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.”
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.