I’ve been given a link in email today to a public forecast page for July by weather prognosticator Piers Corbyn, which you can investigate in full yourself here. I find his web pages and forecasts hard to read, and even harder to accept any more, because in my opinion, he presents them like a carnival barker with overuse of exclamation points, bright colors, over bolded texts, random font changes, and fantastic claims. It tends to set off my BS meter like some tabloid newspapers do. Here’s his USA forecast for July:
[UPDATE: 7/8/12 – The full USA forecast has been made available by Mr. Corbyn and is available here for your inspection: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/usa-1207-july-inc-public-summary-news-page-full-fc-key-usa-maps-and-extremes-slat8a-prod-29jun.pdf ]
Some people say however, that despite all that unnecessary gaudiness, he makes accurate predictions. Because he’s made a public forecast and advertised its availability, urging “people to pass the links on”, here’s a chance to find out if he demonstrates the skill that is claimed.
He made this bold claim yesterday:
“Terrible weather is coming the world over this July so WeatherAction has issued free summary long range forecasts for USA and for Europe…”
He sounds like Joe Romm or Bill McKibben talking about “climate disruption”. Of course, it could just be another July in the northern hemisphere. Here’s the rest:
The USA pdf link is issued today on July 4th to go with the Europe link issued the day before. We urge people to pass the links on.
“We also expect very serious near simultaneous solar-activity driven deluges and stormy conditions around the world during our top Red Warning R5 and R4 periods. Any communication of the forecasts must acknowledge WeatherAction”
– Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters
WeatherAction Free Summary Forecast for July USA:-
“Could it get worse? Yes!” – Extreme thunderstorms, giant hail and ‘out-of control’ forest fires’
pdf link = http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No32.pdf
(or no links twitpic = http://twitpic.com/a3y28b/full )
WeatherAction PUBLIC warning Europe July 2012 “Off-the-scale” Flood & Fire extremes likely (WA12No31)
pdf link = http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews12No31.pdf
(or no links twitpic = http://twitpic.com/a3p7pm/full )
The USA forecast map he provides is a bit hard to read, since it seems he scanned it in from print…note the dot patterns in the graphics. I present it here from his PDF page.
Here’s his forecast page for Europe:
He lists “off scale” weather in NW Europe is one of the claims. I wonder how one should define “off scale” weather.
As Carl Sagan once said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
So now that Mr. Corbyn has put forth some extraordinary claims, we can catalog here the evidence to support those claims, and revisit the results at the end of the month. I urge readers to continue to post both pro and con evidence here as the month progresses. I’ll put a link to this thread in the WUWT sidebar so readers can add information that might be relevant.
Since Corbyn is a fellow climate skeptic, let’s give him a fair but factual evaluation to find out if these claims hold up, of if he’s simply following the path of some prognosticators of the past, such as Jeane Dixon, who made claims so broad that even a small kernel of happenstance occurrences after the fact were used to justify confirmation of the prediction. According to the Wikipedia page on Dixon:
John Allen Paulos, a mathematician at Temple University, coined the term “the Jeane Dixon effect,” which refers to a tendency to promote a few correct predictions while ignoring a larger number of incorrect predictions.
I don’t know that is what is going on here with Corbyn or not, but since he’s put out an open 
forecast, let’s find out. Inquiring minds want to know.
UPDATE: here’s a video of Corbyn explaining his methods:
^ forecast maps in the new format since May, same data off of same tabled raw data, produces the same csv files, just more detailed graphics, now 8 nearest neighbors, with max search radius of 8 degrees, 3 mile grid squares, instead of the original maps with 32 nearest neighbors, a search radius of 70 degrees, on 60 mile grid squares. Much less smoothing and more local details visible. I pay all costs of production out of my own pocket, no commercial content or advertising, no narrative bluster, just the maps from raw data to stand or fall on their own.
Maps for the next two years available for viewing today for all of North America, Canada, and now Australia. All the content viewable all the time for FREE!
Corbyn’s Technique has been the subject of a peer reviewed paper.
Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34.
Whilst I believe there is some skill in this, I think at times Corbyn can be his own worst enemy with the way he makes his claims.
Carrie says:
July 6, 2012 at 12:05 am
Wrong. If you have an objection to their methods of analysis of the success/failure of their forecasts, as I said to someone else above, you’ll have to spell it out in detail. Simply dissing their results without reasons, citations, details, and specific objections is totally inadequate in the world of science.
I can’t speak for Anthony, but for me, I think all claims should be examined closely and that we should attempt to falsify everything, including particularly my own work. This adversarial skepticism is at the heart of science. I’d also love to be able to show that Piers’ method was indeed more accurate than climatology …
Carrie, you seem to be the only one that’s excited here. For me, I’m curious about all parts of science. I’d love to see a dispassionate examination of Piers’s methods and predictions, but neither one is possible. The first is not possible because Piers (understandably) doesn’t want to release his methods, and as a businessman, he has every right to not release them.
The second, however, is more problematic, in that (as far as I know) Piers has never given a public listing of his actual detailed predictions so his successes and failures could be examined and analyzed. And that one, he could do.
But in either case I have no problem with him selling his forecasts nor with people buying them, and I wish him the best of success.
w.
There are several reasons for that. First, Pier’s forecasts tend to be very vague. Second, they are not available for retrospective analysis. Third, he does no such analysis himself, or at least none I’ve ever seen.
Willis, my understanding is that his paid for forecasts are very detailed and he gives confidence ratings for them in percentage. His chief customers I understand are farmers and supermarkets and they seem to be pretty satisfied. He claims his prediction rate to be around 80-85% and in interviews he is a lot more circumspect than his somewhat tabloid-esque website newsletters which I agree with others are..err…eccentric to the say the least.
It should also be pointed out that some of his predictions are uncannily accurate, with great precision well ahead of time (within a just a few days), while others are very vague and usually given with low confidence. He is also geographically more detailed at certain times and less at others. I suspect this is due to the nature of what he can determine using his technique, which I am personally intrigued by. Your suspicion that he may be ‘on to something’ is the general impression I get having kept a bemused eye on him for a few years,
But I would encourage you to distinguish between the different types of predictions he makes; those that are very specific and those that are more general. It seems to me that the more extreme the weather event, the more accurately he is able to predict them. I have long been intrigued by his predictions, and idly considered trying to work out for myself just how accurate he is. It would great to see WUWT turn their skeptical attention to it and see if there really is something to his theory. Just don’t forget that details of his ‘theory’ are a commercial secret for him – in the same way the recipe for coke or KFC are for them.
The second, however, is more problematic, in that (as far as I know) Piers has never given a public listing of his actual detailed predictions so his successes and failures could be examined and analyzed. And that one, he could do.
I’d love to see a dispassionate examination of Piers’s methods and predictions, but neither one is possible. The first is not possible because Piers (understandably) doesn’t want to release his methods, and as a businessman, he has every right to not release them.
Cross posting – I agree with this 100%
Re: Willis Eschenbach says:July 6, 2012 at 12:05 am
“just exactly what is your objection?”
That when it comes to weather or climate for that matter, ‘averaging’ can be rather misleading in determining accuracy and that +/- 2C is a somewhat generous temp span here in the UK.
My particular objection is that the Met Office is diverting large amounts of effort and funding into propaganda used to push a political agenda.
One need only peruse their publications, including the top one which was issued just prior to Copenhagen
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/library/publications/climate-change
I am sure Piers Corbyn could put Met Office resources to far better use!
So, he predicts tornados in northern Europe? I live in the northern part of Europe and as far as tornados goes I think we’ve had one in the last hundred years that actually did some damage. Off-Scale rain I really can’t comment on since I don’t even know what that means, more than last year, more than the last ten years?
Hail doesn’t happen a lot here either during the summer, in the autumn and spring it’s fairly common though.
I will watch this with interest and hope for normal sunny and warm weather for July and August so my time off work won’t be spent inside looking at tornados, gales and hail.
What these ‘forecasts / predictions’ dont show is the many weather modifications taking place – not just in america but globally- and therefore isn’t allowing for the interconnected nature of weather to be fully understood by those who use such ‘forecasts / predictions’ for their work and lives.
I predict Rain for Ireland in July (and August, September…)
Willis, there’s something very wrong with your weightings. You show 2007 and 2011 exactly tied on the magnitude 8.0-and-up bar. That’s not right. The bar for 2011 should be 3.3 times as tall as the bar for 2007.
2011 had a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, and 2007 had nothing close to that: just an 8.5, two 8.1’s, and an 8.0.
A magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases:
5.5x as much energy as an 8.5
23x as much energy as an 8.1
32x as much energy as an 8.0
So, adding together all four of 2007’s “8.0 & up” earthquakes we get:
(1/5.5) + (2/23) + (1/32) = just 30% of the energy released in 2011’s 9.0 earthquake.
Obviously that qualifies as “significantly enhanced earthquake activity.”
Piers was right. I don’t know whether it was skill or luck, but he was definitely right.
I’m another UK reader who has sometimes paid for Piers Corbyn’s forecasts. As others have said, he is not always right – and, yes, he does admit it – but he certainly has a track record for getting his long term forecasts MUCH more accurate than the Met Office or any others I know about. I totally agree with the comments about his presentation, but have great respect for his ability and the way he makes his forecasts public.
He has been banned from betting on the weather (presumably because he was consistently winning) and has frequently requested an impartial audit of his long range forecasts against others – and, as far as I know, no-one is willing to take him up on it.
2012 is also a big earthquake year. We’ve already had an 8.6 and an 8.2 this year!
A magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases:
4.2x as much energy as an 8.6
16.5x as much energy as an 8.2
So, adding them together we get:
(1/4.2) + (1/16.5) = 30% of the energy released in 2011’s 9.0 earthquake = 100% of the energy released in all four of 2007’s 8.0 & up earthquakes, combined — and the year’s only half over!
Now, as it happens, 2007 had a lot of 7.something earthquakes, too, including a 7.9 and a 7.8. So if we don’t get any more big earthquakes this year then 2012 could still end up with less earthquake activity than 2007. But there’s no question that, regardless of what happens the rest of this year, 2011+2012 will go down in history as a period of very high earthquake activity, much higher than any other two-year period in the last dozen years.
In other words, Piers was right.
Here’s a “top 17” list of earthquakes:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/10_largest_world.php
Notice that there was a surge of big earthquakes between about 1950 and 1965 (peak in 1960), and another from 2004 to present (peak, so far, in 2011). That’s about 60 years between peaks. Does that ring any bells?
http://pages.citebite.com/j2d0k3n9tqpc
FIO Willis Eschenbach
“the three stage investment of up to £500,000 in weatherXchange, a joint-venture company set up between the Met Office and other investors in 2001…”. The company was placed in administration with a loss to the public purse of about £4.5 million in total.”
Stu N – The rain has arrived overnight, though steady rather than torrential (so far). Actually, after June, I think most of us have learned to expect rain!
An analogy occurs to me. Remember the good old days of sending pictures down slow phone line connections? The first few passes gave you a picture which became less ‘blocky’ with each pass, until eventually the full detail of the picture was shown after a few more passes. I’d suggest that Piers, with his astrophysical technique and ability to compare with similar situations in history, provides the first few passes: yes, there’s definitely a red bit here and a green bit there, storms here or drought there, give or take a day or two or a few hundred miles. Closer to, the Met Office style gives a much more detailed picture, but rather than starting from the outline detail from WA they use their CO2 warmist theories, a solid red background. Result, we get Piers’ picture, giving us an overall, modest resolution impression, and the MO picture which not only looks sort of reddish but, while pin-sharp, keeps flickering as a frisky Jet stream flips us some more rain or a (to them) unexpected blocking high, like bad digital TV reception.
I’m always quite impressed how many plants Piers’ forecasts seem to save – moderate resolution is evidently of use there. And href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/putting-piers-corbyn-to-the-test/#comment-1025307>Marion – that is the comment so far, beautiful. Piers should put that quote about his forecasts right at the top of his site, with full attribution.
Now, if we could just get the Met Office to work with a man who can quite obviously point their models in the right direction, we’d be getting there. Sir Piers Corbyn could direct the ongoing (and now available) research into how our solar system drives our weather, and we’d all know that rock festival next month was likely to be a mudbath, or that we’d be needing a lot of salt for the roads in January.
Still raining. Wax is good.
I don’t have access to Dr. Corbyn’s forecasts, but I know that the world of climate forecasting and the climate science would be much poorer place without him.
I’ve notice that here in England summer weather patterns often repeat on a 7 year cycle – here’s the Met Office summary for July 2005…
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/2005/july.html
Would be interesting to see the UK forecast from Piers Corbyn for this year and see which method produces the best result.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 6, 2012 at 12:45 am
‘I can’t speak for Anthony, but for me, I think everyone’s claims should be examined closely and that we should attempt to falsify everything, including particularly my own work. This skepticism is at the heart of science.’
We’re talking about a man who produces weather forecasts, tons of people do the very same thing on both sides of the pond. What is there to be skeptical about, it’s hardly a scientific paper is it! If people choose to buy his forecasts fair enough, market forces prevail…if his predictions are wrong most of the time, he will go out of business. I guess I’m wondering why Piers?
‘Carrie, you seem to be the only one that’s excited here. For me, I’m curious about all parts of science. I’d love to see a dispassionate examination of Piers’s methods and predictions, but neither one is possible. The first is not possible because Piers (understandably) doesn’t want to release his methods, and as a businessman, he has every right to not release them.’
I’m not excited Willis, I’m just uncomfortable with the fact that someone who obviously believes completely in his skills and has had some major successes is seemingly being singled out and in some cases derided. I don’t like it, this all feels a bit school playground’ish to me. Sorry I thought WUWT was better than this.
Since Corbyn is a fellow climate skeptic, let’s give him a fair but factual evaluation…
I’m sure it wasn’t the intended impression, but that line reads like one must be a fellow sceptic in order to qualify for a “fair but factual evaluation”. I’m sure we all agree that anyone who receives evaluation is entitled to a fair and factual evaluation.
Sorry, I meant to italicise the word anyone.
Down here in UEA land it started raining in the early hours and now some 9 hours later my rain gauge is showing 32mm. Looking at rainfall radar playbacks we haven’t had the worst, and a much heavier band of rain passed North of here – the lot heading for the Midlands by the look of it….
It’s true Piers doesn’t have a 100% success rate, but I personally know several farmers and growers who prefer to pay hard cash to Weather Action, instead of using the “free” Met Office, because Weather Action has a higher success rate.
For his customers to get their money’s worth, he doesn’t need to have a 100% success rate, just a significantly better success rate than the Met Office.
The MO “prediction” for June and July was a continuation of the drought. It’s proved to be a very wet drought.
Oh, by the way, here in the UK, this drought is getting so wet, we’re wondering if St Swithin’s day has arrived early this year. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10644550
LC Kirk, Perth says:
July 5, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Sorry, I should have spell-checked that first! Wretched bifocals to not improve typing skills..
Just as a comment, I instinctively like the man and find him credibly sincere in his opinions and scientific conclusions. Don’t be put off by his presentation style, lack of graphical skills, Billingsgate accent or dishevelled, schoolmasterly appearance. You’re not looking at a slicko marketing job from Al Gore Incorporated here; you are looking at a genuine, intelligent human being, who does all his own work and is more concerned with the content than the medium.
I have twice had the experience of introducing genuine scientific achievers from the mining industry, each on the cusp of a major ore body discovery, to stockbrokers who could have funded and massively profited from their efforts, only to have them laughed out of the room by such people, who could only be impressed by sophisticated marketing, silver-tongued conceit and the de-rigeur powerpoint presentation. The people who get it right in the mining industry are concerned with science, engineering, costings, facts, logic, hard work and precise technical details. They have no interest in doing anything that they see as unnecessary simply for the sake of appearances. Stockbrokers, conversely, are ‘prestidigitateurs’ – conjurers on a stage, with silk handkerchiefs, top hats and tinselled, leggy assistants. They are only interested in the illusion of the moment, the take at the box office till and the applause of the crowd.
Piers Corbyn’s presentational style and website graphics are irrelevant. It is the content that counts, as Anthony clearly realises in focussing on it and testing it.
(The less overt marketing, the more the truth, marketing being lies by any other name: hence Gore)
===================================
thank you, After seeing so many usa “characters” I really am amazed at the accusations hes a showman etc.
hes an Honest chap . he admits errors . which is a damn sight more human and likeable than the rest of the weather crews are.
ok so he charges for info that can and does give Farmers especially, a better chance of judging planting and crop damage possible.
he warned of big wet in sth sthwest aus when , from the weather we were getting, and the Boms info it was going to be dry.
I admit even I scratched my head thinking no way., from the weather we were having which was far warmer than it should have been standard at that time.
well Piers was right, we copped flooding in large parts of the state, completely out of the norm ,and I had told people I knew and suggested they did plan for rain. and I also pre planned getting hay and wood up and dry. he saved my butt fodder wise, and that was only the free snips, as a pensioner, now with the added insult of rising power water and carbon scams, I cant afford his full charts., but i sure would if i could.
you dont “like” his web page design?
oh really. how precious of you….it isnt the presentation that matters FFS its the info!
KM says:
July 6, 2012 at 5:39 am
From the URL http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10644550
“Legend has it that he asked to be buried humbly outside Winchester Cathedral when he died but his remains were dug up in 971 and moved inside the building.
The act was said to have coincided with 40 days and 40 nights of violent storms, indicating his displeasure at being moved.”
Nowadays they just blame CO2 with a similar amount of correlation logic.