View Article & Comments

So many EQ's happen outside of these R periods - so how can you call it a 'forecast'?

What recorded impact did the solar filament have on Earth based sensors?

Elim

Before we go down YOUR PATH of "so many EQ's happen outside of these R periods", let us know how many M6+ EQ's there have been in the last SIX month's and how many of these have fallen within the R5+ criteria:

Is it more then 50%, more then 60% or more then 70%

Your find it ABOVE 50%, maybe 60% and then for someone to guess the correct time frame it is then more then luck.

The way you have put forward your side is that this is all down to hindcasting, and as you have seen it is NOT.

I have asked you several times to put forward your guess, and each time you "chicken" out, but when Piers calls it correct you say its luck.

That in itself says a lot about your mindset and also explains why you think 1 part of co2 in 62,000 changes the climate. And yet someone who can forecast changes in the Earth's climate in ADVANCE and gets a result better then chance is lucky.

Elim your the one who needs to explain yourself NOT Piers, he does that by the results of his forecast, you on the other hand cant show anything other then ignorance.

How did Piers get on with his two weather map forecasts?

Down to luck again was it!

Comment edited by Co2sceptic (forum) on Friday December 07, 2012 at 8:08 AM EST

Cutting edge forecasting like that being done by Piers Corbyn is always the subject of suspicion by those heavily invested in the status quo. WUWT handles very well issues that fall within the realm of the blog owner's expertize. But Anthony Watts often appears to lack intellectual curiosity regarding controversial new science making him appear glib and dismissive. Unfortunately, such unrelenting stubbornness seems likely to continue to render Watts a de facto gatekeeper rather than a science luminary.

CO2, EQ's outside the R period are ignored, R periods without EQ's are ignored, then unsurprisingly an EQ in an R period is trumpeted loudly. This is how you get a high success rate - it's easy. Fortunately only a very few people are fooled by this. Though to be fair to you CO2, I don't think you fully realise that you're doing it.

Can we have the following please.

How many days in the 6 month period (or whatever) are covered in an R4/5 period, including the days either side and how many 6.5+ quakes occur in these periods.

and how many 6.5+ quakes occur on the remaining days

My question was to you guys, let me know the answer YOU have.

It's of interest that you say he CANT and yet your unable to show me how he has done.

Your assuming its a con or luck, and yet it has happened several times before and will happen again and again.

Piers has never said it's 100% and it's NOT ZERO either.

Give me the period it is most likely to happen again in JANUARY, you cant do that. And yet Piers can find the time frame when there is a higher then average chance.

When it happens again your be doing this stuff all over again and the next time and the time after that.

Come on guys when is this likely to happen again?

CO2

I claim nothing. It is you who are making the claim yet you are unable or unwilling to produce data to substantiate it.

Not very sceintific is it.

I know what will happen after I show you the data, your pick holes as you have done so in the past.

I have the data, true, and so has Piers

What we don't want is to waste our time in the school playground, the data will be forwarded as part of a paper.

All I can say is that THIS site has all you need, so use the link Solar Climate Change and go back to the start of the year and ask me to explain a period, or if you can't or wont do that, wait for the next event

THANKS FOR POSTING CR!

Imagine if these R5s were, let's say "C5s", whereby the CO2 Global Warmers theory predicted the more or less simultaneous appearance in a 3 day time window of:

(i) New and significant events* on the sun quite likely Earth-facing (*NB we should not equate specific events on the sun with specifics on earth, it's about a lot of things together)
(ii) M6.5+ earthquakes,
(iii) SPECIFIC extreme weather situations - eg in USA and Europe
(iv) 'under forecasting', ie extra precip, stronger winds, and higher tornado risk/unexpected tornadoes than standard Met had said one day ahead.
(v) Extra unspecified extreme events around the world - showing an increase on the general background of extremes (eg as reports from New Zealand indicate).

So, ET carries the bag for Al Gore who pounds the TV stations with a luke-warmist in tow (who expects something but not too much to happen) warning the world of the C5. THEN IT ALL HAPPENS.
Would they say, "Oh no it didn't, the err events on the sun were not big enough, the quakes were too big, the extra snow didn't happen in Salt Lake city so didn't happen at all and the hail oh yes said the luke-warmist it was either too big or too much or too whatever it just wasn't EXACTLY the right size so it's all wrong, all wrong, all wrong and I don't like the typeface".

One thing you notice about warmists is their churlishness does not apply to their own 'predictions'. So much so that they claim success without evidence, they claim warming when there is cooling, they claim cause when there is no effect.

They are truly deluded and nasty with it, but we should worry about them less, the world will advance and they will be left alone. I have spoken at a number of significant gatherings of leaders of industry, engineering, commerce, agriculture and environmental matters in the last year and notice one thing:
THE WARMISTS HOLD NO SWAY. They are a busted flush, they are lost socks in the laundromat of oblivion.

WEATHERACTION WINS BATTLE OF BRITAIN! (<=OOps annoying CAPITAL letters)

And the latest good news. Standard supercomputers have now retracted their 'Beast from the East' supercold blast they expected to hit the UK next week and their forecast maps now look like WeatherAction's 'Battle of Britain' prediction which rejected the standard Met scenario before it was even thought of.
Please see:

http://bit.ly/WiDzRP

Thanks,
Piers

@Tom Richards

I looked from January and found around 25% of Mag6.5+ events within the R periods, about 50% within one calendar day, and around 25% were more than one day from an R period. An average ~50% of all days are R period days.

Hi Ulric

thanks for that, how many days per month have been at R5+, it's not 50%, more like 20%. So to get to 50% is more then chance

CO2, you say you have the data - then you keep asking people for the data, why?

Piers, I'm not that interested in warming/cooling etc etc what I do care about is honest verification of forecasting.
As well as the method I mentioned above of ignoring everything except successes, you've also given another example of one your misleading methods. "Weatheraction wins Battle of Britain" this you base on model runs that are changing with every output and on a forecast, not even on something that has happened! If it does go mild as you predicted we will hear plenty about it from you, but if it remains cold you will quietly sweep it under the carpet,but the 'Weather Action wins' will still be there.

CO2 has a starnge view of the scientific world.

Put forward a theory but instead of producing the data to back it up, expects others to produce data to disprove it.

If the data is as solid as you claim then I will not be able to pick holes in it will I?

I will look forward to the properly peer reviewed paper:-)

@Co2sceptic

Just over 20% of Mag6.5+ events were within R5 periods this year.