View Article & Comments

It's great to have so many people look at this our first proper Climate forecast since its issue in April 2009.

Keeping this link as the one to be circulated on the 100year forecast
You might also like to see a video of the 100 year forecast which explains a bit more and a further statement both made in June 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakA4-qAuWE

19th June 2009 WeatherAction News No 36 =http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=50&c=1
"World cooling has set in and it will stay colder for at least 100 years predicts scientist in forecast breakthrough

Thanks
Piers Corbyn

Another thing to use on politicians is -
UK Climate Change Bill 28th October - Laws should not be passed without evidence... =
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2007&linkbox=true&position=10
Although sent to MPs in Oct 2008 everything in this is very relevant

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Thursday May 20, 2010 at 10:02 PM EDT

For more on How and why our Solar Weather Technique of long range weather and climate forecasting works see:

http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No18.pdf

This deals with the very LATEST advances and link on foot of page 2 to video of presentation on how the SWT works.

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Thursday May 20, 2010 at 10:01 PM EDT

THE LATEST (May10th 2010) evidence of extreme solar events leading directly to extreme weather is very instructive (as twitter link - http://twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn) =

Coronal Holes & Massive floods USA & Middle-East early May confirm solar-based forecast breakthrough - WANewsNo19 pdf =
http://bit.ly/9JqJOZ

Our VIDEO of 100year plus ahead forecast issued June 2009 is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VakA4-qAuWE

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Thursday May 20, 2010 at 9:59 PM EDT

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Thursday May 20, 2010 at 10:06 PM EDT

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Monday August 16, 2010 at 12:51 AM EDT

I think this is a more complete summary of the overall global climate system:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1302&linkbox=true&position=6

Stephen,

I dont know what you mean by 'more complete'. Apart from the danger of claiming anything is even close to complete your article is dated 2008 and a lot of advances have been made since then.

To press the point I commend readers to our WeatherAction News No20 (2010) and urge them to enjoy watching web flicker-books of jet stream development driven by solar activity - elsewhere on CR:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=33

There we again specifically demonstrate the physical chain of 'command' from coronal holes (eg) to geomagnetic and jet stream disturbances and PREDICTABLE extreme weather events.

A summary of overall global climate systems however complete and useful will lead up blind alleys as long as there is confusion between description and cause - a confusion we must ceaselessly strive to eliminate.

Thanks Piers

What to look at - following the debate

Curious. Keeping this thread for ongoing discussion I notice the link in the previous comment has changed to the most topical which is fine but anyway the direct link for the mentioned WA(2010)news20 which has flickerbook access to jet-stream shifts is (via WeatherAction news archive):

http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No20.pdf

Also my most recent presentation which includes information on why the CO2 theory fails is available as WA(2010)news27

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=222&c=1

There also tends to be ongoing discussion on http://www.WeatherAction.com site via the latest Comments.... button - just below the news archive button.

Thanks

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Sunday August 22, 2010 at 8:20 PM EDT

How I love these little disputes!

I find it fascinating that Stephen Wilde always thinks he can undermine the view presented by Piers Corbyn; where are your forecasts, Mr Wilde? You'll have to help me out because I'm no expert and don't always know where to look for these things.

Impress me. Corbyn already has.

Most scientists are more impressed by prediction than retrospective speculation. (Should I have to point that out? Are we dealing with children?) How strange that in meteorology, of all areas, the value of falsifiable prediction is so undervalued by so many, as a way to confirm or refute a hypothesis.

Wilde, a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, doesn't seem any more keen on the idea of CO2-driven climate than Corbyn does. Otherwise I would suspect that Wilde is making anti-Corbyn noise for no other reason that to defend his own reputation and win the favour of the true believers in the Gorethodoxy. As it is I'm perplexed by his apparent determination that people should listen to him AND NOT Corbyn.

Am I missing some ongoing personal dispute? Did Piers Corbyn once kick Stephen Wilde's dog, or something?

Thomas,

Thanks. I have neither met Mr Wilde nor kicked his dog (if he has one) although I do prefer cats.
I agree. Science is not science unless it is based on evidence and as you note scientific advance is made by verification - through evidence - of testable hypotheses.

The three fields of human endeavor where OPINION & BELIEF are placed ABOVE TESTABLE EVIDENCE are:
1. RELIGION
2. POLITICS
3. CLIMATE 'SCIENCE' particularly the Global-Warmer's wing

Note 2 & 3 always claim 'evidence' but that always amounts to evidence of opinion, which is not evidence at all.
For a politician opinion is all and opinion is fact. It is not surprising that weather forecasting has become increasingly a political activity - Look at all those (baseless I suggest) forecasts for 'Unusually stormy Atlantic region Tropical storms season', 'hottest ever summer in UK' (and that was produced by Positive Weather Solutions who profess CO2 scepticism at times.), etc... Then whatever happens they have the ultimate verification through experts put forward by bishops, political leaders and Global warmers alike "That is exactly the sort of thing our experts would expect to happen given god's mysterious Will / Our economic forecasts / THE SCIENCE of Climate Change".

I have noticed that in talking to eight year old children they generally (unlike Climate hype-mongers) do not confuse description with cause and have a better practical understanding and ability to APPLY testable hypotheses than do the BBC newsMAKERS or the whole world's army of GlobalWarming experts.

Actually I have been very sparing in my comments relating to Piers' work.

We each cover very different areas of climate issues but there is an overlap and when I comment it is usually to try and understand how Piers can obtain fine enough detail in his predictions to achieve practical utility from events that occur on the solar surface.

I'm happy to accept his basic proposition that such solar events can stir up the Earth's atmosphere in one way or another and lead to extreme events somewhere during some specific window of time but getting from that to a useful prediction in a specific location during a short time window is another matter and it is claims of that nature that I find difficult.

However if others derive practical utility from his predictions then that's fine by me.

Anyway I only tagged a link to one of my articles here as an experiment because Piers had done the same in the comments section following one of my articles and I wondered if it might have an effect on viewing figures.

Not much as it happens.

VIDEOS updates

For latest - 22Aug - extended interview by Laura Emmett of Russia TV = first in list of links to ALL Piers Corbyn RTV interviews
http://rt.com/A/search?q=Piers+Corbyn&x=0&y=0

TOP hit Russia TV debate of Dec 2009 - 82000 hits by Aug 2010 (one of list above)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M&feature=fvw

YouTube Climate Gate Dec2009 and beyond
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAV7NHZcEcY

1weatheraction videos including conference archives
http://www.youtube.com/user/1weatheraction

Monthly video reports from WeatherAction monthly News events (every last Friday of month 12noon at WeatherAction office, Delta House, 175 Borough High st, London Bridge, London) via Comment... and News archive buttons on http://www.weatheraction.com

End July 2010 Report - re WeatherAction warning made late June of very extreme events around world to come July & Aug:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6075&linkbox=true&position=2

"Actually I have been very sparing in my comments relating to Piers' work."

Why? If you have a gripe we all want to hear the case for it.

What an easy thing to say. In other words, "Actually I could have blown him out the water completely, but I didn't because I'm so nice."

What stunned me was the consistency with which you were replying to anything he posted, at least for a while. Yes your comments were sometimes very short, but they were everywhere. And more often than not, the brevity was only achieved by posting links.

"However if others derive practical utility from his predictions then that's fine by me."

How tolerant of you! I'll remember that you don't mind. Thanks.

I have no personal interest in whether you understand his technique. Do you understand the importance of making falsifiable predictions and then seeing if they come true?

(I have only one suggestion regarding what your misunderstanding of his technique might be, though I must stress that this isn't the most important point; empirical data must be acknowledged first; explanations can come later. My suggestion is that you suppose too much, that he is claiming to understand every detail of every mechanism. His look-backs seem like a reasonable thing to use, regardless of what mechanism is at work. That said, I'm sure he does understand a great deal about many fascinating aspects of the system, and I'm sure his PDE solving is a hell of a lot less rusty than mine is.)

Yes, his predictions ARE remarkably specific, aren't they? I don't know how he does it, either. I look for what hints I can. Space, electromagnetism, 3D stuff, multivariate calculus... These are a few of my favourite things...

"We each cover very different areas of climate issues but there is an overlap and when I comment it is usually to try and understand how Piers can obtain fine enough detail in his predictions to achieve practical utility from events that occur on the solar surface."

What a bizarre line of reasoning. We live on a magnetic planet within the atmosphere of the Sun. Events are NOT restricted to the surface, and you know that. This attempt to make his claims sound more far fetched than they are is, I'm afraid, totally transparent. I had wondered whether you were sincere or not, but this dishonest attack leaves me with little doubt that you are insincere, since you seem to be more of an expert than me and someone with far too much knowledge to accept such woolly reasoning.

Perhaps you would also like to point out that the Sun is 93 million miles away?!

In which case I would point out that it subtends an angle of 32 arcminutes at the eye of the observer despite that distance, which is rather a lot of sky, on account of having a radius more than 109 times that of the Earth. I would also provide such quotes as

"The slow solar wind has a velocity of about 400 km/s, a temperature of 1.4–1.6 × 10^6 K and a composition that is a close match to the corona. By contrast, the fast solar wind has a typical velocity of 750 km/s, a temperature of 8 × 10^5 K and it nearly matches the composition of the Sun's photosphere. The slow solar wind is twice as dense and more variable in intensity than the fast solar wind. The slow wind also has a more complex structure, with turbulent regions and large-scale structures."

which anyone can get from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

It's a fascinating page you know. Sure, you might have nothing new to learn from it. Perhaps you're an expert.

But I believe in the ignorance of experts. What that page tells me is that however much more than me you might know about solar physics, there's a great deal more for you (and indeed any expert) not to understand.

I also suspect that there are many specific local effects, for instance involving the jet stream, that are known to arise from causes that are themselves not so specific to a particular location on Earth, but having to do with the stratosphere or magnetosphere as a whole, for instance.

I'm speculating there, since I'm no meteorologist. Maybe I'm wrong in the details, but your attempt to claim infeasibility is clearly wrong.

If your logic were correct, it would be quite mystifying that people can predict where to see the Aurora Borealis so far in advance, which of course also has events on the solar surface as its ultimate cause.

The magnetosphere has a particular shape... The planets and their moons, including Earth, have predictable spin, and orbits... I can predict exactly where and when midday will happen with a high degree of accuracy, a very long way into the future! And that's without calling on any knowledge of the various types of precession, which will only extend my forecast accuracy even further!

Why am I, an amateur doing internet research from his bedroom, having to remind you of such basic facts? I'm sure you are aware of them after all.

Events on the solar surface, indeed! You surely know better than this.

FUUUrthermooore...

It is blatantly untrue that "it is usually to try and understand". Your comments are more usually along the lines of, "I find such and such an explanation more likely" with little or no further discussion. When you do ask questions they are petulantly worded, and tend to follow the form of, "But how can you say such nonsense?"

Such questions really amount to statements that have been reworded ("You are talking nonsense") and given a question mark. They do not demonstrate any curiosity about his technique. At best they demonstrate a competitive streak, and at worst a dishonest attempt to undermine someone, by any means however dishonest, that you see as 'the opposition' for I-don't-need-to-know-what reason.

You are free to find whatever assertions you like to be more probable. You are free to abandon science altogether if you want, and spend your days in faithful worship of whatever ideas you choose. I will continue, however, to find it most likely that the people making the most correct predictions are the ones with the best idea of what's going on.

If you can't even be honest about the things you have said, which we are all able to read, and if you will not demonstrate an alternative theory with superior predictive ability to WeatherAction's, then I have no reason to believe you. I will ask again: Where are your forecasts, Mr. Wilde? Or if forecasting is not your business, how about anyone's forecasts, that you prefer over theirs?

Let's lay our cards on the table, shall we?

Of course if you have a revolutionary alteration to make to the scientific method itself, then we'd all like to hear that too. Why, it could change the world! It's been done before!

In the meantime I'll continue to fly in planes and to use computers and cross bridges that were built by the traditional version of science, which I'm fairly sure has relied on prediction and experiment since Galileo.

Having said all that I need to be clear that I don't simply wish to spew bile! The way I wrote that, you'd think I was talking to a proponent of the failed CO2 theory...

Wilde's article does make many fine points. But the theory is not more complete, simply because the article is longer, and as well written as it is.

Corbyn does not deny the effect of ocean cycles. I've heard him and others suggest that ocean cycles are themselves also influenced by the Sun, but there is no contradiction here, with what Wilde is saying.

There are certain minor things I'd disagree with in the article, but nothing that big. I just don't see what Wilde's problem is with Corbyn -- and he does seem to have one.

I'll comment on the article itself, regarding where I agree, and where I'm surprised by what he says. I think, "I could agree more, though not by much," might be a good way to start...