So do I mate.

# —–Sunspot Number—— —-10.7 cm Radio Flux—-
# YR MO PREDICTED HIGH LOW PREDICTED HIGH LOW
#————————————————————–
2008 11 1.8 2.8 0.8 67.9 68.9 66.9
2008 12 1.8 3.8 0.0 67.5 68.5 66.5
2009 01 2.1 5.1 0.0 67.4 69.4 65.4
2009 02 2.7 7.7 0.0 67.3 70.3 64.3
2009 03 3.3 8.3 0.0 67.2 71.2 63.2
2009 04 3.9 9.9 0.0 67.2 71.2 63.2
2009 05 4.6 11.6 0.0 67.3 72.3 62.3
2009 06 5.5 12.5 0.0 67.5 73.5 61.5

is correct [if we go by their prediction]. It is just [as I point out] the Figure they provide http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/ that is wrong. Biesecker did not have to spin a long story about published formula for SSN conversion to F10.7 being wrong. It is just the graph that is wrong. In sum, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing…

Perhaps he uses the conjunctions of the planets to forecast solar activity. Since an accurate solar forecast seems to be a prerequisite for an accurate weather forecast, he may be missing out on selling his solar forecasts to ESA and NASA. Maybe he does have those as customers. Do you know? Does anybody know?

This is your real fear and why you condemn Piers Corbyn. There are a few of us that dont need to try…we have the information so its easy, perhaps he has taken it to another level and is doing quite well out of it…good on him I say.

Obviously his methods are so good that he shouldn’t reveal them.

But if he is as dishonest and inaccurate as you assert then why don’t you do more accurate forecasting yourself. You are making it sound like you, and many others, are able to do it much better than him. Why not do that business yourself? You are in America—no one will try to stop you.

Truth is it must not be easy—or many would be doing it. Instead of being a critic do it better than him. If you can then I will consider listening to your ideas of him. But, I have a hunch that by time you are able to surpass his accuracy %, if you ever did, your view of him will have radically changed.

What more proof is needed? His forecasts and then what was observed on those forecasts can be looked up. In fact his % of accuracy is in one of my comments.

What Leif seems to be wanting is Corbyn’s methods not his record. Again, his record speaks for itself. And it seems more unethical to demand that Corbyn’s methods be made public than for them to be kept under wraps. In fact, I cannot see any problem at all that they aren’t disclosed—not one iota of a problem. It appears that those who find a problem in such may need to re-evaluate their view on it.

Leif’s opinion of Piers Corbyn reveals something about Leif and not about Piers Corbyn.

I have talked more on this topic than I had ever wanted to. I hope Leif can understand that I have enjoyed reading many of his comments on other things.

This is just your opinion, just one man’s opinion Leif.

Have a nice day now.

If I have come by knowledge that a terrorist attack is imminent and I know where and when, is it ethical for me to demand money for that information?

P.S. The eavesdropping NSA might pick up this comment and who knows what will happen :-)

If indeed it is much better, and could save many lives, yes, then it is unethical. One can argue who is committing the unethical act, your friend or NWS? If, indeed, your friend’s method is so much better, then it is in the public’s interest to use their technique. One could even invoke ‘eminent domain’. If, on the other hand, it is debatable which method is best, and your friend’s customers lean one way in that debate and NWS leans the other way, there is no problem. The problem comes when it is claimed that ‘the record speaks for itself’ and claims to be better than sliced bread, If that claim is false or not sufficiently substantiated, then there is no problem. If the claim is correct and that there therefore are great societal and human values at stake, then it is unethical to withhold the method for monetary gain [which would flow to the inventor anyway as just compensation in an 'eminent domain' situation].

I have a friend here in the USA who forecasts hurricane tracks for a private company. They sell their forecasts primarily to shipping companies and building contractors. They reason they make money is their forecasts are better than the NWS or the hurricane forecast center. Their forecasting methods are proprietary, of course.

Do you think this is ethical? Should they turn over their techniques to the NWS so that everyone has access to this technology?

has this to say:
“WeatherAction proclaims to be the only weather forecasting company that can accurately forecast weather conditions up to a year in advance using the ‘Solar Weather Technique’ (SWT) which was developed by Piers and uses predictable aspects of solar activity – particle and magnetic effects from the sun.[...]”

I think this whole topic on this blog was about that there were precious few ‘predictable aspects of solar activity’, so not only does Piers have to forecast the weather on Earth, but also on the Sun [up to a year in advance to boot]. This is a sure sign of snake oil. Perhaps he uses the conjunctions of the planets to forecast solar activity. Since an accurate solar forecast seems to be a prerequisite for an accurate weather forecast, he may be missing out on selling his solar forecasts to ESA and NASA. Maybe he does have those as customers. Do you know? Does anybody know?

I agree with you. It’s just that it struck me wrong that he was held a bad light.

But his record is better than “average”. If there is someone with more success I would like to read about it.

“WeatherAction’s (Piers Corbyn’s) forecasts cite an 85 percent accuracy rate (British Meteorological Office 71%) and have been independently proved by peer-reviewed* academic published testing”

–QUAD Magazine, Queen Mary, University of London, issue 16, 2007, page 9, in this pdf :

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/alumni/publications/quad/quad16.pdf

* Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34.