WESTERN science, along with western civilization appears to be in terminal decline.[1] China has shot into second place in terms of number of scientific articles that are published in international journals and Chinese scientists are set to take the top spot in the next few years.[2] Drs Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbot have joined the Chinese climate science community with a recent article in the journal Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.[3]
My name is Mr Koala and I’ve been studying all the papers listed in volume 29, number 4 of Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. This is a journal sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
I asked Dr Marohasy why she didn’t have this important paper published by the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. She replied that it was sent to the Journal of Climate, amongst others, but they rejected the article, not because they had any issues with the science, but because they questioned the paper’s relevance.
Relevance!
Even a Koala, not at the top of his tree, can see the relevance.
This is a paper that shows how to forecast rainfall better than the General Circulation Models so popular with climate change scientists in the west.
That’s how relevant it is.
Physicist and former Dean of Science at James Cook University, John Nicol, has written:
‘I believe you have produced a masterpiece in a paper, which is not only totally detailed in all that you have done, but is also infinitely readable.
The success in achieving a three-month forecast which is superior to that provided by the expensive Bureau of Meteorology modeling enterprise is a marvelous achievement. The potential economic value of such long range forecasting for agriculture cannot be overstated.
The testing you have carried out through the delaying of the phase of influences is also an important feature. Using the multiplicity of these influences beside a neural “learning” process obviously provides for the amplitude of each to be properly calibrated. I believe this has always been one of the most difficult features of any attempts at studying cyclical phenomena, in particular in relation to rainfall simply because for rainfall, one is only able to measure the positive part of the influence – not the negative – since you measure a quantity of rain, but when it is not raining, there is no information about the likely strength of parameters which are constraining the system “not to rain”… [end of quote]
Back in the swinging 1960s when western civilization was at the top of its tree and I was playing vinyl Beatles records, we understood when something was relevant – or not. [4]
But climate science in the land of the Eucalyptus has since lost its way. Climate science in Australia is now up a blind gully looking for carbon dioxide. Consensus scientists in the west are so obsessed with carbon that they want it taxed: carbon will be the first element in the periodic table ever to be taxed.
But not in China where scientists are too busy publishing the findings of real scientific research.
According to Andrew Plume writing in the magazine Research Trends [5]:
‘China lost its scientific and technological edge from the 15th century onwards by becoming culturally insular, shunning exploration of the wider world and remaining suspicious of importing outside ideas and influences. Just as business depends on trading goods and services, so science depends on exchanging ideas and data, and self-imposed isolation is disastrous in either case. Now, in the 21st century, as China opens itself up to global markets — both of commerce and ideas — it again looks set to lead the world.
Meanwhile the west, shuns scientists who don’t subscribe to taxing carbon and refuses to acknowledge the value of a better rainfall forecast because it is not based on a General Circulation Model corrupted by carbon dioxide.
*****
Links/References
1. According to Pria Viswalingam the author of ‘Decadence: The Decline of the Western World’, the timeline is: “The west as we know it today begins with the Magna Carta in 1215… Then came the Renaissance, the Reformation, the founding of America and the Enlightenment, before the west peaked with the social revolutions of the 1960s. In 1969, the Russians and the Americans took us beyond our earthly bounds, the My Lai Massacre shattered the image of us as the good guys and then there was all the sheer exuberance and peace, love and rock and roll of Woodstock before the Rolling Stones ‘end of the ’60s’ concert at Altamont. Decadence depicts the west’s decline ever since.” http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/society-is-past-its-use-by-date-20111202-1oajg.html
2. Chinese scientists set to lead the world. March 30, 2011. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-03/30/c_13804589.htm
3. The Application of Artificial Intelligence to Rainfall Forecasting in Queensland, Australia. Advances in Atmospheric Science. Volume 29, Number 4, pages 717-730. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l368165637857347/
4. In 1969 western nations stopped to watch a man set foot on the moon. Forty years later almost the entire Australian nation stopped again, but this time to watch a competition between two women cooking a chicken. Julie savours MasterChef victory. ABC News, July 19, 2009. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-19/julie-savours-masterchef-victory/1359412?section=entertainment
5. Tipping the balance: The rise of China as a science superpower
by Andrew Plume, March 2011
http://www.researchtrends.com/issue22-march-2011/tipping-the-balance-the-rise-of-china-as-a-science-superpower/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Yeah Jen, but…
They’ve now got GCMs 2500 times more precise than before….and guess what?
It’s worse than we thought:
http://glendora.patch.com/articles/study-region-heating-up-over-next-50-years
BTW Luke, is this better than ACORN?
Good on you Jennifer, if you can’t get any sense out of these fools just go elsewhere.
BTW can you believe the depths to which the US NAS has sunk?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/23/the-national-academy-of-sciences-loses-the-plot/#comments
As Willis has shown this fits in precisely with some of your claims above. Their SLR forecast for California to 2030 is absolutely imbicillic. Just look at Willis’s graphs, what a joke these idiots have become.
good on you Jen
and perhaps you should introduce Mr Koala to Henri
Jen as Henri says ‘I’m surrounded by morons’
Luke, Gav and Bazza’s perfect world and natural lifestyle.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/wednesday-funny-world-without.html
Perhaps all of it may be too good to be true, but certainly some good news out of Rio for people who love freedom and hate totalitarian groupthink?
Certainly some good news for the world’s energy starved poor.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/rio-secrets-they-were-hiding-their-failure-im-hopeful-marc-morano-cheers-on-behalf-of-the-poor/#more-22338
Speaking of relevance and vinyl records…
“Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…”
This interview is Marc Morano at his best, exposing the CAGW fraud and con. He even talks about our own home grown idiot Peter Singer and his incredible extremist point of view.
Like his belief that parents should be able to kill their children after birth if they choose. The Bolter has mentioned this as well.
This mongrel and OAM is worshipped by the barking mad left as some sort of eco hero. Just shows what groupthink scum they really are, Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be so proud of them.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/06/22/285-the-environmental-movement-wants-to-kill-you-since-youre-a-nasty-human/
Somewhat O/T but for the record
Here are some obs on the Tobs corrections
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/time-of-gullibility-bias/
Whether Bolt fits the usual MSM profile he is the most widely read journalist in OZ and he has a column about the Gillard, Wilson AWU scandal in todays News limited papers.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_mcclelland_rattles_gillards_skeleton/#commentsmore
Yesterday he made mention of this scandal on the Bolt report and the Fin review has had a nibble as well.
A case of being thankful for small mercies I suppose. But this scandal has to get coverage from other print, radio and TV as well.
How it could have remained hidden from the average punter for so long is indeed one of the more strange mysteries involving our politicians.
You would feel angry if your attempt to use an off the pace article on climate variability to undermine climate change science was seen as irrelevant. Imagine if JClimate had accepted and the Chinese Journal rejected – you would have had to trash Chinese science. Don’t shoot the messenger – shoot the massager.
I did follow the first link about Pria Viswalingham’s decline of civilisation and found the following quote – says it all – “The really striking characteristic of declinology is how it is used to advance other agendas”.
What an extraordinary self serving conflation!
Good on you Mr Koala,
Thanks for letting us know that this has been published. 🙂
Lucky that the Chinese can see good koalafications and recognise helpful/useful scientific research when they see it.
I hope this research continues to deliver on its early promising results.
Us farmers in the Eastern States would certainly welcome some extra useful information on seasonal rainfall predictions.
How they spin:
“You would feel angry if your attempt to use an off the pace article on climate variability to undermine climate change science was seen as irrelevant.”
Note the comfortable assumption that there is an “off the pace article” and its purpose was to “undermine climate change science”.
Next, by relentless logic, anyone who rejects an article by Jen will get their science trashed by Jen. Even entire nations!
“Imagine if JClimate had accepted and the Chinese Journal rejected – you would have had to trash Chinese science.”
This time, we aren’t treated to a quote from an Auden or Goethe (to remind us we’re the hicks and bazza’s’s the deep guy). Instead, we cop a quote from Pria, king of superficial windbags, and the quote “says it all”. Of course “all” means “nothing” – but at least bazza got to say “declinology”.
My God, I’m sick of the snobbery and posturing of these people.
Excellent work. I hope that when they have finished closing down all the nonsense governmnent activities like the Queensland Office of Climate Change they have some funds to help you.
They need some time to clean out all the dead wood, and this will take a while. Then it will be the turn of the federal DCCEE. They spend an outrageous amount on air travel then turn around and tell the rest of us we need higher electricity proces to reduce our carbon footprint. What these government people need is my footprint on their backsides at they leave the building for the last time.
Yes Robert
Bazza does seem to be a bit ‘over the top’.
Maybe a teensy bit of professional jealousy has crept in?
Not sure why he just can’t bring himself to congratulate Jen and Abbot for having their research published? 🙂
Just try it Bazza….it might help to make you feel a bit better about life.
History teaches us that other people and their ‘off the pace’ research are often the ones who create shifts in scientific/technological research and useful/fabulous breakthroughs.
Focus groups, consensus thinking etc….can actually stymie real progress.
I always rather liked Henry Ford’s take on that. 🙂
Focus groups at the time wanted to invent/breed ‘faster cleaner horses’….he wasn’t interested in that because he was inventing an affordable mass produced car….lucky he didn’t listen to the consensus opinions or follow their research trails….or NY and London may have disappeared under a giant pile of horse doo doo.
You’ve got to giggle at Larry Pickering’s version of “young and naive”. Go Larry.
http://lpickering.net/item/NHH7X27OUQLQNXP8
Well Deb, koalafications was clever. Robert says “Note the comfortable assumption that its an “off the pace article”. Results were compared with an out of date version of a BOM experimental forecast and not with forecasts that are actually used, except SPOTA which was in front” So wrong 3 ways Robert.
Robert says also my assumption to “undermine climate change science”. Jen said previously stuff about “shift an accepted scientific paradigm” (AGW) and “natural rainfall cycles have not been perturbed by the current elevated levels of carbon dioxide” . I said then that it sounded like a tangled web of denialist spin and weave because this was nothing to do with the content of the paper, and anyway absence of evidence on CO2 impact from a very low powered approach is not evidence of absence of a CO2 impact.. More wrong.
Robert goes on “Next, by relentless logic, anyone who rejects an article by Jen will get their science trashed by Jen. Even entire nations!” Wrong again Robert, she trashed bigger in her opening sentence – did you read it? “WESTERN science, along with western civilization appears to be in terminal decline”
And then Robert says “we cop a quote from Pria”, Jen provided the link , her first, and unashamedly used the bits she liked. Me too.
Bazza give us a break. And actually read the paper by Abbot and Marohasy.
SPOTA doesn’t give a monthly forecast. The bureaucrats that designed it wouldn’t even limit themselves to summer, spreading their forecasts over, what is it, five months? SPOTA gives a single figure for all five month of what it terms ‘summer’ about one month out. What sort of forecast is that!
Abbot and Marohasy give a one month forecast, three months in advance.
I thought it extraordinarily generous of Abbot and Marohasy to concede what they did vis-a-vis SPOTA given all its limitations.
They compared against POAMA 1.5 because the BOM said that was the best they had and it was the best they had when Abbot and Marohasy late last year. And POAMA is a model that took hundreds of millions of dollars and ten years to develop.
Bazza, I would like to see how much more skilled the BOM brand new model is? Can you show me where I can see time series forecasts that compare POAMA 1.5 with the new POAMA? Is there somewhere where the skill of POAMA 1.5 is compared with the skill of the new POAMA.
I’ve already asked Marohasy by email, and she said her and Abbot would be happy to benchmark against there new model, Prototype II.
And despite all that Bazza,
Against all odds….
The paper was published and they do deserve congratulations for their work and the fact that it was published.
I haven’t noticed anyone associated with this research claiming that they have everything right or ‘settled’, yet you appear to be hell bent on finding wrong and ….More wrong.
I understand why Mr Koala took a bit of a shot at accepted paradigms….and even at BoM…I’m very surprised you don’t.
His patience, tolerance and sense of humour is highly commendable.
The salient point is here:
Meanwhile the west, shuns scientists who don’t subscribe to taxing carbon and refuses to acknowledge the value of a better rainfall forecast because it is not based on a General Circulation Model corrupted by carbon dioxide.
Mr Koala’s friend Jennifer has copped rather a lot of shots because she has questioned the evidence that justifies taxing carbon.
bazza, I’ll try to make things sequential.
I said you made an assumption that the article attempts to “undermine climate change science”. To prove it was no mere assumption, you quote Jen’s aspiration to “shift an accepted scientific paradigm”. If you are interested in accuracy and precision of terms, you won’t equate one with the other. If Jen had stated she wanted to “undermine climate change science”, then you would have an argument. If she had implied it, you would have a piece of an argument. She neither said nor implied it. (Most of us believe climate changes and that science should be applied to understanding this variablity.)
You next quote yourself saying that “it” sounded like a “tangled web of denialist spin and weave”. Now, if “it” is Jen’s preliminary comments made when announcing her work, then here we are in the realm of emotional reaction. For me, Jen’s meaning was clear. You say Jen wishes to “undermine climate change science”? Nowhere stated by Jen, nowhere implied. (I note that you’ve repeated the “tangled web etc” thing numerous times. You seem to be very pleased with this turn of phrase. You shouldn’t be.)
Here’s the funny bit. You say – do you read your own stuff? – “Imagine if JClimate had accepted and the Chinese Journal rejected – you would have had to trash Chinese science.” I retort: “by relentless logic, anyone who rejects an article by Jen will get their science trashed by Jen. Even entire nations!” Pretty fair conclusion, no? Yet you score me one of your “wrongs” because Jen “trashed bigger” when she made a comment about the West’s decline. So you didn’t say what you said? Or it doesn’t matter what you said?
As for Pria, I’m aware that Jen provided the link. She did indeed quote some of his appalling pop-history swill. But you found – and highlighted! – the absolute gem of trite pomposity. Congrats on that.
I truly hope that Jen and Mr. Abbot forge ahead. If they’re wrong, it’s an inexpensive wrong compared with you-know-what. Even then, some good will come of having smart, risk-taking people working independently. To advance, the West needs what it has always needed: branches of thought and open minds. Freedom is always the key. That’s why I don’t mind sitting here, blogging on my own time and my own money. I love to feel free.
Denis is correct with all comments.
We visited the BoM before submitting the paper to make sure that comparisons were made against the best results from POAMA at that time.
If the most recent version of POAMA gives improved forecasts, that is great. One can only make comparisons against what is available at a particular point in time.
SPOTA gives a summer forecast for a period of 5 months designated as a summer period. There is no information provided about the distribution of the total rainfall within that 5 month period. This means that there is less information available in one regard, perhaps offset by an improved estimation for the total period. The models were set up to estimate different quantities and therefore direct comparisons are not entirely satisfactory.
In any event, SPOTA broadly uses a similar approact to rainfall forecasting compared with our method. It uses different climatic indices and a less sophisticated mathematical method of arriving at a rainfall estimate.
Different approaches will have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The smart thing to do is to recognise that and combine the best of each. So one can take advantage of the indices developed with SPOTA, POAMA forecasts of SOI, and the relatively inexpensive modelling processes provided through neural networks.
Poor Bazza – an alarmist alarmed at the prospect of a possible alterntive scientific theory / method to investigate climate. Cant have that! Cant have anybody challenging the orthodoxy! Ipso facto Jen, and Mr Koala, must be wrong.
“tangled web, slippery slope, yeah yeah yeah precautionary principle. What waffle. If it does not consider or address CO2 it must be wrong, according to you.
I think Jen and Koala may be onto something – something practical – something that can be done at low cost or taxpayer subsidy. Unlike the preferred alarmist prescription of a CARBON TAX and so called GREEN schemes that simply cost a lot and dont work.
I hope the paper is the domino that takes the whole CO2 scam to the ground.
that should be “with no taxpayer subsidy.
We need to work closer with China.They are not our enemy as some Western Oligarchs would like us to believe.The Chinese people are humble and hard working.Their political system needs more democracy and freedom but they have to work that out themselves.
The West is in serious decay and China will be our guide to the future economically and scientifically.
Hi Jennifer,
Congratulations on a job well done!
Are you brushing up on your Mandarin? I can say “Good morning,” “Goodbye,” and “Would you like tea?” When I learn “Where is the restroom,” I’ll be able to survive in China.
On a more serious note, I’ve been meaning to post one of your recent articles about the AI seasonal forecasting program for Qld on a couple of other boards. But I can’t decide which one is best for general readers. Which do you suggest?
Please give Mr Koala Bear a hug for me.
Regards,
Larry
Thanks Larry.
Well there is only one article by me, this one here by Mr Koala, and perhaps for the general reader go YouTube http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/forecasting-rainfall-neural-networks-versus-general-circulation-models/
I’ve asked Mr Koala about the hug. He replied, “I’m not quite sure about that”.
Hugs from me, Jen
Sp, your correction supporting how wonderful the paper was done “with no taxpayer subsidy” was probably twice wrong. The neural net paper acknowledgements state that funding came from B. Macfie Family Foundation, well known for supporting the IPA and Macfie for extraordinary quotes eg “The crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine,” which tops anything you would read hereabouts including your own rambling randles. ( Tilting at windmills?). Now foundations get generous tax treatment, as do Universities. So yes to taxpayer subsidy, but as the JClimate said about the paper and of course before they needed to look at the science, the paper is as irrelevant as is the funding if it was unencumbered. But sp, you would have to agree that Macfie supporting this effort towards the advancement of climate science is an extraordinary turnaround, what an irony for an iron and coal miner. No need to acknowledge my correction sp. I did not get any for the errors in the Abbot and Marohasy paper I helpfully pointed out. Just to clarify my tangled web bit, as I said this exercise appeared to be an innocent attempt at improving seasonal forecasts but it was claimed in the 30th May launch by Jen that “Inputting carbon dioxide concentrations doesn’t improve our model”. And it gets worse, as Jen claimed in her opening gambit “One way to help shift an accepted scientific paradigm (e.g. Anthropogenic Global Warming)”. Now you would assume that CO2 is covered in the paper, it wasn’t. So is my tnagled web a fraud.? CO2 gets mentioned once for being (like the kitchen sink) one of many things not included in the paper. And even if it, was absence of evidence on CO2 impact from a very low powered approach is not evidence of absence of a CO2 impact (power in the sense you need to toss a dice more than a few times to see if it is biased). So using an attempt at seasonal forecasting to have a cheap shot at climate change models is just the old story of conflating weather and climate. Has Jen responded to this? No, I am on about facts. I deplore abuse of the scientific process.
But obviously these fabrications were so Jen could report to the funders, with their fortune based on mining that her paper was accountable to their cause!. The paper was also and hopefully honorably, leveraging off a shot at better flood forecasting for Queensland. Over the extraordinary wet La Nina midsummer 2010-11 the Bureau of Meteorology operational seasonal climate model was 90% correct. If a better forecast was the genuine aim, that was the benchmark. Alternatively the SOI phase as on Queensland TV every week. If the authors are genuine lets see the forecast from their model for the coming spring!
Bazza – according to your definition everything is taxpayer funded.
As for “tossing dice” – it seems you read too much Hansen. Your bias is showing.
So Bazza,
What’s the problem?
I can only see a generalised hissy fit that Jen & Abbot managed to get their research published without giving CO2 & AGW a front and centre position.
That was the point of Jen’s comments.
They put together entirely credible research and it shows promising early (useful) results and CO2 was not considered as a significant input.
I’m stunned that you have picked up on that very simple explanation and then inferred that it is somehow corrupted by funding from evil rich miners plus other vague entirely unsubstantiated insinuations that Jen & Abbot have deplorably abused the scientific process.
Can I ask you a very simple question?
I apologise that it is rhetorical but that seems to be your preferred MO.
If this research was abusing scientific process, how did it get published in a reputable scientific journal?
My understanding is that none of the journals it was presented to had any problems with the process that was used in this scientific research.
So I repeat,
What’s the problem?
The problem Deb is that you write like a lackey. The 30th May launch on this blog by Jen claimed that “Inputting carbon dioxide concentrations doesn’t improve our model” Did you actually know that inputting CO2 was not done in the paper, and in any case the paper was incapable of testing a CO2 hypothesis. The opening line of the launch was not about seasonal forecasts as one might expect if that was why the paper was done. It made another extraordinary grandstanding claim totally removed from the paper “One way to help shift an accepted scientific paradigm (e.g. Anthropogenic Global Warming)”Is that abuse?. You tell me how the paper shifted anything, and tell me too if it is the same as your blinkered interpretation abusing all logic “ and CO2 was not considered as a significant input” . So I was not on about the research in that example – only the way it was marketed. The paper was a front, and an affront to those who thought it was a heartfelt reaction to give Queenslanders a better seasonal forecast. If it was, it would have tested itself against the best operational forecasts. I would like to see that. Would you? Go on – ask Jen.