The following paper was delivered by Jennifer Marohasy at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas on Wednesday 9th July 2013 in Panel 13.
SCIENTIFIC disciplines are always underpinned by theories that collectively define the dominant paradigm. In the case of modern climate science that paradigm is anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It defines the research questions asked, and dictates the methodology employed by the majority of climate scientists most of the time. AGW may be a paradigm with little practical utility and tremendous political value, but it’s a paradigm none-the-less. The world’s most powerful and influential leaders also endorse AGW. Even Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in June, “I don’t think people should run around pretending there is disagreement when none exists. President Obama and myself both take climate change very seriously.”
AGW has even dictated the question for this session, “How is climate change affecting sea level, rainfall and water availability? Will a warming planet complicate or alleviate water challenges?”
But what is the utility of such a question, particularly given there is growing evidence that planet earth has already entered what could become a protracted period of cooling? This is not what we hear in the mainstream media, but this view is supported by evidence in the unadjusted temperature data for my state of Queensland in Australia, and is also what some astrophysicists have been forecasting for some time.
If mainstream science operated under a different paradigm, one where researchers believed it was possible to forecast weather and climate not just 3 days in advance, but with a high level of skill 3 months, or 3 years in advance, and if their primary focus was not justice, equity and curbing greed, but rather the provision of useful information to Joe Citizen, the question for this session might have been very different. “How much rain is forecast to fall on California’s Central Valley each and every month for the next 2 years?” Answering such a question could not only aid food production, but also facilitate planning for floods and drought. The work I have been undertaking with Professor John Abbot, Central Queensland University, is attempting to address this type of question for Queensland, Australia.
The General Circulation Models (GCMs) that underpin the paradigm of AGW have difficulty generating rainfall forecasts with any real level of skill more than 4 days in advance. If a fraction of the billions spent developing these simulation models, had instead been invested in a theory of climate underpinned with state-of-the-art statistical models based on an understanding of natural climate cycles, I believe we would be much closer to being able to mitigate climate variability across the globe through better rainfall forecasts with very significant benefits for all of mankind, but particularly subsistence farmers in places like India. In short, what we really need is a new paradigm for climate science, underpinned by new tools with some utility.
So, what I will do in the limited time available today is tell you something about how artificial neural networks (ANNs), a form of Artificial Intelligence (AI), have potential as a new tool for a new paradigm, and in particular their application to rainfall forecasting. I will then be in a position to better answer the question for this session concerning rainfall and water availability in a warming world.
ANNs are massive, parallel-distributed, information-processing systems with characteristics resembling the biological neural networks of the human brain. Imagine a computer with the capacity to search and find the complex linear, and also nonlinear relationships, which may exist between local temperature, rainfall, and Pacific Ocean phenomena including changing patterns of sea surface temperatures and pressure. Image a computer with a powerful and versatile data-modelling tool that is able to capture and represent input and output relationships acquiring knowledge, through learning from multiple examplars deciphered from vast arrays of historical data, storing this knowledge within inter-neuron connections strengths known as synaptic weights. A computer that can learn relationships, model and measure relationships, then use this information to forecast rainfall.
This is essentially what the ANN that John Abbot and I built to forecast rainfall for 17 locations across Queensland can do. In a paper by us published two year ago by the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ journal Advances in Atmospheric Science (Volume 29) we detail the model and demonstrate how much more skilful medium-term monthly forecasts from this model are, relative to forecasts from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s best GCM. In a more recent publication in the journal Atmospheric Research (Volume 138) we show how forecasts for Queensland are improved with inclusion of the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation. In a conference paper presented a year ago in Southampton (River Basin Management VII, WIT Press) we show the potential of ANN to forecast extreme rainfall, specifically the devastating flooding that submerged Queensland’s capital Brisbane, in January 2011.
We have another paper currently in press at the International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, which considers the affect of a 3 degree C increase in temperature on rainfall, a component of the question for this panel. What did we find? In our cast study when maximum and minimum temperatures were increased by 3 degree Celsius there was a decline in summer rainfall and an increase in winter rainfall at a placed called Nebo in central Queensland.
The bottom-line is that ANNs can already provide better medium-term rainfall forecasts for Queensland, Australia. This has a real practical value. ANNs can also provide an independent method of GCM validation under future climates with results from Nebo suggesting a smoothing of the annual variability in rainfall rather than more climatic extremes assuming global warming.
ANNs use the existence of recurrent patterns in historical data to inform the rainfall forecast. That our rainfall forecasts drawing in most cases on about 85 years of temperature data show considerable skill, means natural climate cycles must persist. Climate is not on a new trajectory as suggested by many proponents of AGW.
A great advantage of using ANNs is that they can easily be adapted to test and incorporate additional input data series, as climatic knowledge develops. If the relationship can be quantified it can be modelled by an ANNs, including potentially lunar, solar and planetary cycles.
While AGW is a demonstrably failed paradigm, it will be replaced only when a critical number of practicing scientists start working on something new. New paradigms always have their own questions and their own tools. In the same way that GCMs underpin AGW theory, ANNs could underpin a new paradigm based on better quantifying the drives of natural climate cycles.
Henry David Thoreau wrote, “In the long run, men only hit what they aim at.” What are we as a community of sceptics aiming for? Just the overthrow of AGW, or can we aim much higher, including for skilful rainfall forecasts?
Thank you.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank The Heartland Institute for the opportunity to present at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change. All the research on the application of artificial neural networks to medium-term rainfall forecasting detailed here has been done in collaboration with Professor John Abbot funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
A video of the talk can be found at this link… http://climateconferences.heartland.org/breakout-1-streaming/
Scroll to find image of me in red, click on the link. The tiny URL for this blog post is http://tinyurl.com/m6fbq9p.
[…] I explained in session 13 at the conference: Scientific disciplines are always underpinned by theories that collectively define the dominant […]
@ Luke, 7/14/14, 7:52 am
In the interest of full disclosure, i am a retired professional engineer who has seriously studied a wide variety of Earth science with college level understanding for over fourth years. I am self funded and co-author of the science text, "Slaying the Sky Dragon" and co-founder of Principia Scientific International, where i have peer reviewed every one of the articles posted in the Publications tab. My website is always in the top listing of millions in the category of Faux Science, which includes the elitist directed Carbon climate forcing, "sustainable" energy, "peak" oil and the big bang.
We live in a false paradigm reality, bounded by faux science, fake history, filtered news and financed with a fiat currency. There is an emerging NEW PARADIGM, and it will happen whether you believe, participate or just quibble. As for Watts, Spencer and Nova, my linked article, "Mommie, Can We Play Obombie Truth Origami" addresses Tony and Roy from my ICCC #9 in person meeting, more to come. My first post at Canada Free Press, "One Pleasant Day in Runnymede" got a supportive reply from Joanne, who i consider a colleague, with only one minor disagreement.
There is NO back radiation warming by any three atom gas. The Ptolemaic flat Earth model had workable mathematical models, until Galileo discovered a few extra moons. The IPCC does not even have "workable" models for daily weather forecasts. The principled scientists of PSI will continue to articulate the missing empirical evidence for the AGW hypothesis.
Hi Jen sorry for my delayed response it has been a long week.
I sympathise with your problem with finding something to benchmark against, whether it be due to broad zonal forecasts or just not being given access to the data.
Could you not however select some sites and make specific predictions for these at say 1-3 month intervals, and then benchmark yourself against reality to gain a good idea of the quality of your AI predictions?
If your system works reasonably well over a period of time you have proved its potential worth and may find it easier to gain research funding and more widespread recognition for your work.
I would imagine that if your system does improve our understanding of future weather it would not take long to get a reputation where it really matters....anybody who relies on accurate forecasts beyond the current week or maybe 2?
A year or so of good forecasts openly available for all to see in advance would make everybody have to pay attention to your work?
Keep up the great work, if you are successful it will be a great accomplishment.
Luke at 5:02.
The issue is one of focus. It has NEVER been about undermining.
You clearly either don't understand, don't care or are deliberately ignoring the importance of seasonal variations and climate patterns to businesses such as agriculture, mining, construction, logistics etc.
You seem to be more interested in defending the status quo that sneers and smears Australian businesses.
As Jen points out. . .time for a new paradigm .
Robert - on anthro - the presence of natural forest fires does not imply that arson doesn't exist.
Maybe some other contributor knows the answer to my query on data availability for the Abbott and Marohasy paper. Journals like Elsevier are keen on more open access and many researchers are too.
Mr Koala sounds like he is up on the topic - maybe he knows?
Well that might involve clicking on the odd youtube link. But not evens.
"... suggesting somethin’ has happened before and that’s all we can ever know."
Interesting. It certainly sound like me, that first part. In fact, I've been shocked by what certain presumably educated people don't know about past events and conditions. How they could pretend to science by wilfully ignoring big slices of it is beyond me.
But as to the second part, "that's all we can ever know". Now I find that very strange. Somehow I think certain people just get angry at mention of the past because it undermines their main agenda of establishing modern climate exceptionalism. The anti-science accusation is just tacked on for cred.
Someone (very sciency but very warmie) was recently pointing out to me that Pine Island Glacier had no geothermal activity to explain its movement. (All part of the collapsing Antarctic blah.) It felt very odd for non-sciency me to have to point out that, like so much of Western Antarctica, PIG has an old but still active sub-glacial volcano with an ash sheet the size of Wales, at least according to airborne ice-sounding radar done by BAS a few years back. How could he single out PIG and ignore such a massive fact about it? Or did he just not know?
People in the grip of a stern dogma cannot think or see. All the brains and science background in the world can't help them. Isaac Newton and others may have believed all kinds of potty things, but they could keep their odd beliefs separate from their science. What's happening now?
Bearsy - we agreed that early on. But this is about A&M's very interesting new work. Luckily sometimes the probability is sometimes not 50%.
In ancient times, the Oracle at Delphi was consulted for advice on outcomes of future events.
Any inconsistencies between prophecies and events were dismissed as failure to correctly interpret the responses, not an error of the oracle. Very often prophecies were worded ambiguously, so as to cover all contingencies – especially so ex post facto. One famous such response to a query about participation in a military campaign was "You will go you will return never in war will you perish". This gives the recipient liberty to place a comma before or after the word "never", thus covering both possible outcomes
The Oracle at the Bureau of Meteorology is very similar. There is a 50% probability that the rainfall will be above median next season.
There is a 100% probability that the next World Cup will be won by a team with 11 men, including a goal keeper. So place your bet early, Luke!