My husband, John Abbot, has kept going with research into AI and climate forecasting. One of his most important recent papers can be downloaded from Earth Sciences.
Some of the latest Nobel prizes in science, including in chemistry, have been for developments in artificial intelligence (AI). Of course, John Abbot and I began working on the application of this technology for forecasting rainfall soon after Brisbane flooded back in 2011. Back then, we had just started dating. It would be some years before we got married.
We had a first AI model developed just a couple of months later, this included some hindcasting showing that the flooding of Brisbane could have been forecast given the temperature and pressure setup across the Pacific Ocean through 2010, and natural climate cycles.
John Abbot and I published a series of papers together through until 2017, after that I lost interest in developing the temperature series that were part of the arrays that John inputted into the neural networks.
I gave-up in 2017, in part because of the hatred that was directed at me, and John, including on Twitter with what was the publication of perhaps our most important paper, newly published in the journal GeoResJ on the application of artificial intelligence, for evaluating anthropogenic versus natural climate change (GeoResJ, Vol. 14, Pgs 36-46 published in July 2017). This research was pilloried on Twitter, and we were defamed by Graham Readfearn in The Guardian. Meanwhile, the editor of the journal was under intense pressure for the paper to be retracted. And some time was expended in writing what seemed like endless letters in its defence. The paper was never retracted, but the journal was closed.
I also gave-up, because I lost confident in the integrity of the actual temperature measurements being recorded by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. Previously I put a lot of work into ensuring that we inputted unhomogenised data. Then, when I realised the extent to which the new platinum resistance probes could be calibrated to basically measure up or down relative to a mercury thermometer and in fact, they were being recalibrated to measure hotter – well I gave up, in tears. My focus then become getting the parallel data to better understand the relationship between the two different types of temperature measuring.
I put a lot of effort into this until last April 2023, that was after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Hearing, a front-page story in The Australian, and an understanding that not even the Conservative side of politics had any interest in holding the Bureau to account on this fraudulent remodelling. I understood that we were on our own.
Timing is everything they say, if one is to be successful at forcing change, and so it will need to be a team effort, we will need to be supported, we will need to wait.
Meanwhile, John Abbot, who tends to be less affected by the politics, and the injustices, has continued to run the AI. Instead of relying on me for long continuous temperature series, he began using much longer, and already published temperature series. And from both those who believe in the existence of Medieval Warm Period and those who dispute its existence.
He had an important paper published in 2021, further showing the application of AI for distinguishing natural from anthropogenic climate change. This research concludes:
The presence of oscillatory characteristics within proxy- temperature reconstructions across a range of time-scales, including millennial, centennial and decadal, has been reported in many investigations. The present study examines oscillations from spectral analysis applied to eight published multi-proxy temperature records, including examples representing both hockey stick [catastrophic recent warming] and MWP_LIA* cycles [it was warmer in the past during the medieval warm period].
The analysis shows that each record can be represented by a set of 4-11 sine curves from spectral analysis that include a dominant millennial oscillation and several centennial and decadal oscillations. The apparent divergence into either a hockey stick or MWP_LIA* cycles can be derived from the phase alignment of the centennial and decadal oscillations with respect to the millennial oscillation. The maximum temperature of the dominant oscillation at around 1000 AD is increased by superimposing the centennial/decadal oscillations for MWP-LIA* cycles, whereas it is reduced and the profile flattened for the hockey stick. This may explain why current temperatures may exceed any in past 1,000 years with hockey stick profile.
Forecasting through projection of pre-industrial temperature oscillatory patterns beyond 1880 AD by applying spectral analysis to generate input to train ANNs show that current atmospheric temperatures can be largely explained on basis of continuation of natural oscillations. This is the case irrespective of whether the hockey stick or MWP_LIA* cycles are operative. This process could give rise to temperatures higher that past 1000 years without major contribution from anthropogenic influences.
*Medieval Warm Period – Little Ice Age.
It is surprising that these important findings are not of more interest to those who claim to care about science and especially climate science.
Back in 2011, in fact right up until 2017, John and I were laughed at, including by our colleagues for suggesting the relevance of AI for elucidating natural climate cycles and using these same cycles to forecast monthly rainfall.
But perhaps the time is coming when it will be realised that we were just a bit ahead of the times.
Of course all our work was, and continues, to be funded by the B.Macfie Family Foundation through the Institute of Public Affairs for which we are grateful.
Relevant and related blog posts
- Fake justifications for rubbish temperature series:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/05/averaging-last-seconds-versus-bureau-peer-review/
2. Holding Bureau to account:
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/02/rainfall-forecasts-should-be-benchmarked/
3. Confused and misguided colleagues:
https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/cyclone-jasper-bom-forecasting-getting-to-the-truth/
GlenM says
Appreciate your efforts. Frustration is part of the game – more so when you’re battling against the orthodox y. Truth is priceless nonetheless.
ianl says
Thank you for the link to the unpaywalled Abbot 2021 paper. Free distribution of real scientific knowledge is unfortunately somewhat rare.
I also suspect that apart from the actual content, the fact that John Q Public can access papers such as this without significant financial output is part of activist dislike of such publications. It avoids their gatekeeping.
Chris Sheppard says
Good article. As you say, pity critical article only attract vilification rather than analysis and consideration. There are a lot of careers and egos involved in the status quo. Keep going; you will be vindicated.
Richard Bennett says
The resistance by politicians to accept the John Abbot paper is another example of brainwashed ignorant politicians who actually think they know better than everybody else. The voters must kick them out asap.
Karen Klemp says
How would you describe your treatment of BoM scientists? Pilloried or vilified?
jennifer says
Thanks Karen. There are some hardworking BoM technical people. But the current leadership, beginning with Andrew Johnson, are a national disgrace.
Peter Etherington-Smith says
Any charlatan who deliberately corrupts data and tries to censor debate and denigrate and vilify those who hold different and more cogently argued opinions – whether scientific or anything else – just to promote a political and dictatorial mantra deserves to be called out and pilloried. Such smug and self-satisfied climate zealots – self-appointed petty dictators – are only too happy to ruin peoples lives so mere pillorying, even vilification is very tame in comparison.
The evidence for the widespread corruption of temperature data (and indeed much else) or, if one is being polite or more understanding of the genuine but misled technical people, misguided and erroneous ‘correction’ (aka ‘homogenization’) is so well explained by many inquisitive scientists that it is no longer a novel fact. Of course the climate zealots close their eyes and block their ears as religious extremists are wont to do.
I am sceptical of long-range forecasting, certainly the nonsense put out by the IPCC firstly because of the inability to have sufficient data to history match accurately – inventing data is not history matching – and even then no one knows what the future may bring. Essentially it is guesswork and should be treated as such.
But I applaud the efforts of John and Jennifer to better understand natural cycles and use that to provide some ideas for agriculture. I say ideas because I think that even short-term forecasts, which should be relatively easier to assess than long-term can still suffer great surprises. But providing several options for farmers to consider is a lot better than nothing. So their work can be extremely valuable.
And even if they were to discover that there were severe limitations to even short-term forecasts would that invalidate their work? No, far from it, because that is what science is all about; investigation, analysis, conclusion, hypothesis, challenge and modification when errors or new evidence appear.
Did anyone predict the Tongan volcanic eruption in 2021-22 and its impact on weather? No, and the same for countless other events. Could we experience an episode such as the immense volcanic activity that produced the Deccan Traps? Yes very easily. Can it be predicted? No, nor the meteor that hit Mexico a few millennia earlier.
Does any of this uncertainty deter religious zealots? Unfortunately not and they are just as busy trying to burn non-believers at the stake as they were a few centuries ago, just by other means.
The leadership of the BoM to which Jennifer refers, as of so many other national institutions – the UK Committee for Climate Change led by a board that is demonstrably guilty of financial fraud is just one – disdain ethical science and are indeed a disgrace and deserving of far pithier designations. Unless the scurrilous individuals who lead such organizations and their supporting bureaucrats are exposed for what they are we will continue to be fleeced to provide additional riches for the WEF elite. But the public will eventually say “enough” thanks to those who are prepared to put their neck on the line and withstand the brickbats and inane comments thrown at them.
Don Gaddes says
Very ‘convoluted’ to try and project/predict a ‘Base 12’ Cycle, using ‘Base 10’ Maths.
I wonder if John Abbot has considered recalibrating the computer.
Barbara Sheppard says
Peter, I totally support your comment on this situation. Jennifer and John, your work in exposing the deceit in climate science will surely bring you the recognition this deserves
Mike Burston says
Sensational work Jennifer, it’s beyond the comprehension of Luddites like me