation modeled on non-hydrostatic domains. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci. 6, 61 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyoshi, T., Kondo, K. & Imamura, T. The 10,240-member ensemble kalman filtering with an intermediate agcm. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 5264–5271 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz, J., Lien, G.-Y., Kondo, K., Otsuka, S. & Miyoshi, T. Reduced non-Gaussianity by 30 s rapid update in convective-scale numerical weather prediction. Nonlinear Process Geophys. 28, 615–626 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Honda, T. et al. Development of the real-time 30-s-update Big Data assimilation system for convective rainfall prediction with a phased array weather radar: description and preliminary evaluation. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 14, e2021MS002823 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mass, C. F. & Madaus, L. E. Surface pressure observations from smartphones: a potential revolution for high-resolution weather prediction? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 95, 1343–1349 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, R. et al. Smartphone pressure data: quality control and impact on atmospheric analysis. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14, 785–801 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Avellaneda, P. M., Ficklin, D. L., Lowry, C. S., Knouft, J. H. & Hall, D. M. Improving hydrological models with the assimilation of crowdsourced data. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026325 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawada, Y. & Hanazaki, R. Socio-hydrological data assimilation: analyzing human–flood interactions by model–data integration. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 4777–4791 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Barendrecht, M. H. et al. The value of empirical data for estimating the parameters of a sociohydrological flood risk model. Water Resour. Res. 55, 1312–1336 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonathan, W., Evans, A. J. & Malleson, N. S. Dynamic calibration of agent-based models using data assimilation. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 150703 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Boukabara, S.-A. et al. Outlook for exploiting artificial intelligence in the Earth and environmental sciences. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 102, 1–53 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Geer, A. J. Learning earth system models from observations: machine learning or data assimilation? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 379, 20200089 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Buizza, C. et al. Data learning: integrating data assimilation and machine learning. J. Comput. Sci. 58, 101525 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Pathiraja, S., Moradkhani, H., Marshall, L., Sharma, A. & Geenens, G. Data-driven model uncertainty estimation in hydrologic data assimilation. Water Resour. Res. 54, 1252–1280 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q. et al. A dynamic data-driven method for dealing with model structural error in soil moisture data assimilation. Adv. Water Resour. 132, 103407 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • King, F., Erler, A. R., Frey, S. K. & Fletcher, C. G. Application of machine learning techniques for regional bias correction of snow water equivalent estimates in Ontario, Canada. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 4887–4902 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthélémy, S., Brajard, J., Bertino, L. & Counillon, F. Super-resolution data assimilation. Ocean Dyn. 72, 661–678 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. et al. Generalised latent assimilation in heterogeneous reduced spaces with machine learning surrogate models. J. Sci. Comput. 94, 11 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. et al. Data-driven surrogate model with latent data assimilation: application to wildfire forecasting. J. Comput. Phys. 464, 111302 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, E. N. Designing chaotic models. J. Atmos. Sci. 62, 1574–1587 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonavita, M. et al. Machine learning for Earth system observation and prediction. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 102, E710–E716 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, Q. et al. Machine learning in seismology: turning data into insights. Seismol. Res. Lett. 90, 3–14 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lary, D. J., Alavi, A. H., Gandomi, A. H. & Walker, A. L. Machine learning in geosciences and remote sensing. Geosci. Front. 7, 3–10 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahmasebi, P., Kamrava, S., Bai, T. & Sahimi, M. Machine learning in geo- and environmental sciences: from small to large scale. Adv. Water Resour. 142, 103619 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, M. & Li, X. Land cover mapping toward finer scales. Sci. Bull. 65, 1604–1606 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, S. & Ma, J. Deep learning for geophysics: current and future trends. Rev. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021RG000742 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning (MIT Press, 2016).

  • LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochreiter, S. & Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural Comput. 9, 1735–1780 (1997).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Commun. ACM 60, 84–90 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, I. et al. Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM 63, 139–144 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Scher, S. Toward data-driven weather and climate forecasting: approximating a simple general circulation model with deep learning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 616–12,622 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. et al. Deep learning in remote sensing applications: a meta-analysis and review. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 152, 166–177 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravuri, S. et al. Skilful precipitation nowcasting using deep generative models of radar. Nature 597, 672–677 (2021). Proposed a deep generative adversarial network model for faster and more accurate precipitation nowcasting from historical radar data.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, Y. et al. WHU-Hi: UAV-borne hyperspdectral with high spatial resolution (H2) benchmark datasets and classifier for precise crop identification based on deep convolutional neural network with CRF. Remote Sens. Environ. 250, 112012 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, D. et al. More diverse means better: multimodal deep learning meets remote sensing imagery classification. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 59, 4340–4354 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, L., Luo, J., Lin, Z., Niu, F. & Liu, L. Using deep learning to map retrogressive thaw slumps in the Beiluhe region (Tibetan Plateau) from CubeSat images. Remote Sens. Environ. 237, 111534 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, J., Kim, H., Lee, S. & Crawford, M. M. Deep learning based retrieval algorithm for Arctic sea ice concentration from AMSR2 passive microwave and MODIS optical data. Remote Sens. Environ. 231, 111204 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane-Droesch, A. Machine learning methods for crop yield prediction and climate change impact assessment in agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 114003 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Korup, O. & Stolle, A. Landslide prediction from machine learning. Geol. Today 30, 26–33 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, C. A transdisciplinary review of deep learning research and its relevance for water resources scientists. Water Resour. Res. 54, 8558–8593 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochanski, K., Mohan, D., Horrall, J., Rountree, B. & Abdulla, G. Deep learning predictions of sand dune migration. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1912.10798 (2019).

  • Leinonen, J., Nerini, D. & Berne, A. Stochastic super-resolution for downscaling time-evolving atmospheric fields with a generative adversarial network. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 59, 7211–7223 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., Meier, M.-A., Hauksson, E., Zhan, Z. & Andrews, J. Machine learning seismic wave discrimination: application to earthquake early warning. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 4773–4779 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, B., Zhang, N., Lu, W. & Wang, J. Deep-learning-based seismic data interpolation: a preliminary result. Geophysics 84, V11–V20 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, N., Zhang, D., Chang, H. & Li, H. Deep learning of subsurface flow via theory-guided neural network. J. Hydrol. 584, 124700 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Z.-H. A brief introduction to weakly supervised learning. Natl Sci. Rev. 5, 44–53 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M. & Hinton, G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In Proc. of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning 1597–1607 (ICML, 2020).

  • Chen, Y. & Bruzzone, L. Self-supervised change detection in multi-view remote sensing images. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 60, 1–12 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung, H., Oh, Y., Jeong, S., Lee, C. & Jeon, T. Contrastive self-supervised learning with smoothed representation for remote sensing. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 19, 1–5 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, R., Bruna, J., Giryes, R. & Soatto, S. Mathematics of deep learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1712.04741 (2017).

  • Rackauckas, C. et al. Universal differential equations for scientific machine learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.04385 (2021).

  • Marcus, G. Deep learning: a critical appraisal. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.00631 (2018).

  • Rice, L., Wong, E. & Kolter, J. Z. Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learning. In Proc. of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning 8093–8104 (ICML, 2020).

  • Karniadakis, G. E. et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422–440 (2021). Provides a comprehensive overview for embedding physics-based knowledge into machine learning.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpatne, A. et al. Theory-guided data science: a new paradigm for scientific discovery from data. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 29, 2318–2331 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashinath, K. et al. Physics-informed machine learning: case studies for weather and climate modelling. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 379, 20200093 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, W. L. et al. Physics-constrained machine learning of evapotranspiration. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 14496–14507 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Huanfeng, S. & Liangpei, Z. Mechanism-learning coupling paradigms for parameter inversion and simulation in Earth surface systems. Sci. China Earth Sci. 66, 568–582 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jia, X. et al. Physics-guided machine learning for scientific discovery: an application in simulating lake temperature profiles. ACM/IMS Trans. Data Sci. 2, 1–20 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Daw, A., Karpatne, A., Watkins, W., Read, J. & Kumar, V. Physics-guided neural networks (PGNN): an application in lake temperature modeling. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1710.11431 (2021).

  • Sturm, P. O. & Wexler, A. S. Conservation laws in a neural network architecture: enforcing the atom balance of a Julia-based photochemical model (v0.2.0). Geosci. Model. Dev. 15, 3417–3431 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Beucler, T. et al. Enforcing analytic constraints in neural networks emulating physical systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 098302 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. S. et al. Process-guided deep learning predictions of lake water temperature. Water Resour. Res. 55, 9173–9190 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Karniadakis, G. E. et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nat. Rev. Phys. 3, 422–440 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. Correlations genuine and spurious in Pearson and Pule. Stat. Sci. 10, 364–376 (1995).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. Association, correlation and causation. Nat. Methods 12, 899–900 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schölkopf, B. in Probabilistic and Causal Inference: The Works of Judea Pearl Vol. 36, 765–804 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2022).

  • Pearl, J. The seven tools of causal inference, with reflections on machine learning. Commun. ACM 62, 54–60 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui, P. & Athey, S. Stable learning establishes some common ground between causal inference and machine learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 4, 110–115 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, J. et al. Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences. Nat. Commun. 10, 2553 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • van Nes, E. H. et al. Causal feedbacks in climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 445–448 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K., Schölkopf, B., Spirtes, P. & Glymour, C. Learning causality and causality-related learning: Some recent progress. Natl Sci. Rev. 5, 26–29 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvucci, G. D., Saleem, J. A. & Kaufmann, R. Investigating soil moisture feedbacks on precipitation with tests of Granger causality. Adv. Water Resour. 25, 1305–1312 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle, S. E. & Salvucci, G. D. Confounding factors in determining causal soil moisture–precipitation feedback. Water Resour. Res. 53, 5531–5544 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, B., Liang, S. & Yuan, W. Observational evidence for impacts of vegetation change on local surface climate over northern China using the Granger causality test. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 120, 1–12 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Papagiannopoulou, C. et al. A non-linear Granger-causality framework to investigate climate–vegetation dynamics. Geosci. Model. Dev. 10, 1945–1960 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, M. et al. Quantifying causal pathways of teleconnections. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 102, E2247–E2263 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer, M., Coumou, D., Donges, J. F. & Runge, J. Using causal effect networks to analyze different arctic drivers of midlatitude winter circulation. J. Clim. 29, 4069–4081 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugihara, G. et al. Detecting causality in complex ecosystems. Science 338, 496–500 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, A. C., Peng, C.-K. & Huang, N. E. Causal decomposition in the mutual causation system. Nat. Commun. 9, 3378 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J.-Y., Kuo, T.-C. & Hsieh, C. Causal effects of population dynamics and environmental changes on spatial variability of marine fishes. Nat. Commun. 11, 2635 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • An, W., Beauvile, R. & Rosche, B. Causal network analysis. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 48, 23–41 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraffah, R. et al. Causal inference for time series analysis: problems, methods and evaluation. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 63, 3041–3085 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, J. et al. Identifying causal gateways and mediators in complex spatio-temporal systems. Nat. Commun. 6, 8502 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bareinboim, E. & Pearl, J. Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 7345–7352 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 100, 322–331 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. J. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim. Change 77, 211 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, V. & Jain, M. K. Unravelling the teleconnections between ENSO and dry/wet conditions over India using nonlinear Granger causality. Atmos. Res. 247, 105168 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, F. N. et al. Detecting climate teleconnections with granger causality. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL094707 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J. M. & Gutzler, D. S. Teleconnections in the geopotential height field during the Northern Hemisphere winter. Mon. Weather. Rev. 109, 784–812 (1981).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, J., Nowack, P., Kretschmer, M., Flaxman, S. & Sejdinovic, D. Detecting and quantifying causal associations in large nonlinear time series datasets. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau4996 (2019). Ilustrated the capabilities of multivariate causal discovery techniques in a large-scale analysis of the nonlinear global climatic system.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannart, A., Pearl, J., Otto, F. E. L., Naveau, P. & Ghil, M. Causal counterfactual theory for the attribution of weather and climate-related events. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 99–110 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowack, P., Runge, J., Eyring, V. & Haigh, J. D. Causal networks for climate model evaluation and constrained projections. Nat. Commun. 11, 1415 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y., Peng, J. & Ma, J. When causal inference meets deep learning. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 426–427 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Degai, T. S. & Petrov, A. N. Rethinking Arctic sustainable development agenda through indigenizing UN sustainable development goals. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 28, 518–523 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrittwieser, J. et al. Mastering Atari, Go, chess and shogi by planning with a learned model. Nature 588, 604–609 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go without human knowledge. Nature 550, 354–359 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver, D. et al. Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529, 484–489 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, W., Bocchini, P. & Davison, B. D. Applications of artificial intelligence for disaster management. Nat. Hazards 103, 2631–2689 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, A. Y. Optimal carbon storage reservoir management through deep reinforcement learning. Appl. Energy 278, 115660 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Tao, R., Zhao, P., Martin, N. F. & Hovakimyan, N. Optimizing nitrogen management with deep reinforcement learning and crop simulations. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops 1711–719 (CVPRW, 2022).

  • Alibabaei, K., Gaspar, P. D., Assunção, E., Alirezazadeh, S. & Lima, T. M. Irrigation optimization with a deep reinforcement learning model: case study on a site in Portugal. Agric. Water Manag. 263, 107480 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. et al. A reinforcement learning approach to irrigation decision-making for rice using weather forecasts. Agric. Water Manag. 250, 106838 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, N. Intelligent control of agricultural irrigation based on reinforcement learning. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1601, 052031 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Strnad, F. M., Barfuss, W., Donges, J. F. & Heitzig, J. Deep reinforcement learning in World-Earth system models to discover sustainable management strategies. Chaos 29, 123122 (2019). Demonstrated the first attempt to identify sustainable management strategies by combining deep reinforcement learning with Earth system models.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. et al. Efficient reservoir management through deep reinforcement learning. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2012.03822 (2020).

  • Mullapudi, A., Lewis, M. J., Gruden, C. L. & Kerkez, B. Deep reinforcement learning for the real time control of stormwater systems. Adv. Water Resour. 140, 103600 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, W., Liao, Z., Zhi, G., Zhang, Z. & Wang, X. Combined sewer overflow and flooding mitigation through a reliable real-time control based on multi-reinforcement learning and model predictive control. Water Resour. Res. 58, e2021WR030703 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronauer, S. & Diepold, K. Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning: a survey. Artif. Intell. Rev. 55, 895–943 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez-Leal, P., Kartal, B. & Taylor, M. E. A survey and critique of multiagent deep reinforcement learning. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 33, 750–797 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, N. D. & Nahavandi, S. Deep reinforcement learning for multiagent systems: a review of challenges, solutions, and applications. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 50, 3826–3839 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, F. & Yang, Y. C. E. Assessing adaptive irrigation impacts on water scarcity in nonstationary environments — a multi-agent reinforcement learning approach. Water Resour. Res. 57, e2020WR029262 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Galesic, M. et al. Human social sensing is an untapped resource for computational social science. Nature 595, 214–222 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Shmueli, E., Singh, V. K., Lepri, B. & Pentland, A. Sensing, understanding, and shaping social behavior. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 1, 22–34 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • An, L. Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: review of agent-based models. Ecol. Model. 229, 25–36 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, R., Hou, Z., Guo, Z. & Wan, B. Summary of “The past, present and future of the habitable Earth: development strategy of Earth science”. Chin. Sci. Bull. 66, 4485–4490 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, R., Zhao, G., Xiao, W., Chen, L. & Tang, Y. Origin, accretion, and reworking of continents. Rev Geophys. 59, e2019RG000689 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J. et al. A high-resolution summary of Cambrian to Early Triassic marine invertebrate biodiversity. Science 367, 272 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. et al. The deep-time digital Earth program: data-driven discovery in geosciences. Natl Sci. Rev. 8, nwab027 (2021). A review of the current fundamental challenges of data-driven discoveries in the understanding of Earth’s evolution in deep time.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. L. & Maslin, M. A. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519, 171–180 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, P. D. L., Clarke, J. J., Cox, P. M. & Huntingford, C. Overshooting tipping point thresholds in a changing climate. Nature 592, 517–523 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys, P. W. et al. Anthropocene risk. Nat. Sustain. 2, 667–673 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, I. M. et al. Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 2354–2365 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, H. et al. Measuring and evaluating SDG indicators with Big Earth Data. Sci. Bull. 67, 1792–1801 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fu, B. & Li, Y. Bidirectional coupling between the Earth and human systems is essential for modeling sustainability. Natl Sci. Rev. 3, 397–398 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. et al. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317, 1513–1516 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, G. & Li, X. Integrated research methods in watershed science. Sci. China Earth Sci 58, 1159–1168 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • DeFries, R. & Nagendra, H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356, 265–270 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundmann, R. Climate change as a wicked social problem. Nat. Geosci. 9, 562–563 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Zheng, D., Feng, M. & Chen, F. Information geography: the information revolution reshapes geography. Sci. China Earth Sci 65, 379–382 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–169 (1973).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., Zhang, Y., Youtie, J., Porter, A. L. & Wang, X. How does national scientific funding support emerging interdisciplinary research: a comparison study of Big Data research in the US and China. PLoS ONE 11, e0154509 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens. Environ. 202, 18–27 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bojer, C. S. & Meldgaard, J. P. Kaggle forecasting competitions: an overlooked learning opportunity. Int. J. Forecast. 37, 587–603 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, M., Kelly, A. & Freeman, C. Implementing an Open & FAIR data sharing policy — a case study in the Earth and environmental sciences. Learned Publ. 35, 56–66 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, X. et al. Boosting geoscience data sharing in China. Nat. Geosci. 14, 541–542 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Open Science by Design: Realizing a Vision for 21st Century Research (National Academies Press, 2018).

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyoshi, T. et al. “Big Data assimilation” revolutionizing severe weather prediction. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 1347–1354 (2016). Exemplified the ability of Big Data assimilation for faster weather prediction with ultrahigh spatial–temporal resolution.

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J., Han, F. & Liu, H. Challenges of Big Data analysis. Natl Sci. Rev. 1, 293–314 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, H. Big Earth Data: A new frontier in Earth and information sciences. Big Earth Data 1, 4–20 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, H. et al. Big Earth Data: a new challenge and opportunity for digital Earth’s development. Int. J. Digital Earth 10, 1–12 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, J. & Gamarra, J. G. P. The importance of sharing global forest data in a world of crises. Sci. Data 7, 424 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopper, K. B., de Witt, R. N., Bester, E., Dicks, L. M. T. & Wolfaardt, G. M. Biofilm dynamics: linking in situ biofilm biomass and metabolic activity measurements in real-time under continuous flow conditions. npj Biofilms Microbiomes 6, 1–10 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaan, A., Sharma, V., Pahwa, P., Das, P. & Sharma, C. in Big Data Analytics (eds. Aggarwal, V. B. et al.) 47–54 (Springer, 2018).

  • Li, J. et al. Social media: new perspectives to improve remote sensing for emergency response. Proc. IEEE 105, 1900–1912 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z., Qi, H., Kang, C., Su, Y. & Liu, Y. An ensemble learning approach for urban land use mapping based on remote sensing imagery and social sensing data. Remote Sens. 12, 3254 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 



  • Source link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *