Piers Corbyn showed up on Fox and Friends this morning to discuss his most accurate prediction of a bone-chillingly cold winter, and throw some ad hominem attacks towards the global warming “cultists”. Many comments in the blizzard stories on WUWT have touted the achievements and skill of Corbyn, but, as with any long-range forecaster, he has been embarrassed by some spectacular failures.
So, is Corbyn a “broken clock” right twice-a-day or is he a visionary that sees things in the tea-leaves differently and correctly? Well, after this blizzard and the European deep-freeze, apparently we haven’t seen anything yet!
We report, you decide … or something.
From Mediaite (click for video link):
Predicting in November that winter in Europe would be “exceptionally cold and snowy, like Hell frozen over at times,” Corbyn suggested we should sooner prepare for another Ice Age than worry about global warming. Corbyn believed global warming “is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.”
Well, Piers is a professional outlier. But he may yet cash in a big pile of scientific chips!
Here’s the same video that should play in any location of the world. Some videos won’t play in certain locations.
“mild “global warming” winter prediction by government fail”
I’ve yet to see a metric for folks such as Piers that stand up and say what they think will happen but I applaud him for doing this. The UK Met posts things and then denies that they have done so. Regular weather service forecasts in the USA are being revised in one room as they are posted for the public in another.
Until someone produces a method for doing so and sticks with it for several years the skill of forecasters will be as controversial as which way to hang toilet paper.
Here’s a link to the Fox Video which is very funny:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4475360/mocked-meteorologist-gets-last-laugh
We are cooling, folks; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
=============
I like Piers, he looks just as kooky as the rest of the climate scientists….
exactly correct
If he can predict correctly and give the scientific methodology that is testable to predict in the future, then he is more than worth listening to. Otherwise he may be more like Bill Miller in the stock market who beat the market for any number of years until he did a spectacular nose plant. However, with the AMO on the downslope and a de Vries minimum on our hands, the chances are pretty good that we shall be burning windmills for their carbon content in 10 years rather than worrying about GHG.
Piers Corbyn has been predicting winter snowstorms in the UK for the last 30 years, usually with a very poor record of success.
Striking paydirt this year does not make his “tea leaves” any better than anyone elses.
He may have had some failures but he’s had some big wins as well. The AGW crowd, on the other hand, have had nothing but failures: I don’t recall any “wins” amoungst them. Everything they predict turns out the opposite and many of their “facts” are eventually proven false. Smart money’s on Corbyn at thus point, but it’s still a gamble because the game is predicting nature!
I like his hair style. A true scientist.
He has some kind of odd ideas, but he is right about global warming. His other ideas might be right too, I don’t know enough about them to know though.
I too like Piers! He is fun, intelligent, and has a sense of humor. That he is not sharing all his methodology with us unlike those scientists on the tax dole who have taken money from us and then withhold the data (methodology), he has done a lot of work at his own expense and is simply trying to make a little money on the deal. Good luck. His long term predictions of the past 30 years of warming and starting into 30 future years of cooling reflect my idea of the natural cycle. That he is willing and somewhat successful in taking on near term weather prediction is laudable. It is very tough to do with what we seem to know right now. The sun as a major player also fits with my view of the natural processes and if he can use solar phenomenon to predict these short term fluctuations – more power to him.
Either way he is much more enjoyable to watch than the AGW crowd and we should be careful of labeling his ideas and thoughts before we understand what the natural system is actually doing and before we see what his understanding of that system actually is. The few glimpses of his understanding that I have gotten makes me more of a supporter than a detractor. Just on a common sense level. The finer scientific level will require some time and patience (a few ahah moments?) but all these theories are going to require that. I certainly wish him well even though I might not always bet on his horse, at least it will be a fun and interesting run.
Well done Piers!
Some of the comments over at Mediaite are precious:
“South America is going to have a hot summer, maybe hotter than 2009/2010”
Based on what I’ve seen of the La Niña charts here, I really doubt that.
A few comments here:
“…but, as with any long-range forecaster, he has been embarrassed by some spectacular failures”
And
“We report, you decide … or something.”
Ryan,
You either said too much or not enough. Failures? Name them so we can all appreciate the degree of failure you are talking about. Then we might decide…
ShrNfr writes:
“If he can predict correctly and give the scientific methodology that is testable to predict in the future, then he is more than worth listening to”
Well he is making a living with his method which he explains in his website. Of course, he is careful in revealing his craft because after all, science has also a part of intuition and diagnostic that the computers won’t have. At least, he puts his name on his forecasts and assumes the successes and the failures. Already better than most…
As for global cooling, Corbyn is right on. Only those who have not read Marcel Leroux are unaware of it…
[ryanm: we report, you decide is a quip about fox news, which puts split screen “debates” on the air for 2-3 minutes, and then on to the next thing. you can google his forecast wins and busts. joe bastardi at accuweather has a similar “greatest hits” album out there.]
Reminds me of a story I once heard. If you want a lifetime of gainful employment, be an economist that always predicts doom and gloom. In good times they can afford to keep you on because they can use a contrary opinion. In bad times they keep you on because you are right.
Fox always has to do ten things at once, never content to simply let one person talk. Always a split screen, crawl underneath, sound fx in background, backbeat and whoosh noises under it all.
Split screen with Corbyn, announcer tells us “We’re looking at video of extreme snow in London.”
Really? Snow was falling, but most North Americans would call it a dusting, not “extreme snow”!
What he’s doing is no different to the methods the warming fiddlers use: if the temperature is generally on an upward trend, you’re going to be correct more often than not when you forecast warming. If the temperature is generally on a downward trend, you’re going to be correct more often than not when you forecast cooling.
In conclusion, nobody has a ******* clue what they’re talking about when it comes to medium and long-term projections. Economists are the same. The system is too complex to be understood well enough to forecast a priori.
In the same forecast Piers also had this to say:
unfortunately he is totally wrong!!
Brisbane has experienced cold weather with record heavy rain and floods and 21 – 24C temperatures.
So he was right regarding extreme weather but the wrong kind.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/qld/brisbane/brisbane
I find I have to be very careful not to only listen to those who say what I like to hear. Otherwise, I would pay a lot more attention to Mark Madriga’s forecasts on Yiddish Columbia Turkey Vision here in BC. He says what all the big city folk want to hear.
Still, it was fun to watch Piers. Entertaining fellow. He’d make a great TV weatherman.
His drive-by comments regarding lunar/solar/oceans/virgin sacrifices are just too much for me. Stop the drivebys and tell us the mechanism -with calculations- you subscribe to.
He’s been amazingly wrong with regard to weather in the USA. He predicts tornadoes in the Midwest or South during tornado season, and rain in the Midwest or South during rain season, and if any rain or tornado shows up in the Midwest or South, he claims success. He treats the entire USA as if it were a tiny island, not a vast land mass that has all kinds of weather going on year round. He rarely pinpoints where his predicted disaster storms are going to strike in the USA, rather he gives himself tens of thousands of square miles to work with. His Florida/Southeast hurricane predictions this year were a spectacular flop, but he still claims success.
He reminds me a lot of the AGW soothsayers who make such broad and varied predictions that no matter what happens they claim they predicted it. The fact that he isn’t one of their camp doesn’t mean he isn’t blowing the same hot air.
Janama, Brisbane is experiencing the australian monsoon now. So the difference between forecast and actual is where the limit of the monsoon reaches southward. Since this weather system boundary is sharp, the contrast between being off for a hundred kms is starck: either heatwave or deluge. Given the powerful winter enjoyed in the Northern Hemisphere, and rising pressures anticyclones from Antarctica, this monsoon line has been confined in a relatively narrow corridor, hence the deluge of rains. I would argue that it is more the intensity that Piers is warning about in his long term forecast. Anyway beats the heck of the IPCC clowns’ own forecasts…
crosspatch says:
December 27, 2010 at 6:10 pm
“Reminds me of a story I once heard. If you want a lifetime of gainful employment, be an economist that always predicts doom and gloom. In good times they can afford to keep you on because they can use a contrary opinion. In bad times they keep you on because you are right.”
Do you refer to Piers Corbyn or to the AGW proponents when you say “doom and gloom”? From what i’ve heard, Global Warming leads to the extinction of polar bears, penguins, Sanat Claus, millions of climate refugees, flooded cities, well you know the drill. Sounds pretty gloomy to me.
Got it, thanks Ryan!
We don’t have enough knowledge about climate to say anything. If there are a trend occuring it is still inside system noise.
Piers Corbyn’s temper minds me of Oliver Reed’s Vulcan in the Adventures of Baron Munchausen. That would of course make Joe D’Aleo into Sisyphus for rolling out the data endlessly only to be ignored by clueless powers that be, and Joe Bastardi as Atlas, benchpressing the whole world. Go for it guys!
And Icarus? Well it’s the sun, Mr Gore, you were warned that it burns!
Another ice age seems inevitable in just tick or two of geological time. Compared to that, a minor amount of global warming would be a happy accident that allows humans to build their wealth in order to adapt to the ice age to come.
If global warming washes out all the wealth in coastal areas before the ice age, that’s a different story entirely.
I can verify that there is, with certainty, substance to SOME of what Piers Corbyn is doing, but I hasten to add that such nonlinear thinking is beyond most, not because they are incapable, but rather as a result of the way mainstream education & culture are structured.
While it has become untenable for mainstream weather/climate funding bodies to continue denying Piers Corbyn a substantial piece of the action, I would sternly caution Piers to NOT issue forecasts in which he is not confident (or to at least advertise high uncertainty with crystal clarity). In the court of public opinion (which is dominated by sloppy, over-simplistic, linear “reasoning”), nonlinear failures will not be recognized as mere unnoticed switches.
The question we should be asking ourselves is not, “How good were Piers’ forecasts 20 years ago?” but rather, (a) “Does Piers currently have innovative methods that can make a difference in planning weather-dependent operations?” and (b) “Given Piers progress trajectory, where will he be with his methods in 5, 10, or 20 years if his research is well-resourced? – and can such advances be of indispensable value to society & civilization?”
I would like to see what Piers Corbyn could do with the same resourcing level as the UK Met Office over a period of 5, 10, or 20 years – i.e. level the playing field, let the games begin, and see who forecasts better. Make it a competition that drives new insight (something society & civilization need).
Those defending the notion that weather & climate are pure chaos have become hazardous to society & civilization. Make it a fair competition and in the meantime keep in mind that those with the lion’s share of the resources are not only doing a lousy job, but are also innovatively bankrupt. Until climate models can reproduce earth orientation parameters, they are nothing more than a feedback to modelers, repeatedly clarifying, “You’re not there yet, keep trying…”
It will be most entertaining to watch Mr. Corbyn and his predictions over the next few years. Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time. Go forward however, he’ll either turn out to become very famous or fall into the category of just another crackpot who was right some of the time. He’s drawn his line clearly in the sand, (as has Joe Bastardi) and if the decade of 2010-2019 turns out to be warmer than any previous decade on instrument record, and the Arctic Sea ice continues is multi-decade decline, then both men will be quite wrong in both their assumptions and their science. In such a case, it will also be interesting to see how the AGW skeptics who follow Mr. Corbyn and Mr. Bastardi respond if the events I’ve outlined above come to pass. To be fair, if the decade of 2010-2019 turns out to be colder than 2000-2009, and Arctic sea ice begins to show a significant rebound from its current low year-to-year levels, then I (as a 75% warmist) will be shifting my position to 50/50 at the least, and probably become a supporter of these two men…only the years will tell…
There is no stalemate. Thanks for that laugh.
R. Gates you could never EVER hold a candle to either one of these guys….so…as usual, you are out of your league.
You don’t even have a platform to “outline your events”.
Let’s see your science….your calculations.
You won’t because you can’t.
You know just enough to be dangerous but therein lies the fraud.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“[…]then I (as a 75% warmist) will be shifting my position to 50/50 at the least, and probably become a supporter of these two men…[…]”
You do know that that is called ‘hindsight’ and has by definition no predictive skill, right?
Paul Vaughan says:
December 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm
“Those defending the notion that weather & climate are pure chaos have become hazardous to society & civilization. Make it a fair competition and in the meantime keep in mind that those with the lion’s share of the resources are not only doing a lousy job, but are also innovatively bankrupt. Until climate models can reproduce earth orientation parameters, they are nothing more than a feedback to modelers, repeatedly clarifying, ‘You’re not there yet, keep trying…’ “
===================================
Well said as always Paul, and repeated here for effect.
The phrase “innovatively bankrupt” that is CLASSIC and so very very VERY true.
Hope your holiday season is going well!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
DirkH says:
Or, perhaps he is referring to all the “skeptic” armchair economists who are stating (as a matter of assumption, based on what, I do not know) that mitigating our emissions will “wreck our economies”?
The reason why the Met Office gets its forecasts so hopelessly wrong is that they are based on those same computer models on which the IPCC itself relies to predict the world’s climate in 100 years time. They are programmed on the assumption that, as CO2 rises, so temperatures must inexorably follow
http://bit.ly/e6XmE0
Let’s not fall into the trap of making predictions that do not come to fruition. This is where the warmists went wrong.
A possible return of a mini ice age is pure speculation, yet a Dalton Minimum looks a good bet.
Didn’t Piers first gain a reputation by betting on the weather, until he was banned by the British bookmakers because of his accuracy?
kim says: December 27, 2010 at 5:21 pm
We are cooling, folks; for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
Most recent warming half-cycle peaked in 1998, so that puts us about ten years into a stable to cooling half-cycle. So we have another twenty years of coolth, then back into warming.
Assuming, of course, that the Holocene continues.
DirkH says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:07 pm
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm
“[…]then I (as a 75% warmist) will be shifting my position to 50/50 at the least, and probably become a supporter of these two men…[…]”
You do know that that is called ‘hindsight’ and has by definition no predictive skill, right?
_____
Currently, being a 75% “warmist” I’ve cast my lot with the belief that 2010-2019 will be warmer than 2000-2009 and that we’ll see a continued decline in Arctic Sea ice. Furthermore, we’ll see (over the period of the decade) a continued rise in ocean heat content, continued melting of permafrost, continued acceleration of the hydrological cycle, continued cooling of the statosphere, and continued acidification of the oceans. These are fairly specfic forecasts made by the best GCM models. They are happening now (as forecast) as should continue to happen so long as CO2 continues to build as rapidly has it has over the past few hundred years.
However, it could just be the case that some other event (solar or longer term ocean cycle) has fooled the “honest warmists” (those who really have no political axe to grind) such that this other event just so happens to have displayed the exact same set of events as forecast to happen by the effects of global warming. I, unlike some in the “warmist” camp, hold out the possibility this other event could actually exist. This may be (and likely is) because of my lack of a professional scientific background, or perhaps because I like to think there as still grand surprises for us that nature has yet to reveal. Either way, it keeps me always looking out for the possibility that men such as Mr. Corbyn could just be on to something worth taking a look at, as since I’ve got no dog in this fight, I’ve got nothing but time to see how Mr. Corbyn’s predictions pan out. I suspect we’ll look back on him 10 years from now and think what a crackpot he was, but if he turns out right, then I’ve learned something either way….
VICTOR says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:27 pm
The reason why the Met Office gets its forecasts so hopelessly wrong is that they are based on those same computer models on which the IPCC itself relies to predict the world’s climate in 100 years time.
______
Or it could be that the best GCM’s (which did not predict the steep decline in arctic sea ice in 2007) are incapable of seeing the deterministic but unpredictable chaotic effects of a climate system on the edge of chaos. Accurate modelling of exactly what will happen when there is more open water later in the season (as there is in the Arctic this winter) is impossible. These are chaotic effects that can only begin to be understood as they happen. Arctic sea ice is currently (as of Dec. 27, 2010) at it lowest level of extent for this date on satellite record. Could this low level of Arctic Sea ice and the cold winter in Europe be related? The “warmest” camp would say it is possible…Mr. Corbyn (and probably Joe Bastardi as well) would not necessarily connect to the two events.
Clearly many here are playing devil’s advocate, attempting to rouse Piers into the state most articulately portrayed by OneRepublic in their song “Secrets”:
“So tell me what you want to hear,
Somethin’ that’ll light those ears,
Sick of all the insincere…”
“Thought you saw me wink, no…”
“‘Til all my sleeves are stained red,
From all the truth that I’ve said…”
“This time, don’t need another perfect lie,
Don’t care if critics ever jump in line…”
“…all the problems we could solve…”
“I’m gonna give all my secrets away.” – OneRepublic – “Secrets”
I don’t buy the standard line that methods can’t be made public because of research-investor concerns. I speculate that that’s just a convenient straw man. The real reason is far more likely to be physical than financial – i.e. because weather records don’t go back far enough for the vast majority of the globe (including Australia, Canada, & USA). (Additionally, Piers barely has enough staff/resources to forecast for just Europe – and for some parts of the world there are additionally data quality issues beyond record-length limitations.)
Piers, given the clear frustration of some who are either incapable or incompetent at nonlinearly analyzing solar & lunisolar data themselves, maybe consider not issuing USA, Canada, & Australia forecasts when your confidence isn’t 95% or more. It’s not like these folks like the dogma being pushed by their local weather & climate authorities – and that frustrated linear anger readily transfers, as evidenced by the knives in your back. A high solar- & lunisolar-based forecasting success rate for UK alone should be enough to get other agencies from around the world interested (in the closet – i.e. secretly) in what you are doing. Publicly taking on USA & other places lacking sufficient records might be too much of a short- to medium-term liability for the nonalarmist & climate science reform movements. A lot is at stake; I advise against accepting high & unnecessary risk (and I suspect Piers is already thinking this way – see “convenient straw man” explanation above).
OneRepublic – “Secrets”:
http://www.onerepublic.net/secrets/
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHm9MG9xw1o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]
Love the cello part.
Amusing… the “Google Ad” for the US Chamber of Commerce position on Global Warming gives a broken link… wonder if that’s prophetic 😉
Pamela Gray says:
December 27, 2010 at 6:53 pm
His drive-by comments regarding lunar/solar/oceans/virgin sacrifices are just too much for me. Stop the drivebys and tell us the mechanism -with calculations- you subscribe to.
Absolutely with you on this. If it worked, he could publish it because the calculations would make sense. Of course, everyone is reduced to speculation when it comes to Piers Corbyn’s method. Even when he said he would share it, it was precious little detail. Enough to amount to no detail at all. I don’t trust those types of scenarios as a rule of thumb. Bernie Madoff anyone?
As a Canadian, I am putting my money in beaver pelt futures. It seems the EU may need them once again. The alarmists need to shut up now. I say that with the best of intentions for all.
Pamela Gray says:
December 27, 2010 at 6:53 pm
“His drive-by comments regarding lunar/solar/oceans/virgin sacrifices ……”
Darn it! I take a little sabbatical and I miss a virgin sacrifice!
‘Oh, the weather outside is frightful,
But the fire is sooooo delightful!’
Happy New Years Everybody!
R Gates said: “Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time.”
Perhaps he really meant asserted, alleged, hypothesized. Shown would involve actual facts. You know, things that are actually observed and measured. Hard to square with their earlier assertions that snow would be rare.
Don Easterbrook has come at the issue as a geologist and been asserting a 30-year coldening. He seems to base his forecast on the PDO cycle.
The historic record shows cycles. When the models and the theory around AGW replicate the cycles they may begin to be believable.
Look , it’s clear that weather forecasting is serious business.
Piers Corbyn clearly forecast the blizzards for NE USA and the UK cold winter temps yet he clearly blew the predictions for SE Queensland.
It only proves that short term forecasts are serious business therefore long-term forecasts are near impossible!!
I don’t understand the people who are calling on Piers to release his methodology and data.
The man is NOT publishing in a journal. The man is NOT looking for grants.
The man runs A BUSINESS which he developed himself. He does NOT require peer review.
His is the ultimate peer review, i.e. if he is wrong enough times, nobody will buy his product and his business will fail.
Now put the Met Office to the same test. They should have gone bankrupt years ago. Imagine if Piers says he doesn’t provide long range forecasts anymore. He’d shut down instantly.
The fact that the Met Office doesn’t do long range forecasts anymore is an admission that they have failed, yet they still receive millions, their executive still receive BONUSES let alone salaries. Piers should be so lucky.
love it!
stinkyanddinky@yahoo.com
ShrNfr says:
December 27, 2010 at 5:29 pm
If he can predict correctly and give the scientific methodology that is testable to predict in the future, then he is more than worth listening to.
As long as he has not explained his ‘method’ it is worthless as science. But ‘there is a sucker born every day’, so he’ll continue to have clients as long as he does not divulge his method [who would pay money for something everybody could do by just following the recipe?]
R. Gates wrote:
1. “[…] deterministic but unpredictable chaotic effects of a climate system on the edge of chaos […]”
Suggested: Consider the possibility suggested by Russian scientists: strange nonchaotic attractors (which would still be very difficult to figure out).
2. “Accurate modelling […] is impossible. “
So long as absolutely untenable assumptions continue to be made, yes – for sure.
3. “[…] has fooled the “honest warmists” […]”
Of course the dishonest ones couldn’t be fooled, right?…
4. “Could this low level of Arctic Sea ice and the cold winter in Europe be related? […] Mr. Corbyn […] would not necessarily connect to the two events.”
You clearly don’t follow Corbyn’s work carefully if this is what you think. You’re possibly being sidetracked by his political rants (which serious, sensible folks ignore). I ignore his speculative musings about an ice-age (because I’m a nonalarmist). The theatrics are aimed at some audience other than the serious, sensible nonalarmist audience, which listens to him only to pick up whatever clues (about truly substantive insights) slip here & there.
I don’t know if the political theatrics are a seriously misguided requirement of some investors (with incredibly bad judgement), but that is the clear impression that is left optically.
R. Gates, I suggest applying a very thick filter when listening to Piers; just skim off all the useless hyperpartisan political junk & be left with the useful substantive bits about solar wind, lunisolar modulations, etc. (you’ll find they can be verified via data exploration, even if they can’t be physically substantiated using current mainstream knowledge) – i.e. don’t be deliberately thrown off the trail by a tactic designed to cause alarmists to tune out and miss the substantive bits.
Best Regards.
Terry Jackson wrote, “[…] has come at the issue as a geologist and been asserting a 30-year coldening. He seems to base his forecast on the PDO cycle.”
Don’t fall for that junk. It’s not that simple.
Mike Mc @ 9:02 PM
I’m with you through 2030, but what about the Livingston and Penn’s Cheshire Cat Sunspots, and the coming Eddy Minimum?
And what about Koutsoyiannis?
Heck, I don’t even KNOW we’re cooling, I’m just betting the odds. And they say short term cooling, long term cooling, longer term cooling and longest term cooling. We’re gonna soon be wishing CO2 had a little more anthropogenic global warming about it.
===========
Terry Jackson says:
December 27, 2010 at 10:10 pm
The historic record shows cycles. When the models and the theory around AGW replicate the cycles they may begin to be believable.
Indeed, they do. The longer versions surely show some relation to time and which phase H2O exists in. Most of the time, very icy, sometimes, warm. Not sure how this is all explained by CO2, when the 800 year lag problem is acknowledged. I realize it has been explained, and that the explanation is that CO2 doesn’t cause the initial warming, but once released causes a sort of stabilization pattern. Great.
One small problem. In the time frame of 800 years, there is a lot of solar forcing going on. Ask Leif for the amount of total received energy from the Sun. Compare it to the amount of forcing received from added CO2. Over an 800 year period. Perspective is in order, for sure. There is another explanation. ~70% of Earth is ocean surface, but much of the ground surface is covered in ice, also. More so in Ice Ages. The Sun’s interaction with H2O is very important, and the long term record shows there are indeed regime changes. What causes them is poorly defined by the current scientific literature.
R Gates said: “Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time.”
That is a hindsight prediction, correct? Easy to predict after the fact. I remember only reading of snow being a past memory in about this time frame in England.
Also from what I have read those wonderful GCM’s you expose to seem to have difficulty predicting hindsight.
I have only be watching Piers for a year or so.
His site gives audited reports of his previous predictions.
Has anybody checked these out?
Does this ignore many of his failed predictions over the same period or is it valid?
My completely subjective impressions about his predictions follows:
1. He seems to be more accurate that the now withdrawn seasonal predictions of the UK Met.
2. He makes very precide predictions for the UK and Europe, nominating exact dates some weeks in advance.
3. He claims 85% accuracy.
4. His predictive skill falters badly when he ventures down to Australia.
But hey! The Australian BOM were remarkably accurate until recently during our very long dry spell, now ended. These days they mainly say “fine with some rain” or words to that effect. Their models appear to be tuned to global warming and at present have lost the plot. I’m sure they are furiously relearning and their skill will improve once again.
Piers comes from a long line of long term forecasters.
We have had them in Australia since the mid 19th century.
They have had some remarkable successes and some very embarrasing flops.
But then, forecasting is difficult, particlularly forecasting the future.
Myself, having looked very carefully at the 1880-2008 annual NCDC land and sea data, I predicted the onset of the current downswing in the temperature and an uptick in the rain in eastern Australia.
To date, I have been 100% correct.
Not bad for a few days download and excel charting.
But my principal view is that we are in a very interesting time, when the various climate hypothises are being tested.
Will it start to get warm again soon and possibly at an accelerating rate (CO2 AGW)?
Will it go into the normal cool phase of the cycle for the next 30 years, before trending up again?
Or is this the end of the cycles that have existed for the last 150 years – are we about to plunge into a new ice age and will that be little, & short or long and big?
If you think that you know the answer then you just don’t know what you don’t know.
Is it true that bookmakers do not accept bets on weather events from Piers Corbyn? Seem to recall reading that this is the case somewhere. As far as I am concerned any punter that scares the bookies must have a reasonably good system for predicting whatever they are betting on.
John F. Hultquist says: “…Until someone produces a method for doing so and sticks with it for several years the skill of forecasters will be as controversial as which way to hang toilet paper.”
The science is settled, John. Over the top and down the front, where you can always get at it.
I speak as a layman, which, let’s face it many here are; we can only go along with what seems to make sense. And I do go along with the bulk of what Paul Vaughan has said here, especially the “stern cautionary remarks”.
I would go further and say that Piers should not encourage the public to expect miracles, nor unfailing accuracy; this is especially dangerous for us and him in the event of a spectacular error that many warmists will be only too delighted to pounce upon. Not only that but there appear to have been events that he did not see coming, a case in point being that whilst I grant that he did predict this year’s Russian heat wave, he seems to have missed, or at least underrated the gravity of the very heavy monsoons in Pakistan that caused the loss of so much human life and property. He is however now claiming to have predicted these well in advance, but I have never been able to find any trace of his having done so (I would be happy to be shown to be wrong on this).
But I entirely agree with Paul that the time has now come for some body, governmental or otherwise to adequately fund Piers’ work. When all is said and done, his track record at present is such that it has to be money better spent than on the various “green initiatives” we are at present being inflicted with.
My take on Piers Corbyn is that he has one of the best methodological approaches out there right now, but it can still be improved significantly through understanding a few more key parameters in more detail. He’s clearly updated his methods in the past 12 months through adding lunar factors into his algorithms.
Anybody who uses his forecasts needs to be sophisticated enough to realise that they will not be right 100% of the time and that they should be used as guideposts rather than tbe Bible. That doesn’t mean they’re useless, it means they are real weather forecasting tools which can be used as part of decision-making processes in complex uncertain environments.
I don’t know what’s going on in the Arctic right now, but the hiatus in freezing this winter may have significant effects on next summer’s melt. Time will tell on that score, but there is something strange going on there.
If I were the Prime Minister I’d fund him to the tune of £10m a year R+D budget in return for forecasts for councils, transport infrastructure operators and farmers. There would be a rigorous audit of his performance and funding would depend on forecast accuracy reaching an acceptable threshold. There would doubtless be an interactive learning period between him and target customers to identify the most valuable forecasts for them and the key things which must NOT be wrong.
So my position is that I’d back him without considering him to be the Messiah.
re: R. Gates (9:24 pm),
Arctic Sea ice decline, rising ocean heat content, melting of permafrost, acceleration of the hydrological cycle are all associated with a general global warming trend over the last three centuries or so, for example….
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/AprilSeaExtentNordicSeasSince1864.gif (climate4you).
….and like the global temperature (as measured by satellites), the stratospheric temperature has been in virtual stasis for 15 years….
http://climatechangeskeptic.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ls-global-edited.jpg
….and there is insufficient empirical evidence to support the the oceans’ continued ‘acidification’…..
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/OceanAcidification_files/image012.jpg (no recent trend apparent at Monterey Bay Aquarium)…..or any likely biological effects if it is.
All the above are consistent with null hypothesis of ‘climate change’.
The “warmist” models will all continue to show CO2 caused anthropogenic global warming for as long as the entire premise behind global warming is based on the claim that ‘… it must be Co2 because we cannot find any other reason for it’
And will continue for as long as the warmists insist on focusing on tiny portions of the climatic historical record.
If I did my math correctly, IF a single appx 120,000 year glacial-interglacial climate cycle is one climate cycle “day” then the post industrial period of appx 400 years equals appx 4.8 minutes of one climate cycle “day” … and the last 40 years which most of the warmists base most of their claims on is equal to appx. 29 seconds of one climate cycle “day”
The warming alarmists base their doom and gloom on those 5 minutes, or some on just that half a minute, out of one glacial-interglacial climate cycle “day”
Its a simplistic demonstration – but illustrative … the warmists would have us believe they can tell us with accuracy what will happen all day “today” (one 120,000 year climate cycle) by looking at data for just 5 minutes (or some just a half a minute) of the climate cycle “day”
Warmists refuse to answer or address the long term climatic cycles and related historical record – which pretty clearly shows us due, overdue, for a sharp drop – a “tipping” into a glacial period … exactly as has happened every 110,000 to 120,000 years for the last 800,000 years or so record
We all accept that long range forecasts are roughly 50% right. Often they are good, but they can equally be wrong. Since Corbyn has not demonstrated any scientific basis for his predictions, it is unreasonably to value his forecasts over any other. Where he does add value is in (presumably) having a contrary perspective. If all he does is take a regular forecasting model and add in a ‘what if’ perturbation then it gives us the opposite end of the scale. If he says Cold, and the MetOffice says Average, then a canny government employee might hedge his most risky assets. If he says Average too, then there is much less need to plan for an outlier event.
“But ‘there is a sucker born every day’, so he’ll continue to have clients as long as he does not divulge his method”
Just maybe these “suckers” are making good decisions from running their farms and businesses, with bigger profits from using Pier’s forecasts…….then who are the real suckers mate!
Piers doesn’t claim 100% prediction. His record is about 85% correct.
In 2000, the AGW camp claimed that snow is something of the past. Now the claim that this kind of weather is in line with AGW. About 40 years ago we had a similar weather in Europe, as we had for the last 4 weeks. I’ve seen it, both times, with my own eyes. This time AGW is the cause. What was it 40 years ago?
The Time Magazine reported “Another Ice Age” in 1974.
Ireland had the coldes December since 130 years. This means that 40 years ago it was at least a bit warmer.
Whatever it is, it is not caused by CO2! The ice core data shows that most of the recorded time it was colder than today. In between the big and little ice ages it got warm without AGW. That means that something natural makes it warm and cold. The obvious thing is the sun. The CO2 went up an down too, but it was not leading. Why did Al Gore and others show both graphs not on top of each other? Because everyone would see the real cause and action.
Enjoy the warm weather while it last.
Mankind can deal better with warming than with cooling.
The battle between Piers and the Met Office has been going on by proxy for many years. William Hill, the large bookmaker in UK, draws up odds on weather based on Met Office predictions. Piers puts his money where his mouth is and has won significant winnings by betting according to his predictions against the Met Office predictions. So much and so often has he won that he is now banned by William Hill for placing bets. He has just done a public bet, however, with William Hill on the Xmas weather here in UK which has made a healthy profit.
A punter who strikes lucky now and again can make money, but will usually lose it in the long term. That Piers can beat the Met Office regularly at the bookmakers would seem to indicate that he is more than a lucky punter.
Corbyn hasn’t seen the Hudson Bay yet. But o well, that must be on Mars.
I agree with Baa Humbug (us antpiodeans tend to stick together) in that Piers is running a business and running it quite well; he is not chasing peer review or academic honours, he is selling a product – ie, a reasonably accurate longish range weather forecast and if he gets it wrong his business goes tits-up. He would be insane to make his methods and data public as he is not, as stated earlier, chasing academic validation but running a business.
As to the Met Office and their ability to make ultra-long range climate forecasts, I have only recently discovered that they are unsure of their own forecasts 24 hours ahead – they alter their daily forecasts regularly, obviously with one eye on their radar. I get the Met Office forecast each morning around 6.45 am from the BBC website; I was checking my own sheets, on which I enter my daily max, min and rainfall readings, against forecasts one evening recently and I discovered the forecast had been altered on the BBC website. So much for the wonderful Teraflop computer which ‘er in charge tells us enables them to model the climate so accurately for decades into the future! The woman is talking pure bollocks, obviously.
The fact that Piers is still in business speaks volumes. If the Met Office was a private outfit and relied on it seasonal forecasts to bring in the bucks it would be out of business by now. Money talks.
The Corbyn’s are an interesting family: I have long admired his brother who is a very left wing maverick MP who stands out from other politicians because he is a bit wacky; for instance he is always visable in the Commons because he wears a bright pink and red jackets and the local community because his subgarden is full of chickens. But he is more than just a show off, he is a man with priciples who stands by his very strongs views. He was very much against Blair’s wars and the EU superstate. I once almost bought his house where I met his very pretty wife (I later heard other MP’s credited him with having prettiest wife of any MP) who I later heard divorced him because he refused to agree to send his children to private schools. I think his brother has similar wacky traits and strong views, I would often disagree with him but at least he stands up and says what he thinks.
I love what a nice blizzard does to the reputations of long term weather forecasters and politicians.
Especially those politicians who are devoted to the cult of Global Warming.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/12/27/nyc-faced-with-tough-questions-about-blizzard-response/
In the video Corbyn stated that he had predicted severe storms in the US north east (the prediction was from 12th December). The news man replied by saying it hadn’t happened yet.
Of course, now we know that Corbyn’s prediction for the US north-east was, shall we say, chillingly accurate.
Chris
Sun and the major planets determine events in the solar system. Earth as part of this system and slotted between these major players, it is inevitably under the influence and subject to the gravito-magnetic interactions.
Gravity makes ‘things go around’, magnetism provides links, via powerful magnetic storms / ropes including the possible effects on the Earth’s climate as in
the latest finding
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETpr.htm
demonstrated by using simple calculations with the astronomic data alone.
Magnetic fields: Earth’s and the solar appear to be the key to the Earth’s climate:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC20.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
Here in the UK we have high street betting shops where we gamble on anything, sports, election results, snow falling on Christmas Day, etc.
The mark of Piers Corbyn is that the bookmakers will no longer accept his bets on weather. (And gambling winnings are not taxed in the UK).
Hey Gates
While ago you said:
I would seriously doubt there is any 10 year old ice from the Beaufort Sea reaching the Denmark Strait. The existence of such old multi-year ice would surprise me. I’m not saying it is impossible, but I would love to see the data on this.
I provided you with couple of authoritative links:
http://www.greenice.org/Publications/JEODI%20wkshop%20paper.pdf
On the average, it takes ice more than 6 years to drift from the Beaufort Sea to the Fram Strait and one year from the North Pole. During high AO years, ice drift from the Beaufort Sea to the Fram Strait takes more than a year longer, but ice travels faster from the North Pole to the Fram Strait. This condition leads to increased divergence of sea ice, which in turn promotes increased production of more thin sea-ice over the Eurasia Basin.
http://web.gfi.uib.no/publikasjoner/pdf/Kvingedal.pdf
Transpolar Drift Stream collects ice from the Eurasian shelves and transports it across the Pole and towards the Fram Strait within about three years.
I hope you found time to read, but you never came back to say if your ‘serious doubt’, ‘surprise’ and the ‘impossible’ disappeared and facts become new armoury in your arsenal of knowledge.
It would be nice to know that even the ‘learned’ can learn.
Leif Svalgaard says:
“As long as he has not explained his ‘method’ it is worthless as science. But ‘there is a sucker born every day’, so he’ll continue to have clients as long as he does not divulge his method [who would pay money for something everybody could do by just following the recipe?]”
Three or four years ago, Piers gave an after-dinner talk to some thirty-five to forty senior actuaries. While he did not produce detailed formulae, he explained his methods clearly and and all questions to the satisfaction of some of the toughest mathematicians and and statisticians in the UK.
Unlike the Met Office and many other medium and long range forecasters Piers is not funded by goverments and has to rely on commercial sales. Why should he be expected to freely give away his commercial secrets?
It was obvious to me when the AGW crowd changed their Gore-ian chant to “climate change” that many probably saw the writing in the yellow snow.
Meanwhile: “US Scientists Top Fraud List”.*
I wonder how many AGW scientists made the list?
*http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/25/u-s-scientists-top-research-fraud-list-how-concerned-should/
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:24 pm
DirkH says:
Currently, being a 75% “warmist” I’ve cast my lot with the belief that 2010-2019 will be warmer than 2000-2009 and that we’ll see a continued decline in Arctic Sea ice.
=====
Stalin once said that it does not matter who votes or for what: it matters who counts the votes.
We are all in for colder weather, but each year will be the “hottest ever in the history of the world”. If I was in charge of the temperature data sets then you would see that the planet is not warming; at least not like James Hansen claims.
Every time I read about some temperature station with a long term data set that is rural, I find no warming or cooling. Why is that? Should not the rural stations in the USA show raw data that is in line with your “75% warmist” position?
If the whole planet is warming in an alarming fashion; why do the “experts” have to “adjust” the data to show that? Should not the temperatures cause the thermometers to show increased temperatures without any anthropomorphic help?
Anything is possible says:
“Piers Corbyn has been predicting winter snowstorms in the UK for the last 30 years, usually with a very poor record of success.
Striking paydirt this year does not make his “tea leaves” any better than anyone elses.”
But whereas Piers gets some of his predictions wrong … the Met Office have got all their global warming forecasts wrong!
Jo Bastardi is a more conventional metrologist and he basically comes up with forecasts similar to Piers’.
Craig W,
Thanks for that link.
For the folks who stumble over here from realclimate, just cut ‘n’ paste the following comment [from below Craig’s linked article] It’s mindless, and it will save you lots of typing:
Readers gave the poster 3 thumbs-up, and 18 thumbs-down. So much for consensus.
Everything is attributed to “climate change,” as usual. But the question the alarmist crowd always avoids is: what verifiable harm has the increase in the minor trace gas CO2 actually caused?
If any warmist takes the bait, be prepared to show convincing evidence that it is CO2 that is causing the harm.
Otherwise, it’s just natural climate variability.
Is Piers Corbyn Bob Geldof’s dad? We Brits do eccentics so well, don’t you think? Trouble is – they’re often right!
At least you won’t hear Corbyn blaming global cooling when the winters are unseasonably warm. And why are there so many odd people in Britain anyway?
Just two quotes:
“My solar-magnetic theory”…..
“You have not see anything yet……”
Buy more popcorn!
R Gates said:
“Furthermore, we’ll see (over the period of the decade) a continued rise in ocean heat content, continued melting of permafrost, continued acceleration of the hydrological cycle, continued cooling of the statosphere. These are fairly specfic forecasts made by the best GCM models. They are happening now (as forecast) as should continue to happen so long as CO2 continues to build as rapidly has it has over the past few hundred years.”
That is the key but at present ocean heat content is on the cusp of starting to fall having ceased rising and the stratosphere has ceased to cool and may be warming a little. The water cycle is slowing down as jetstream zonality decreases.
So AGW now relies not on current observations but on past observations that have already changed trend. Hence the reliance on a decadal timescale. The entire theory is now at the mercy of ongoing observations that run counter to the theory and to salvage that theory they need to see another reversal and soon.
Such a further reversal must be in the absence of a reinvigorated sun and in the absence of powerful El Ninos otherwise it does not help them one jot.
Meantime in the UK 500,000 old people take to their beds in a effort to stay warm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8210475/Half-a-million-pensioners-spend-Christmas-in-bed.html
Piers record looks impressive when measured against the British Met Office (with help from UAE) medium term forecasts.
Three mild winters and three barbecue summers are the latest attempts,…. all wrong!
However the Met Office forecast could be improved by adding one extra instruction in the supercomputer code.
The extra line would state the opposite of the previous line.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:23 am
You said it….almost all. The only thing missing: The Moon, which modulates between the two extremes of its orbital eccentricity.
R Gates said: “Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time.”
The problem with that is that everything can be attributed to AGW. It can cause warming, cooling, or stable temperatures. It can cause drought, flood, average precipitation. It can cause more tropical storms, less tropical storms, or average tropical storms. No matter what happens, it’s always somehow attributable to AGW.
Well, that isn’t science. If everything that can possibly happen is proof of your theory, your theory has no predictive value. Let me demonstrate:
Monster’s GoreBull Warning Theory
Every earthquake, hurricane, tornado, other natural disaster, terrorist attack, or accident reported by AP or Reuters occurs on a day ending in “y”.
My hindcasting is 100% accurate, and I’m confident that my forecasting shall be as well. The only thing troublesome about my theory is that I can’t translate it into every other language.
In German, for instance, I find that most of these events occur on a day ending in “g”, but about 14.3% of them happen on a day ending in “h”. Furthermore, some German speakers will report an similar number of events occurring on a day ending in “d”. This seems more prevalent in northern latitudes, suggesting a climatological link. I’ll need a lot of funding to flesh out the details. I might have to spend a few weeks in Germany, say during October, to do the proper research.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:45 am
It would be nice to know that even the ‘learned’ can learn.
Wait, comfortably seated, just because:
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Knowledge it is not hidden, it is everywhere , but the “rich ones”, those who already “know it all” just don’t want to see it.
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 28, 2010 at 5:20 am
Jo Bastardi is a more conventional metereologist
Is it any wrong in not being “conventional”?
Me “no entiende”
@Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 10:49 pm
[who would pay money for something everybody could do by just following the recipe?]
Does that go for your job too ? and the MetO for that matter.
I predict that Piers will have a better average for long range ‘weather’ prediction than anyone in the Climatology Field of Hot Global Tea Leaf Reading will average for End of the Century ‘climate’ predictions. I’ll bet (in a manner of speaking) that the London Bookies would give me pretty good odds on that too, if they were confident enough to be around and able to pay off on such a long range bet. What I like most about Piers is that he adds a very good, picturesque, and much needed balance to the Hot Earth Doom-And-Gloomers, and the Algoreistas Sunning their flesh in Cancun these days, and the UN’s “Save-The-World for Big Brother” Mob out trying to stab us in the back and pick our empty pockets.
*facepalm*
Piers is just like the others. His predictions might have been more accurate because they weren’t of the global warming agenda, but he has his own, and it makes him as blind as the other loons. Piers, do the science and stfu about politics of climate change. It will make people more inclined to believe you if you haven’t got an agenda.
@Rhys Jaggar says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:58 am
“If I were the Prime Minister I’d fund him to the tune of £10m a year R+D budget in return for forecasts for councils, transport infrastructure operators and farmers.”
Given such backing, I think Piers would be keen to publish his findings for the advancement of meteorological science and solar science.
Robert of Ottawa says:
December 28, 2010 at 5:20 am
Jo Bastardi is a more conventional metrologist and he basically comes up with forecasts similar to Piers’.
Mostly true. The real Joe Bastardi is a data and weather pattern miner. In that sense, he is more scientist than these AGS Alarmist frauds. Relying on real and reliable data (which by definition means Europe for 200years or so, North Anerica and Australia for 100 years or so, South America and mainland Asia for about 60 years) give Bastardi insight into the weather patterns we are in and what will trigger pattern shifts. Bastardi also sticks to his knitting going out 6 months or so on projections, because that’s where the data and pattern history allows one to go. If Northwest Europe stays cold in january, and the Northeast US has alternating thaws and brief cold spells, Bastardi gets the Nostradamus award for this winter. For me, Bastardi and Lindzen are the most persuasive AGW “skeptic” scientists. In a few years, they may be taking a victory lap.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:45 am
Hey Gates
While ago you said:
I would seriously doubt there is any 10 year old ice from the Beaufort Sea reaching the Denmark Strait. The existence of such old multi-year ice would surprise me. I’m not saying it is impossible, but I would love to see the data on this.
I provided you with couple of authoritative links:
http://www.greenice.org/Publications/JEODI%20wkshop%20paper.pdf
On the average, it takes ice more than 6 years to drift from the Beaufort Sea to the Fram Strait and one year from the North Pole. During high AO years, ice drift from the Beaufort Sea to the Fram Strait takes more than a year longer, but ice travels faster from the North Pole to the Fram Strait. This condition leads to increased divergence of sea ice, which in turn promotes increased production of more thin sea-ice over the Eurasia Basin.
http://web.gfi.uib.no/publikasjoner/pdf/Kvingedal.pdf
Transpolar Drift Stream collects ice from the Eurasian shelves and transports it across the Pole and towards the Fram Strait within about three years.
I hope you found time to read, but you never came back to say if your ‘serious doubt’, ‘surprise’ and the ‘impossible’ disappeared and facts become new armoury in your arsenal of knowledge.
It would be nice to know that even the ‘learned’ can learn.
______
Sorry I didn’t reply on the previous thread. I appreciate you giving me those excellent links.
A few comments:
Those articles are from 2003 and 2005 and are excellent, but seriously outdated. The Arctic is changing FAST. 2007’s dramatic decline (and the subsequent loss of multi-year ice) caught everyone, including the so-called experts off guard. No one saw it coming. Up to 2003 you could possible have gotten 10 year old multi-year ice surviving long enough to make the rotation around the Arctic from the Beaufort all the way across to the Denmark Strait, but the current rate of melting simply isn’t allowing multi-year ice to survive that long. Take a look at this very recent study of the age of Arctic sea ice:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
What you’ll notice (and displayed nicely on in the study link above and elsewhere) is that the multi-year ice rotates to the west, out form the central Arctic and into the Beaufort and melts right there, before ever getting a chance to survive another season to rotate back to the east.
Again, the studies you’ve cited were excellent for their time, but the Arctic ice dynamics have changed since then, and are even changing now. We’ve got the lowest Arctic sea extent right now (12/28) for this date that has ever been recorded since 1979. Right now we’ve got about 1,000,000 sq. km more open water in and around the Arctic then we had in 2002-2003. Not only does this represent area the could have once been multi-year ice, this larger area of open water is undoubtedly changing both the dynamics of future sea ice growth, but also the dynamics of weather patterns around the Arctic. AGW skeptics would like to discount this open water and the related dynamics that both created it and sustain it, but I would suggest they do so at the peril of crippling their own understanding of the rapidly changing Arctic.
Looking at the current chart of the age of arctic sea ice:
@Paul Vaughan says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:35 pm
“I don’t buy the standard line that methods can’t be made public because of research-investor concerns. I speculate that that’s just a convenient straw man. The real reason is far more likely to be physical than financial – i.e. because weather records don’t go back far enough for the vast majority of the globe..”
Lack of regional look-backs do limit the some of the application of the methods, but that would not limit the explanation of the methods.
R. Gates says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:14 am
Don’t worry, there will a time for you too: Just follow this forecast from the (you won’t believe it: It’s from you Holy Church: United Nations):
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/
See the picture in the file: Archivo:y2787e08.pdf at page 50
Ulric Lyons says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:14 am
…though methods have been repeatedly explained here in WUWT, however : “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” Matthew 11:12; Mark 4:9
“Hear this now, O foolish people, without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not, and who have ears and hear not…. 🙂
I vote “broken clock”.
How could it be otherwise?
Has anyone else noticed how Biblical this forum is? In effect, we are now debating whether the king should continue to use the “seers” that were duly appointed by the state religion, even though they failed three harvests running, or change to the prophet who seems to hear the voice of god.
Relevant conclusion? Science is dead or we have been deceived into debating as if science were dead. (Neither the “seers” nor the prophet represent science.) Whose fault is this? That has a simple and straightforward answer. It is the fault of the Warmista. They continue to present us with policy initiatives that they say are based on the best science, yet they fail to produce the science. The best that they produce are nothing more than learned hunches. They have yet to produce one reasonably confirmed hypothesis as an explanation of some phenomenon. But they adamantly refuse to discuss scientific method because they know they can only suffer from such a discussion. The whole problem, then, is that in pushing junk-science on the public, the Warmista have moved us away from science altogether.
If Corbyn has no hypotheses behind his work, he is no better than the Warmista on methodological grounds, but he might be far superior to them on observational grounds. Tycho Brahe’s observations of planetary motions were far superior to those of Copernicus though both men were equally committed to hypotheses that would prove false.
R Gates writes: “Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time.”
Really if you do not have the background to easily dispose of the Petoukhov cart-before-the horse paper and the Cattiaux et al. 2010 tele-connection paper, you need only to go to school and study meteorology and climatology rather than pontificating that you understand anything about the discussion.
Oh good heavens! Since 1979??!?!?!!! Such a long time ago. Such a long record. Anything that long in existence must have significant information in it that can be used to predict what will happen in the future. For sure.
Whipper snapper.
To some passionate folks: Just drop your belief…it won’t change your ideals, even the new approach could make them more acceptable for everyone.
R. de Haan, a nice blizzard does nothing to the reputations of long term weather forecasters and politicians. The former can have no reputation because longer term weather forecasting for over two weeks or so is impossible. And politicians? Well.
Piers Corbyn would have had some reputation to speak of had he predicted the first timer of a Hudson Bay not frozen over by the end of the year, or had he predicted the record warm northern hemisphere winter of 2009-2010.
Maybe one …not so good prediction by Corbyn is the volcano warning of 20th April 2010, almost a week after the Iceland volcano:
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact3&fsize=0
“Iceland volcano powers-up! WeatherAction warnings of volcano AND wind changes confirmed”.
I’m skeptical that Corbyn’s prediction within a week is better than these from super computers. Corbyn is a business man, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the solar activity and ENSO connection with local weather pattern is well suited for predictions more than several weeks into the future. I don’t trust that Corbyn is far better than e g Met in every predictions, even if he says that…
I used Weather Action for commercial weather forecasting over a period of three years and found them to be accurate on the whole.- the forecasts were used for 60 day look-aheads for planning to move jackup drilling rigs- (the rigs cannot be jacked down into water with a swell greater than 3ft which can cause costly delays to the rig move)
Our Client company saved literally millions of US$ planning operations around weather Action’s forecasts.
Sorry, Corbyn’s volcano warning is absolutely okay, since it’s an ash warning. It’s good!!
Magnus says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:25 am
I’m skeptical that Corbyn’s prediction within a week is better than these from super
computers.
Modelers are losing money: There a big commercial niche for a “WII Climate”, “X-Box Climate”…etc.(of course just for fun, as the real models and modelers).
@Theo Goodwin says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:48 am
“(Neither the “seers” nor the prophet represent science.) ”
Is that the voice of God, Theo, or just your hypothesis ?
[Alas dear Ulric – But today, is not the profit in the “science” ? …. 8<) Robt]
R. Gates says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:14 am
Those articles are from 2003 and 2005 and are excellent, but seriously outdated. The Arctic is changing FAST.
Out of date? I doubt it. I think you maybe putting the cart in front of the horse. It is not ice that determines the Arctic temperatures, it is the Arctic temperatures that determine amount of the ice. There is a 100 + years excellent correlation between Arctic magnetic field, Arctic temperature and the AMO, regardless of amount of ice.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Ice coverage varies with seasons, years decades, but underneath there is huge ocean 3km + deep, it is its currents and the thermal capacity of those waters that matter.
Thanks Ryan, very enjoyable article.
It is the Sun, who would have thought?
Happy New Year!
The Arctic OHC is dropping. How does that fit into the Arctic is “changing fast” meme?
Magnus says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:25 am
… I wouldn’t be surprised if the solar activity and ENSO connection with local weather pattern is well suited for predictions more than several weeks into the future.
They are not, at least not outside the tropics. Proving this is actually easy. Calculate simple statistical correlation between any weather measure and solar activity and/or ENSO in any temperate or (Ant-)arctic spot. You will find none. Any connection is lost in the butterfly effect. The latter proves that weather prediction for further than a couple of weeks is actually physically and mathematically impossible.
“Corbyn believed global warming ‘is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.'”
There is no global warming, but global thawing is very real. The Earth has been thawing since the last severe advance of ice about 11,500 years ago. And until the next major advance of ice, the planet, on average, will continue to thaw.
The thawing is punctuated by variations in solar behavior. Right now, we are experiencing a temporary cold spell that could last for about 150 years, but eventually we will return to planetary thawing.
David Thomson says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:11 am
we are experiencing a temporary cold spell that could last for about 150 years, but eventually we will return to planetary thawing.
Not everything is lost for Global Warmers….just wait 150 years (if you can).That’s a good comfort!
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm
It will be most entertaining to watch Mr. Corbyn and his predictions over the next few years. Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time.
—–
R.Gates, I know you are one of the ‘honest warmers’ out there, but even you must be (or at least should be) uncomfortable with the malleability of AGW hypothesizing by now. Not once, anywhere in the mainstream AGW community, were more extreme, cold, and snowy winters forecast. Mild winters, with snow a thing of the past, were all we read about.
Now, with those predictions dashed, the hypothesis is revised to allow for a conceivable mechanism by which AGW could be causing this cold winter. But, given this revision, AGW must be reduced back to conjecture status, to allow for actual science (testing, measuring, verifying, reproducing, falsifying, rinse, repeat) to test this new proposed mechanism.
Yet, all we hear from the Believers is that AGW is as strong as ever, and there is no empirical evidence that will apparently falsify it (last night on Fox News, for example, an AGW supporter said the only thing that will falsify it will be stable, unchanging weather — a non-existent paradigm). I’m not sure how any clear-thinking person could ever get to even 75% certainty that AGW is happening. AGW as a legitimate scientific hypothesis would have died on the vine back in the 80s, under normal scientific methodology. Only political machinations kept it alive since, not sound science.
Ulric Lyons says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:37 am
@Theo Goodwin says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:48 am
“(Neither the “seers” nor the prophet represent science.) ”
“Is that the voice of God, Theo, or just your hypothesis?”
Obviously, Ulric, since the “seers” have produced not one reasonably confirmed hypothesis, with the exception of the 1850 account of CO2, they cannot represent science. I might have prejudged Corbyn, so that part is my hypothesis. Just think, Ulric, you can produce one reasonably confirmed hypothesis by climate scientists and show me wrong.
Play lots of poker or contract bridge. Learn about the theory of probability, and the nature of random distributions.
My wonderful teacher of physics (and math) in high school explained how “weather” works, and the randomness of wind flows, and why wind flows are random.
When H2O is entered into the mix, using temperature as a proxy for heat gain or loss is absurd.
I certainly can’t predict the future, and no one can. However, I can analyse the present. For instance, if I correctly set up a stick of dynamite with a 10 minute fuse and cap, and then light the fuse, it doesn’t take the ability of peering into the future to determine that 10 minutes into the future, there will be an explosion.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2010 at 9:45 am
R. Gates says:
December 28, 2010 at 8:14 am
Those articles are from 2003 and 2005 and are excellent, but seriously outdated. The Arctic is changing FAST.
Out of date? I doubt it. I think you maybe putting the cart in front of the horse. It is not ice that determines the Arctic temperatures, it is the Arctic temperatures that determine amount of the ice. There is a 100 + years excellent correlation between Arctic magnetic field, Arctic temperature and the AMO, regardless of amount of ice.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Ice coverage varies with seasons, years decades, but underneath there is huge ocean 3km + deep, it is its currents and the thermal capacity of those waters that matter.
______
I very much respect your opinion, but I think you simplify things a bit. It is not simply Arctic “temperatures” that determine the amount of ice, when winds, currents, etc. also play a role. And by temperatures, I take it you mean water temperatures as well? Certainly, as you’ve carefully explained, a great deal of thermal capacity is in the Arctic water. More open water in the winter certainly means more of that heat is being transferred to the atmosphere. With approximately 1,000,000 sq. km. more open water in and around the Arctic this winter than in 2002 or 2003 (for example), and the lowest amount of sea ice we’ve ever recorded for Dec. 28th, might not this alter polar weather? Just a question…
Regardless, I shall follow your given link and study this proposed relationship between sea ice and the magnetic field. Thanks.
The Corbyn Effect:
Just when the Goliath AGW monster, backed by its equally horrific robo-predictor is threatening all in the village with certain death unless they turn over all their worldly goods, up from a gopher hole pops Piers (David) Corbyn, who with one swing of his sling hurls a deadly prediction that pierces the head of the Goliath, causing it to explode in a great snowstorm – to the absolute delight of the villagers, who commence dancing about and singing Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead.
Just the fact that MET got it so disastrously wrong is not news. But when a little guy like Piers embarrasses all the “scientists” and politicians who are bent on extracting many pounds of flesh from the people, the public LOVES the story, which is now going international and viral. So now, Piers is getting ALL the press and isn’t afraid of saying straight up, no waffling, that AGW is rubbish. THIS is what people in the public are going to remember – that a little guy with no funding got it right, while all the other big shots, who are by the way, demanding payment for salvation, got it very, very wrong.
We may very well find that Piers has done more damage to the AGW cause among the general public in a week than all the scientific contention and email leaks combined.
DR says:
December 28, 2010 at 10:03 am
The Arctic OHC is dropping. How does that fit into the Arctic is “changing fast” meme?
____
Please do give your sources for this…and please don’t simply give current sea surface temps for the Arctic region as any school boy knows, OHC and sea surface temps simply “ain’t da same thing…”
We didn’t know how aspirin worked until the 1970s (I think that was the decade the prostaglandin link was described), but:
1) It was recommended by physicians throughout the world.
2) There was good science that showed it was effective.
If Piers has a good track record (preferably against something more reputable than the Met Office) and is graded sensibly (all this adulation and the second storm of his forecast seems missing is not sensible), then I have no trouble embracing his forecasts. Until then, they make good entertainment but are not something I’d plan a trip around.
I am pretty horrified at the adulation on WUWT over last weekend’s storm. It makes as much sense as saying the storm was caused by global warming.
Livingston & Penn’s original paper was rejected by Science because it was mostly a statistical study and didn’t present a mechanism for the weakening magnetic fields. I think that was a poor reason to reject the paper. I wonder if the reviewers ever used aspirin.
Simpson’s Paradox in action:
1. RR Kampen wrote, “[…] lost in the butterfly effect. The latter proves that weather prediction for further than a couple of weeks is actually physically and mathematically impossible.”
Foolhardy. Dangerous to society & civilization.
2. Laurence N. Sheehan, PE wrote, “Learn about the theory of probability, and the nature of random distributions” / “[…] how “weather” works, and the randomness of wind flows, and why wind flows are random.”
The assumption of randomness is absolutely untenable.
—
Ric Werme, perhaps you can be more specific about exactly which empirical relations (not to be confused with mechanisms which can be physically substantiated using mainstream knowledge) noted by Piers Corbyn you find suspect. Your comment suggests that you have passed judgement without first doing a nonlinear audit.
—
R. Gates: Whether or not climate change is caused by humans is not the issue.
Colin from Mission B.C. says:
December 28, 2010 at 11:22 am
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm
It will be most entertaining to watch Mr. Corbyn and his predictions over the next few years. Since ‘warmist’ scientists have shown why this winter’s cold and snowy Europe can also be attributed to AGW, we have a bit of a stalemate at the present time.
—–
R.Gates, I know you are one of the ‘honest warmers’ out there, but even you must be (or at least should be) uncomfortable with the malleability of AGW hypothesizing by now…
____
Certainly, to some extent it seems that some AGW proponents never met a weather/climate event they didn’t want to try to study and tie to AGW. Some of these attempts are motivated by honest science and some are certainly just the perpetual chase of the research dollars. But in the midst of all the “noise”, from both sides of this issue, I try to go back to the most fundamental of forecasts made by every GCM when looking at the what the buildup of GH gases is supposed to do to our planet, and that fundamental forecast is for the first and most extreme signs of AGW are to be seen first in the Arctic. As of today, 12/28/10, we have the lowest recorded Arctic Sea Ice extent for this date (based on satellite data). This is entirely consisent with (but of course does in no way prove) the AGW hypothesis. Now, if additional researchers want to say that the 1,000,000 more sq. km. of open ocean that we have this year versus say 2002 can be causing atmospheric changes that could lead to cold air being forced from the Arctic over Europe and causing more severe winters, then I will consider that. It could be pure bunk, just as Mr. Corbyn’s theories could be. But neither of these goes against the fundamental AGW forecast of a rapidly changing Arctic (which by any honest standard) is happening (if you ask those who actually live there for example).
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“However, it could just be the case that some other event (solar or longer term ocean cycle) has fooled the “honest warmists” (those who really have no political axe to grind) such that this other event just so happens to have displayed the exact same set of events as forecast to happen by the effects of global warming. I, unlike some in the “warmist” camp, hold out the possibility this other event could actually exist.”
R. Gates, “the other event” that “fooled the honest warmists” is a mythical non-entity. They have fooled themselves by tuning “the best GCM’s of the world” exactly for perfect hindcasting UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEIR CO2 CONJECTURE IS RIGHT. It is curve-fitting what they do. Willis’ recent post about their wholesale invention of past black carbon and aerosol forcings should give you a hint.
They have made the GCM’s to prove the CO2 conjecture, and that’s what the GCM’s do, but only for the past – it always breaks down with new ‘controversial’ data – and the data has to be discredited and adjusted, see ARGO, see UHI, see GISTEMP. This doesn’t quite suffice, so they also have to fudge their models some more, see Latif, see Petroukhov.
They are not Janus-faced – Janus was able to see into the past with one face and into the future with the other face. The AGW modelers are only able to see into the past. See Met Office.
Still waiting for the superstorms he predicted…. Never happend…
AGW proponents said that the warming of the globe would cause more zonal/poleward jets and until around 2000 that is exactly what we saw with the mid latitudes warming in both summer and winter as the sub tropical highs also moved poleward as part of the widening of the tropics and sub tropics.
But increasing zonal/poleward jets involves a more positive Arctic Oscillation and a more positive Arctic Oscillation cuts off the poles from inflowing warm air so the Arctic actually gets colder.
Yet at the same time AGW proponents said that a feature of AGW is greatest warming at the poles. That would have required a weaker Arctic Oscillation as more warm air flowed into the Arctic and more equatorward/ meridional jets to facilitate that effect.
So from the very beginning there has been a logical flaw in the scenario presented.
Now we do have more meridional jets and more warming at the poles with cooling mid latitudes and they suggest that that is consistent with AGW too.
So why did they claim ‘credit’ for more poleward jets from 1975 to 2000 ?
Of course they claimed poleward jets as a consequence of AGW because that is what was happening at the time. It didn’t matter to them that that was inconsistent with their own theory when bearing in mind the known characteristics of a positive AO.
So they are now in a gordian knot as follows:
i) If AGW causes the polar regions to warm most then the jets should have moved equatorward from 1975 to 2000 with the mid latitude consequences that we have seen since 2000 (and more pronouncedly over the past three years) but they did not.
ii) Since the jets moved poleward from 1975 to 2000 when they ‘should’ have moved equatorward under AGW then AGW was not the cause of the observed warming.
Comments invited from IPCC et al.
marcoinpanama wrote, “Just when the Goliath AGW monster, backed by its equally horrific robo-predictor is threatening all in the village with certain death unless they turn over all their worldly goods, up from a gopher hole pops Piers (David) Corbyn, who with one swing of his sling hurls a deadly prediction that pierces the head of the Goliath, causing it to explode in a great snowstorm – to the absolute delight of the villagers, who commence dancing about and singing Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead.”
Cute (I had a hearty laugh at the cartoonish portrayal), but the politics are dispensable, while elements of truth (even if they are outnumbered 999 to 1 in Corbyn’s needle-in-a-haystack, watered-down rants) are all that is needed by serious, sensible people. Note the hypocritical side of the double-edge. Allowing politics to color perception of nature is not the antidote, but rather the problem.
—
Ulric Lyon’s wrote, –“@Rhys Jaggar says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:58 am
“If I were the Prime Minister I’d fund him to the tune of £10m a year R+D budget in return for forecasts for councils, transport infrastructure operators and farmers.”
Given such backing, I think Piers would be keen to publish his findings for the advancement of meteorological science and solar science.”–
Sounds affordable, particularly given what other status quo innovatively bankrupt nonsense secures such sums (and sums much greater).
Now, in the short- to medium-term, the problem is just that Corbyn has stirred toxic politics into his messaging. Were I on his payroll, I’d be concerned about my future security, knowing full well how unpalatable this completely unnecessary self-inflicted mess is for those whose families’ well-being depends on re-election.
The clear impression that is left is that delay is not only considered acceptable, but also desirable (for political, not scientific purposes). All the more reason for alarmists to want to publicly fund Corbyn handsomely (far more than £10m/a) & immediately. The politics are not needed – just the substantive bits of knowledge. Sometimes there is a strategic advantage in affording one’s adversary opportunity to save face. For example: How much is the neutralization of a political toxin worth? One way or another, it has become untenable to not fund Corbyn publicly.
Piers rants
—————-
“is complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.”
—————-
This inspires me to look at how Piers gets his forecasts. Will I find any science or facts there?
Mark Cooper says: December 28, 2010 at 9:29 am
There’s the one crucial piece of evidence in this thread.
Climate Scientists openly despise and criticise Piers for not saying how he makes his forecast.
This is hypochrosy of the highest order as when have any of them said openly how they work things out.
Anyway, Piers is more accurate than they are, lets just assume he just has a guess. So if someone just having a guess is more accurate at forecasting than climate science, then climate science really has got a problem.
R Gates,
See Stephen Wilde says: December 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm
The alarmists have back tracked and blamed opposite evidence to their view with hindsight. This was never mentioned before so yet another prediction/assumption that was wrong has been spun by hindsight. The prediction always changes when the event has happened and I’m sorry but many scientists on here know that is not science.
The colder air moving from the pole towards mid-lattitudes with warmer air displacing it there, has happened often in the past and is not caused by AGW thankyou. If it did contribute it would only increase energy in the circulation, but there has been little signs of that with record cold over a number of regions. This cold month in NE USA and Europe would occur with or without AGW. I’m really suprised how gullable some people can be and you have fallen for it big style. What is the evidence that warmist shown this is down to AGW because I don’t see any.
Are you going to demonstrate this to be distinguishable from natural change with the AO and NAO? The North Atlantic has been perfect for supporting negative NAO this Winter with La Nina. Are you suggesting it has also somehow changed the Atlantic ocean too in just a few years and what evidence do you have for this?
I have always been surprised at the anger exhibited by your “average joe” when the weather has turned out to be the opposite of what was forecast. Their pique and disappoinment is often palpable.
Here’s your forecast for the rest of today. It is free of charge and you can “take it to the bank”. Skies will darken later this evening but towards morning, you can expect the skies to considerably lighten.
While the Met Office can fail & fail again & again without losing funding, Corbyn will be knifed in the back at every slip up.
Crucial point:
John Wright wrote, “I would go further and say that Piers should not encourage the public to expect miracles, nor unfailing accuracy […]”
Aggressively agree.
The general public will hold Piers Corbyn to MUCH higher standards, without regard for the principle of fair comparison.
The goal is to beat the success rate of mainstream institutions, forcing a rechanneling of funding streams away from stagnation towards innovation.
R. Gates writes:
“But neither of these goes against the fundamental AGW forecast of a rapidly changing Arctic (which by any honest standard) is happening (if you ask those who actually live there for example).”
Will you please stop using the words ‘forecast’ and ‘prediction’. One cannot have a forecast or prediction of some phenomenon without first having hypotheses that explain the phenomenon forecasted or predicted. The Warmista have none. They have not one reasonably confirmed hypothesis that explains some change in the Arctic. If they had it, you can bet they would produce it. They are not forecasting anything; rather, they are praying that something happens up there that they can interpret (yes, INTERPRET) as consistent with global warming. And you know it.
R. Gates says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:24 pm
I suspect we’ll look back on him 10 years from now and think what a crackpot he was, but if he turns out right, then I’ve learned something either way….
=============================
I suspect we can pretty much look now and say the same thing about you, R. We don’t have to wait 10 years.
As far as Piers….as Paul Vaughan has cautioned you to “put on the filter” for Piers and glean the truth from amidst the fiction.
You should be really good at detecting that, you are a master at doing the exact opposite: hiding the truth in the middle of the fiction.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Stephen Wilde says:
December 28, 2010 at 1:38 pm
“AGW proponents said that the warming of the globe would cause more zonal/poleward jets and until around 2000 that is exactly what we saw with the mid latitudes warming in both summer and winter as the sub tropical highs also moved poleward as part of the widening of the tropics and sub tropics.
But increasing zonal/poleward jets involves a more positive Arctic Oscillation and a more positive Arctic Oscillation cuts off the poles from inflowing warm air so the Arctic actually gets colder.
Yet at the same time AGW proponents said that a feature of AGW is greatest warming at the poles. That would have required a weaker Arctic Oscillation as more warm air flowed into the Arctic and more equatorward/ meridional jets to facilitate that effect.
So from the very beginning there has been a logical flaw in the scenario presented.
Now we do have more meridional jets and more warming at the poles with cooling mid latitudes and they suggest that that is consistent with AGW too.
So why did they claim ‘credit’ for more poleward jets from 1975 to 2000 ?
Of course they claimed poleward jets as a consequence of AGW because that is what was happening at the time. It didn’t matter to them that that was inconsistent with their own theory when bearing in mind the known characteristics of a positive AO.
So they are now in a gordian knot as follows:
i) If AGW causes the polar regions to warm most then the jets should have moved equatorward from 1975 to 2000 with the mid latitude consequences that we have seen since 2000 (and more pronouncedly over the past three years) but they did not.
ii) Since the jets moved poleward from 1975 to 2000 when they ‘should’ have moved equatorward under AGW then AGW was not the cause of the observed warming.
Comments invited from IPCC et al.”
Thanks Stephen for another informative and insightful post which gets to the heart of the failed CAGW conjecture. The IPCC cabal of climate scientists have made no concrete accurate predictions and their reliance on CO2 as the major player in climate change has been falsified.
As rather a scary side note, it is worth remembering that most of Earth’s cooling happens at the poles and the current warmth in the Arctic is a sign that energy is being dumped very quickly. This is driven by the deterministic chaos inherent in our complex dynamic climate system, which reconfigures many of it’s elements to achieve maximum entropy production.
Keep a good supply of food and fuel at home, as I think we are in for a really bad NH winter.
[Alas dear Ulric – But today, is not the profit in the “science” ? …. 8<) Robt]
Today with the myth (AGW gravy), tomorrow with the science :0)
@Paul Vaughan says:
December 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm
“Now, in the short- to medium-term, the problem is just that Corbyn has stirred toxic politics into his messaging.”
Paul, if you were in his shoes, how would you feel if public safety was repeatedly put at risk unnecessarily by not having the best available forecasts provided for them? And power to his elbow for tackling the Irony Tower of AGW, you have to admire his courage ! I suppose its how you tell them though, there is a fine line between the teacher and the critic.
Paul Vaughan says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Simpson’s Paradox in action:
[..]
Foolhardy. Dangerous to society & civilization.
Like all of mathematics? Like all of rock hard reality, Paul? If society is based on idiot beliefs, you might be quite right.
I guess you googled ‘paradoxes in statistics’ (never mind the butterfly effect has absolutely nothing to do with statistics) en hey, you found Simpson’s!
Paul Vaughan says:
December 28, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Be glad to. It would have been courteous of you to provide a link to a web page or PDF that describes them, however, I googled |”piers corbyn” “Solar Lunar Action Technique”| and best I could find was from his web site – “Piers Corbyn’s presentation showed the major advances in power and skill now achieved by his Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique (SLAT)…” That makes it easy:
Solar – of course, otherwise we’d be cold lump (maybe with a warm heart thanks to uranium and thorium decay). Solar change over decades is intriguing, though I rely on Leif to keep one foot on the ground. SC24 and SC25 will be interesting, though I have no idea how one would use that for forecasting nor’easter storm tracks.
Lunar – I kinda like the atmospheric tide idea, I’m not sure if that’s what Corbyn uses.
Action – Physics was my favorite high school class.
Technique – Filler and uniqifier as SLA was a well know TLA (Three Letter Abbreviation) a long time ago.
I’d be glad to do a nonlinear audit if I knew what one was and if I had sufficient interest and time. Until then, I’ll have to leave it to Corbyn’s skeptical fans to do the hard work.
RR Kampenon on my speculation that “solar activity and ENSO connection with local weather pattern is well suited for predictions more than several weeks into the future.”:
“They are not”.
Okay, you say that the butterfly effect proves this. Is the butterfly effect disprove every weather connection to every other phenommenon? Which scientific study says that? I say that more than one scientific paper says such correlation exists. Thus such correlation should exist! One example: Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuations in Eastern Australia.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081202081449.htm
(If you think you know the truth and refuse arguments without checking them, what should we call that if not …some kind of ignorance?)
/br, Magnus A
Here is my sense about AGW flip flops.
One of the reasons why the AO was not considered to have an oscillating long term trend was that data was averaged across all months back in the old days. Why bother with it, the noise cancels its influence to zero, so they thought. Turns out it had a trend but only during certain months. The JFM average shows short term noise, but more importantly a longer term oscillation, whereas the month by month did not. This oscillation was buried in the month by month average so went undetected as a natural oscillating phenomenon. When the strength of the oscillation became powerful enough to show up across the data as a positive condition, it was thought that a tipping point had been reached and was another indication of global warming changes in atmospheric conditions. Then when it started to go strongly negative it was thought that this was the second half of the afore mentioned tipping point.
Now that the AO is more closely followed as a JFM data set, the draw back is that it only comes round once a year. However, it gives these folks at least 6 months and at most 9 months to come up with yet another chapter in how CO2 will be forcing the AO to behave “this time”. I would not give them any credit if they can’t forecast it and explain what it will do beforehand. Any explanations that come after the event is cheating in my book and betrays the underlying “we haven’t a clue” reality.
So, it appears that natural oscillating trends will continue to be woven into the AGW narrative (but only after they occur) as a tipping point phenomenon driven by an incredibly small fraction of an increase in CO2 ppm, and in particular, that part that is caused by anthropogenic sources.
So there you have it, the new and improved scientific process.
Pamela Gray says: (referring AGW and the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere)
“a tipping point phenomenon driven by an incredibly small fraction of an increase in CO2 ppm…”
______
This kind of thinking about the increase in CO2 that we’ve seen since the 1700’s continues to amaze me. We’ve had a 40% increase in this GH gas, and even if you use the “logarithmic” argument, the effect would be significant. You can’t look at simply the raw data of CO2 ppm and draw any conclusions (at least not honest conclusions). Understanding any dynamic process always requires you to look at percentage changes and their relationships to historical averages to begin to see how it could affect the system, and this doesn’t even begin to address any potential nonlinear chaotic effects. I find it interesting that so many skeptics mock the notion of potential tipping points, but this is exactly how it seems the climate behaves, clearly showing that small changes can have big and unpredictable (but still quite deterministic) effects. The huge drop in year-to-year Arctic Sea ice in 2007 could be one such example and the cold and snowier winters for Europe could be another.
RR Kampen, Simpson’s paradox arises when spatiotemporal series are treated as spatially summarized time series. This is well known in some fields. The “mathematical” “proofs” of which you speak exist only in the abstract, as they are based on untenable assumptions. I would issue similar caution to Tenuc.
Ric Werme, thanks for your response. It’s a piece of work assembling the substantive pieces of the puzzle dropped here & there & all over the place by Corbyn. I accept your point that most won’t have time (& in most cases also ability) to figure out what Corbyn is doing. I acknowledge that you make a very important point.
Ulric Lyons, thanks for your comments. The problem in dealing with academics & bureaucrats is that once the trust is perceived to be broken and they turn on you, truth becomes absolutely irrelevant in any ongoing political dealings, replaced by raw instincts of aggressive tribal protection. Leadership is not always related to rank. Piers’ best option is to issue an apology for making offensive comments, publish his knowledge without undue delay, and formally (& respectfully) apply for funding. Pandering to an aggressive & mature hyperpartisan political audience is not the way to convince the innocent children of alarmists. For example, if I publicly accost a child’s parent on the basis of their religion, how well will that do for me if I am seeking widespread public support? Facts aside, our society values freedom of belief.
As for those who think a single small business & its profits are more important than society & civilization: There’s something wrong with your balance. It also doesn’t take an ethicist to see that Corbyn & his employees now deserve secure public funding. Resolving this matter is entirely feasible.
@Paul Vaughan says:
December 29, 2010 at 9:13 am
“Piers’ best option is to issue an apology for making offensive comments…. Pandering to an aggressive & mature hyperpartisan political audience is not the way….”
From here it look like you owe Piers an apology for offensive comments.
I’m with R. Gates. I have heard enough in the past that I am still more convinced by the case for warming. Frankly, I am most convinced by the profit gap between the sides. Retooling for climate change hits the cost column of the biggest power brokers really hard. I would thereby naturally expect them to be campaigning hard to debunk the “warmers.” This then casts doubt on the quality of the overall debate.
But…
I deeply, profoundly hope that Piers is right, and that we don’t need to worry about global warming.
Why?
I do have a “dog in the fight.” She is my nine-year-old daughter, and her future is far more important to me than the outcome of a partisan debate. I want her to live in a comfortable world. And I’ll be mighty pissed if she becomes the victim of a flood that might have been prevented by a little short term inconvenience.
Frankly, given the obviously high average intelligence of other posters to this board, I’m a bit surprised that there isn’t more incredulity on the part of everyone here regarding a case for slacking off on efforts to prepare for possible warming.
Dave Brown says on December 29, 2010 at 12:52 pm
[snip ~ E.] not up to the task of understanding why the biggest oil companies have been supporting the global warming nonsense, then.
Of come off it. Most of us posting here have children. Are you claiming that your daughter will be unable to move out of the way of a flood? The rise in sea level will be obvious if it happens, so there will be time to move.
[snip ~ E.]
The sort of warming we might get (back up to Holocene optimum temps) will be good, on balance. If we get cooling back down to a mini ice age, then things will not be good, and starvation and warfare are likely to occur in big doses. Those are the things that worry me.
Piers at least is having a go at a forecast, below is the UK Met office monthly forecast for the UK. I could have produced this! as it represents a typical January weather pattern in UK, it isn’t a forecast, its just saying what the weather in UK is normally like in January. And we pay for this?
“The weather looks set to remain rather cold for much of this period, with overnight frosts quite likely. However, brief milder interludes are possible particularly in the south and west, with amounts of sunshine perhaps a little above average here. Precipitation amounts are expected to be around or slightly below normal.”
Dave Brown: The issue is not whether humans are or are not causing climate change.
I read his wikipedia bio courtesy of the link at the beginning of the article. Interestingly, it stops looking at his forecasting skill after some failed predictions in 2008. Seems like it would have been updated with recent successes.
I wonder if Connolley, having been banned from editing global warming, has taken to editing Corbyn’s profile?
Some here have conflated Corbyn’s weather forecasting with his climate forecasting. This has caused several fundamental misunderstandings in this thread.
The MET has 3 big winter failures in a row, and Piers is getting long-range forecasting in a high percentile confidence range.
Getting 3 month forecasts correct 80% (or better) of the time, like good meteorologists do for 3 day forecasts, is no small achievement.
Dear Ulric & Piers,
In reasoning with innocents, I would like to suggest that civility & decency demand a degree of restraint. Please bear in mind that there are innocents caught in the crossfire.
Best Regards,
Paul.
—
UK & Other World Governments,
Piers Corbyn’s research needs to be publicly funded without delay. Simpson’s Paradox arises when spatiotemporal series are treated as spatially summarized time series. Blind innocents, including experienced & well educated ones, can easily fall into such traps unknowingly. Better eyesight reveals that the distribution of pressure in the atmosphere is not independent of solar & lunisolar factors. Public funding for an education campaign to raise awareness of the effects of grain & extent on summaries of spatiotemporal pattern (e.g. here) is strongly advised. Piers’ insights can trigger a domino train of advances in climate science.
Sincerely,
Paul Vaughan, B.Sc. (biology/math-stats), M.Sc. (applied stats)
Ecologist, Former Stats Instructor
—
I encourage others, including climate change alarmists, to write to their governments to encourage immediate funding of Piers Corbyn’s research. Society & civilization will benefit from a better understanding of nature.
Best Regards to All.