Connect with us

Uncategorized

Spotting air pollution with satellites, better than ever before

Spotting air pollution with satellites, better than ever before

Published

on

Machine learning algorithm uses high-resolution micro-satellite imagery and weather data to detect levels of harmful air pollution with as much accuracy and more resolution than any current method

IMAGE

Credit: Tongshu Zheng, Duke University

DURHAM, N.C. — Researchers from Duke University have devised a method for estimating the air quality over a small patch of land using nothing but satellite imagery and weather conditions. Such information could help researchers identify hidden hotspots of dangerous pollution, greatly improve studies of pollution on human health, or potentially tease out the effects of unpredictable events on air quality, such as the breakout of an airborne global pandemic.

The results appear online in the journal Atmospheric Environment.

“We’ve used a new generation of micro-satellite images to estimate ground-level air pollution at the smallest spatial scale to date,” said Mike Bergin, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Duke. “We’ve been able to do it by developing a totally new approach that uses AI/machine learning to interpret data from surface images and existing ground stations.”

The specific air quality measurement that Bergin and his colleagues are interested in is the amount of tiny airborne particles called PM2.5. These are particles that have a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers — about three percent of the diameter of a human hair — and have been shown to have a dramatic effect on human health because of their ability to travel deep into the lungs.

For example, PM2.5 was globally ranked as the fifth mortality risk factor, responsible for about 4.2 million deaths and 103.1 million years of life lost or lived with disability, by the 2015 Global Burden of Disease study. And in a recent study from the Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, researchers found that areas with higher levels of PM2.5 also are associated with higher death rates due to COVID-19.

Current best practices in remote sensing to estimate the amount of ground-level PM2.5 use satellites to measure how much sunlight is scattered back to space by ambient particulates over the entire atmospheric column. This method, however, can suffer from regional uncertainties such as clouds and shiny surfaces, atmospheric mixing, and properties of the PM particles, and cannot make accurate estimates at scales smaller than about a square kilometer. While ground pollution monitoring stations can provide direct measurements, they suffer from their own host of drawbacks and are only sparsely located around the world.

“Ground stations are expensive to build and maintain, so even large cities aren’t likely to have more than a handful of them,” said Bergin. “Plus they’re almost always put in areas away from traffic and other large local sources, so while they might give a general idea of the amount of PM2.5 in the air, they don’t come anywhere near giving a true distribution for the people living in different areas throughout that city.”

In their search for a better method, Bergin and his doctoral student Tongshu Zheng turned to Planet, an American company that uses micro-satellites to take pictures of the entire Earth’s surface every single day with a resolution of three meters per pixel. The team was able to get daily snapshot of Beijing over the past three years.

The key breakthrough came when David Carlson, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Duke and an expert in machine learning, stepped in to help.

“When I go to machine learning and artificial intelligence conferences, I’m usually the only person from an environmental engineering department,” said Carlson. “But these are the exact types of projects that I’m here to help support, and why Duke places such a high importance on hiring data experts throughout the entire university.”

With Carlson’s help, Bergin and Zheng applied a convolutional neural network with a random forest algorithm to the image set, combined with meteorological data from Beijing’s weather station. While that may sound like a mouthful, it’s not that difficult to pick your way through the trees.

A random forest is a standard machine learning algorithm that uses a lot of different decision trees to make a prediction. We’ve all seen decision trees, perhaps as an internet meme that uses a series of branching yes/no questions to decide whether or not to eat a burrito. Except in this case, the algorithm is looking through decision trees based on metrics such as wind, relative humidity, temperature and more, and using the resulting answers to arrive at an estimate for PM2.5 concentrations.

However, random forest algorithms don’t deal well with images. That’s where the convolutional neural networks come in. These algorithms look for common features in images such as lines and bumps and begin grouping them together. As the algorithm “zooms out,” it continues to lump similar groupings together, combining basic shapes into common features such as buildings and highways. Eventually the algorithm comes up with a summary of the image as a list of its most common features, and these get thrown into the random forest along with the weather data.

“High-pollution images are definitely foggier and blurrier than normal images, but the human eye can’t really tell the exact pollution levels from those details,” said Carlson. “But the algorithm can pick out these differences in both the low-level and high-level features — edges are blurrier and shapes are obscured more — and precisely turn them into air quality estimates.”

“The convolutional neural network doesn’t give us as good of a prediction as we would like with the images alone,” added Zheng. “But when you put those results into a random forest with weather data, the results are as good as anything else currently available, if not better.”

In the study, the researchers used 10,400 images to train their model to predict local levels of PM2.5 using nothing but satellite images and weather conditions. They tested their resulting model on another 2,622 images to see how well it could predict PM2.5.

They show that, on average, their model is accurate to within 24 percent of actual PM2.5 levels measured at reference stations, which is at the high end of the spectrum for these types of models, while also having a much higher spatial resolution. While most of the current standard practices can predict levels down to 1 million square meters, the new method is accurate down to 40,000 — about the size of eight football fields placed side-by-side.

With that level of specificity and accuracy, Bergin believes their method will open up a wide range of new uses for such models.

“We think this is a huge innovation in satellite retrievals of air quality and will be the backbone of a lot of research to come,” said Bergin. “We’re already starting to get inquiries into using it to look at how levels of PM2.5 are going to change once the world starts recovering from the spread of COVID-19.”

###

This research was supported in part by the Research Initiative for Real-time River Water and Air Quality Monitoring program funded by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and Intel and a Duke Energy Initiative Energy Data Analytics PhD Fellowship.

CITATION: “Estimating Ground-Level PM2.5 Using Micro-Satellite Images by a Convolutional Neural Network and Random Forest Approach,” Tongshu Zheng, Michael H. Bergin, Shijia Hu, Joshua Miller, and David E. Carlson. Atmospheric Environment, April 8, 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117451

Media Contact
Ken Kingery
ken.kingery@duke.edu

Original Source

https://pratt.duke.edu/about/news/air-pollution-satellites

Related Journal Article

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117451

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending