Useful output from the University of Sydney

Sally Cripps is a Professor of Statistics at the University of Sydney.  TAFKAS has before today never heard of her (nor should he have expected to), but this Professor should be given more prominence in public policy debates than the current conga line of clowns the media tend to go to.

The following is an abstract from a paper that Professor Cripps is a co-author of.

TAFKAS has not read beyond the abstract, but the paper while about epidemic forecasting can equally apply to climate forecasting and most of the risk forecasting that APRA requires for banks.

Magnificently written:

Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates, lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, looking at only one or a few dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and bandwagon effects and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures.

Irrespective.  The science is settled.  The ABC says so,

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Useful output from the University of Sydney

  1. Mark M

    New climate models predict a warming surge

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge

    Read past the headline …

    Climate modeling groups are flummoxed about their brand new models running way too hot …

    This hasn’t got much attention but it’s a huge issue for next UN IPCC Report.

    If this is robust, then there are dramatic & bad implications for global carbon budget.
    If not, then the model output is junk and IPCC AR6 has a problem.

    Via ryan [email protected] link
    https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1118399286994247682

  2. Another Ian

    Remember that the only one of the last lot that came within a bull’s roar of the ground based data was a Russian one. IIRC the Russians aren’t too sold on CO2 and are building ice breakers

  3. Another Ian

    Link to abstract doesn’t seem to work for me

  4. Frank

    Always liked the maths dept at Sydney University.

  5. egg_

    A post mortem on an Economy fvcked up back in March?

    Thanks Doc!

  6. nb

    Egads. Look out for the sexual assault allegations. She is probably not yet in the ‘personal-problems-leading-to-suicide’ category yet.

  7. Computer Models which by necessity need to include human behaviour will always be wrong….ALWAYS.

    Imagine we had models back before the development of the internal combustion engine.
    Those models, every one of them, would have predicted mountains of horse and cow shit in and around cities accompanied by endless diseases. Differences between one model and another would have been a question of how high the shit mountains would be.

    Models do have some academic value, but any policy maker who is advised by someone who starts with “our models indicate” should immediately bitch slap said advisor and kick him to the kerb naked and unemployed.

  8. Tezza

    More to the point, the lead author is John Ioannidis, a real heavy hitter. He of the: “More than 50% of peer-reviewed, published medical research is wrong ….”

  9. Roger

    Computer Models which by necessity need to include human behaviour will always be wrong….ALWAYS.

    That’s a bit harsh.

    They might sometimes be right…by accident.

  10. Nob

    Another Ian
    #3507828, posted on July 9, 2020 at 8:41 am
    Link to abstract doesn’t seem to work for me

    It will have downloaded a PDF somewhere on your device.

    Look in your downloads folder, or at the foot of your browser if using Chrome on a computer.

    A serious and scathing paper.

  11. John Brumble

    Unpersonned in 3….2….

  12. Bob in Castlemaine

    There’s definitely a need for that lady to spend a year or three the reeducation gulags!

  13. Dr Faustus

    More to the point, the lead author is John Ioannidis, a real heavy hitter. He of the: “More than 50% of peer-reviewed, published medical research is wrong ….”

    Indeed.
    Unfortunately, as an iconoclast and non-sufferer-of-fools, Ioannidis has become controversial in the medical science industry. As with climate science, owning the ‘contrarian’ label allows the herd to instantly ignore your work, no matter its quality and base in science.

    “Locking ourselves in our beautiful mansions and continuing with our videoconferences practically does nothing for nursing homes and chronically badly prepared hospitals . . . It also kills the poor, the disadvantaged . . .” He has cautioned that protracted lockdown will cause starvation, violence, poverty, and deaths that could exceed the number of lives saved by avoiding Covid-19 infections.

    Even when you are right, you don’t get to say this stuff without pushback from people with both feet in the trough.

  14. JohnJJJ

    pbw
    More on the forecasting debate: Ioannides vs Taleb
    Thank you for the post. It is astounding the reverence for mathematics without probability by politician, bureaucrats and the press. Scott Adams pointed this out very early in the COVIDastrophe.

  15. Another Ian

    In the area of models – be thankful we don’t live in Canada

    “We decided to take on that debt to prevent Canadians from having to do it”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/07/08/the-daily-wisdoms-of-blackface-mcspendy/

    I guess that is what happens when you announce that “the budget will balance itself”

  16. Kneel

    “…within a bull’s roar of the ground based data…”

    CMIP5: running too hot compared to actual data.
    CMIP6: 50% more warming than CMIP5.

    Must be the positive feedbacks, right? No no, not the freaking model – the model tuning!

  17. Megan

    Exactly the point made by Malcom Gladwell about the differences between puzzles and mysteries. Our political and medical bureaucrat betters have treated this like a puzzle, simply gathering useless information on numbers and tests which the media delights in regurgitating to terrify everyone.

    There is no sign of any genuine analysis being done by those overpaid consultants Insanity Dan has hired, let alone competent synthesis of qualitative and quantitative information. Nor have I seen anyone in a decision making role querying any of the many and varied assumptions being made on a daily basis.

  18. John A

    Mark M #3507809, posted on July 9, 2020, at 8:28 am

    New climate models predict a warming surge

    “it’s a bit too early to get wound up,” says John Fyfe, a climate scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, whose model is among those running much hotter than in the past. “But maybe we have to face a reality in the future that’s more pessimistic than it was in the past.”

    To paraphrase Arthur Dent: The is a strange use of the term “reality” with which I am unfamiliar. These people are arguing over the “model reality” within the climate change bubble, rather than the harsh no-warming-trend reality of the world as it is, in which we all live.

Comments are closed.