(elevated from a comment on the Putting Piers Corbyn to the test thread ) Willis Eschenbach says:
Martin Gordon says:
I note that Piers is declaring this period (13/14) a success on the Weather Action website.
Thanks for the link, Martin. I hope folks are starting to see why Piers claims such a high success rate. Here’s his map for the period:
OK, so what are the important parts of his forecast? Obviously, it’s the shaded areas where he predicts “thunder, tornados, and giant hail” in the north central region, and “thunder, tornados, and large hail”, in red meaning extreme warning, for the Great Lakes and eastward.
Here are his claims that he says “verify” his forecast.
R4 period 13-14 July extreme events verification:
=> USA
– Sev Thunder events Seattle ~13-14th http:fb.me/23Zp3jkkI CONFIRMS WeatherAction long range specific warning for 13-15th on USA Maps forecast 13-15 July + Piers discusses on fb
Let me echo Martin’s amazement that a single comment on Facebook is taken as a verification of his forecast. Anyhow, here’s the Facebook comment (emphasis mine)
Severe Thunderstorms Possible In Seattle (1:10PM PDT 7/13/12 -Charchenko) Hello everyone, after those exciting thunderstorms arriving earlier than usual through the seattle metro area. Were in a break in the weather right now up and down the I5 corridor but storms are still rumbling around port townsend and sequim areas. We are under a slight risk for severe thunderstorms west of puget sound which is extremely rare and usually only happens once every 5 years. We could see some large hail around 1″ and damaging winds possible, we could even see a few supercells! We will continue to update throughout the day monitoring these storms!
To which Piers replies:
Thanks for informative posting. VERY INTERESTING. Our WeatherAction long range forecast issued June29th [Free this month, email piers@weatheraction.com with ‘USA PLEASE’ in title bar] predicts thunder in Pacific NW ~ WA, OR, ID, MT for 13-15th July (and did not predict any for July prior to that). Thanks, Piers
I suppose you could claim that someone on Facebook saying “severe thunderstorms possible” is a verification of the forecast, but take a look at the actual weather service storm, hail, and tornado reports for those two days …
Very little happening there at all, certainly no concentrations of thunderstorms, either in his forecast areas or anywhere.
– 13 July BIGGEST hail in 30yrs http://www.king5.com/your-news/162444096.html WA NW USA
– Sev Thunder Warning Union+Wallowa Co OR 14th till 3:00pm PDT. #orwx CONFIRMS WeatherAction long range thunder specific forecast for OR 13-15th
I’m sorry, but a single report of hail in Oregon absolutely does not confirm a forecast of hail in the upper midwest, or Great Lakes/New England. Piers forecast said NOTHING about hail in the Pacific Northwest, this is totally bogus.
– Severe Thunderstorm Watch for portions of the area in ID until 11:00pmMDT/10:00pmPDT. #idwx CONFIRMS WeatherAction long range thunder specific forecast for ID13-15th
Again, there may have been a “severe thunderstorm watch” for Idaho … so what? Take another look at the actual storms shown above. I gotta give him credit, though … he has used other people’s warnings and claims that thunderstorms are “possible”, and also thunderstorm watches, in other words other people’s forecasts, as confirmation of his own forecasts. This is sheer forecasting genius, right up there with claiming that a forecast of a 50% chance of a typhoon was verified by no typhoons.
Finally, take another look at the map of his forecasts, and compare it to the storm reports. The few places that there actually was hail in the US were places that he did not forecast hail. The places he gave the strongest forecast for extreme thunderstorms, hail, and tornados saw only a couple scattered thunderstorms, not a single report of hail, and no tornadoes.
And yet he is trumpeting these results as a verification of his forecast? I gotta say, “verification” must mean something very different on his planet.
w.
Lawrence says:
July 28, 2012 at 11:01 am
Another apologist for Piers heard from. Look, when you forecast “thunderstorms, heavy rain, and hail” and “disruptive deluges etc.”, a few drops of rain doesn’t win the bet or fulfill your forecast, no matter what the UKMO may say about a white Christmas.
w.
Lawrence says:
July 28, 2012 at 11:22 am
Do your homework before proclaiming. Historically, there’s been about a 25% chance of rain in London on any given day in late August. That means that there is about 1 – 0.757 = an 87% chance of rain in London during the week … so predicting rain in London this week is no achievement at all, it’s an odds-on bet and a no-brainer.
w.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 28, 2012 at 11:57 am
You certainly may be onto something, and I hope you are (just as I hope Piers is), but the data you link to is totally incomprehensible.
In addition, correlation is not causation, so your claim is premature.
w.
tc says:
July 28, 2012 at 1:37 pm
This is exactly what I suggested at the start of this discussion in the previous thread, but Piers has not done so. As you say, that is telling … because if I had a track record of successful forecasts, I’d be publishing them and advertising them with a bullhorn.
w.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 28, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Science is not built on feel-good, nor is it built on “superior methods”. It is built on falsification, which you seem to mistake for “negativity & criticism”. Falsification is a process wherein a man’s claims are examined closely to see if they hold up. You know, like I investigated Piers’ claim that he was successful in his prediction of 7, perhaps 9 typhoons in the Central Pacific, and I found there were only 2 typhoons during that period … falsification. His claims of success were not only exaggerated, they were entirely untrue.
In other words, while finding a superior method would be a good thing, it is also valuable to find out if Piers has a good method … and so far I see no evidence of that.
w.
Willis
I’ve never been a Corbyn fan or as you say apologist and I several years ago emailed and got a reply from Robert Felix of ‘Ice Age Now’ about quoting Corbyn who has never had a fantastic track record -in fact most weather enthusiasts thought him a bit of a joke. However he may have something of value and lucky or not it did rain just on the opening of that London 2012 ceremony. I first heard of Piers in a Daily Telegraph snippet (still got it somewhere) in Nov/Dec 1980/81 in which he predicted a very severe spell of cold weather for most on the UK into the coming winter. Of course it never happened-mind you next year winter was historically bitter starting from December 8th through to early January 1982. Coincidence? Anyhow I heard no more of him until I recognized him at the South Bank University in London in October 1996. He lives in a very run down social housing set up called the Heygate Estate where Charlie Chaplin was born the Elephant &Castle.
However: Okay your main gripe is that that he’s claiming successs where success didn’t materialise.
My main gripe with your gripe is, why turn on Piers so . If you prove Piers to be a total charlatan is that such a ‘big deal’ in the AGW debate. Piers has to feed himself and earn money out of what seems to have been ‘weather’ which apparently his enthused for since a young boy. Why not pick apart UKMO instead as this once trustworthy, understated arm of the ministry of defence has now turned into Pravda. On public funding this organisation pours out tripe everyday where AGW is concerned -if you look somewhere in their archives you’ll find their congratulations to Gore and Pachurri in winning the Nobel prize. In addition UKMO forecast and weather warnings pages when during a cold spell reads like something from the ‘Day after Tomorrow’. Just the whiff of a snow shower and they are plastering amber to red warnings all over Britain. Anyone following their daily forecasts from outside of the UK would be understandably concerned for our safety when in reality a couple of places had a snow flurry. I still don’t get your motivations as there are surely bigger fish to fry?
This particular comment was about a particular bet. Why on earth would you think I was trying to find out about “long range forecasting”?
What an exasperating comment! This is why it appears you don’t seem genuinely interested in ascertaining whether there is any merit to the SLAT system, and whether the physical mechanism that makes it work is plausible. You want to point score against Piers rather than dispassionately investigate the results to determine if SLAT can detect anything.
In fact, his prediction of “disruptive deluges etc.” never happened. The Opening Ceremony was not disrupted at all, I watched it, it was fine except for one brief shower, not a deluge in sight. So no, he was not even close.
Mate, I live in London. The weather was NOT fine. It was completely overcast the whole day, in contrast to the rest of the week. It rained up where I am which is only about 10 miles away. Don’t tell me what I could see with my own eyes was something else. And it was in distinct contrast with the rest of the week.
You would have won the bet though. There was nothing like the kind disruptive weather Piers predicted, but by gee, it threatened. From the point of view of friendly a bet, you win, but from the point of view of science, and whether SLAT is able to detect anything, even if it is not 100% accurate or even as accurate as Piers says, it is utterly missing the point. Even if he had won the bet with the ‘expected’ disruptive rain, it would STILL not validate SLAT – it could have been arrived at by chance, but that is low enough chance for you to raise eyebrows and see whether he can do it again…
Finally, I am sick and tired of apologists like you saying Piers got it right and is a brilliant forecaster because something like what he predicted occurred somewhere not too far from where he predicted, at a time kinda near when he predicted. In the real world, that is called a “failed prediction”.
No mate – I am NOT an apologist for Piers. I just want to know if SLAT really can detect anything that says something about whether there is something to the physical mechanism that influences weather and climate that is NOT factored into standard meteorology and climatology. But the way you are going about it is not going to find that out. You are merely interested in whether Piers’s claims live up to the hype. You keep going after Piers, but I frankly couldn’t give a stuff about him.
Since he is the originator of the method, all you have to go on is what he is predicting. But if you don’t acknowledge the human element of huge personal and commercial investment in his predictions and their validation, then you fail disentangle the science from the hype. You are just concentrating on the hype – utterly ignoring the science and that’s a shame.
To really assess it’s value, you can’t use what is an inevitably biased validation approach promulgated by WeatherAction, even as you don’t disregard it entirely. But if something doesn’t exactly match your expectations you are dismissive, drawing defensive and hostile reactions from Piers and absolutely not finding anything useful out at all.
Do your homework before proclaiming. Historically, there’s been about a 25% chance of rain in London on any given day in late August. That means that there is about 1 – 0.757 = an 87% chance of rain in London during the week … so predicting rain in London this week is no achievement at all, it’s an odds-on bet and a no-brainer.
Seriously, Willis – I hope my previous post didn’t get lost in the ether, but it might be worth pointing out that it is not yet August, and being able to pick which day of a month is going to have rain in it (since this was predicted a month ago) is surely impressive, if not conclusive. Picking one day in a month to have rain is not an odds on bet – although this year – the wettest, coolest summer I have ever experienced here, it just might be. But you couldn’t possibly use history to determine that.
[Sorry for the typo, obviously I meant late July. -.w]
Agnostic:
I confirm what you say as I live in Sydenham SE London and Friday was of a completely different type weather to the very dry and hot exeperienced in the previous 3 -4 days. It started with rain and UKMO via BBC said it could rain anywhere but clearing later, howevr it grew progressively cloudy throughout the afternoon so overcast I actually cheacked the UKMO rainfall radar as I thought surely it must be raining somewherein fact it looked like a storm was brewing and then around 8pm ish large hevy drops fell in Sydenham for abot twenty minutes-never a deluge but the feel it could at anytime . I thought Piers you son of a gun, however it became dry with the clouds breaking. I accept no deluge and it was only over the games themselves in east London , but myself an atheist I’m thinking blimey God is a AGW sceptic.
By the way rain and some thunder here in SE London as I type.
So many going on about how amazing it is to predict this pattern change etc Where did Piers mention the weather was going to change on the 27th? This is a perfect example of how you believe what you want to believe!
His forecasts from the 13th July onwards have had rain falling over England
13 – 15 July Thunderfloods, damaging hail and strong winds over most of Britain & Ireland
16-19 July Torrential rain, major river flooding, damaging hail, high tornado risk, thunder over England, Wales and Ireland.
20-23 July Thunderstorms, damaging hail and floods especially later.
24-28 July England Wales & Ireland extremely wet.
Now you don’t need me to tell you the weather in England has been nothing like this in this period, yet one shower on 27th and suddenly it’s an amazing forecast!
If it wasn’t so sad it would be funny.
Agnostic says:
July 29, 2012 at 3:08 am
Oh, get off your high horse. As I said above, I’ve discussed Piers’ long range forecasts elsewhere and in excruciating detail. My comment above was about him running away from his proposed bet.
Also, I can’t determine “whether there is any merit to the SLAT system” because we don’t know what the SLAT system is, and because Piers hasn’t published anything but carefully chosen forecasts.
So what? Piers predicted all kinds of bad weather, hail, heavy raid, and disruptive deluges, and you want to tell me that it was cloudy with a few sprinkles? So what?
Yes, I would have won the bet, and if Piers had predicted “threatening weather” he would have won the bet. But he didn’t, and the SLAT system in this case failed completely.
Fortunately for science, “if he had won the bet” is as meaningless a statement as “if you were a billionaire”. You’re not one, he lost the bet, we don’t have to “raise eyebrows”, get over it.
Yes, mate, when you go on about how the weather was threatening, and want to discuss what would have happened if he won the bet, you ARE an apologist for Piers.
I, like you, would absolutely love to have the answer to that question. But unfortunately, Piers refuses to publish his past forecasts that would let us determine if his system does have value.
Well duh, of course my method won’t find that out. Nothing will find that out until Piers either releases his past forecasts or explains his methods or both.
And despite that, you don’t want me to discuss his failed prediction of disruptive deluges for the Opening Ceremony. Make up your mind, please.
What science are you mumbling about? Piers, to my knowledge, has never revealed the science (if any) underlying his method. I’d love to concentrate on his science, but WHERE IS IT?
If something doesn’t “exactly match [my] expectations”??? My expectations are meaningless. I am looking at whether the outcomes match Piers’ expectations, like for example he expected disruptive downpours on the 27th … and that is a useful finding.
Look, all I have to examine are a small subset of his forecasts. Not the science, we have no idea what that might be. So I look at the forecasts we have to see if they came true … and immediately folks like you start complaining that I should be doing something else.
OK, smart guy … give me your take on it. I’ve analyzed a number of his forecasts so far, and most of them have been either failures or abject failures.
So where is your “science based” analysis of Piers’ forecasts, Agnostic?
Sheesh …
w.
@Willis Eschenbach (July 28, 2012 at 5:30 pm)
Consider doing some of the heavy lifting instead of running for light housekeeping chores.
I suggest you redirect your focus from naively-upheld romantic notions of airy politically-motivated “science” (today’s “science” hinges on insanely elaborate frameworks of untenable assumptions) to plain & simple exploration, the exact same way you would if confronted with the need to learn a new landscape on foot.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/26/climate-change-off-in-the-ozone/#comment-1044963
The 1970s climate shift is beyond all shadow of a doubt of solar origin. The synchronization is TIGHT across the whole spectrum of variables.
I explore summaries that integrate across strings of events. The problem I see with today’s public solar-based weather forecasting from what I’ve learned about global constraints on spatiotemporal collections of weather (concert of Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum & Central Limit Theorem) is that while one would be guaranteed to be right more than half of the time based on the current extent of human solar-terrestrial knowledge, one would also be EXACTLY wrong more than expected by chance. Humans typically don’t handle paradox gracefully; the confusion on Corbyn’s work isn’t surprising. Sensible capable minds with infinite patience are needed to further careful exploration.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2qvwacn.png
Importantly it’s robustly coherent with the mainstream-bridging Tsonis coupled synchronization framework. (Willis you mentioned you find the data incomprehensible. The website proprietor has supplied no read-me file, but fortunately a 5 minute web search gives all the info needed for interpretation.)
There’s much, much more to say (links with D-O, Bond, annual LOD, & QBO), but the audience isn’t ready.
Paul Vaughan says:
July 30, 2012 at 6:19 am
This is too good. In addition to insulting me, you want me to do your heavy lifting for you.
I suggest that if you want that done, you do it yourself. I have far more interesting things to do. I gotta admire, however, the nerve of a man who wants to tell others what they should be doing …
One thing I’ve learned in writing for the web is that, no matter what I write, no matter what I might be focusing on at any given moment, there’s always some jerkwagon who will jump up and tell me I should be focusing on something else and writing about something else. I pay no attention to any of them, yourself included.
w.