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.”
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…. 🙂