View Article & Comments

WELL DONE CHRIS!

These UK and Ireland deluges and floods confirm explicit thunderfloods warnings in our WeatherAction SLAT7A long range 15d-45d forecast issued 16th May for 5-8th June (Confidence A) centered on our 6-7 June Topmost (R5) Red warning (*Important note also see below).

Chris Fawkes' well-presented cut-above the usual BBC-MetO videos backs-up our WeatherAction long range warnings of more 'Approach to Little Ice Age' weather and circulation types with us now (and in coming months and years). It, unusually for BBC, mentions the Jet Stream and specifically mentions the Jet Stream South ('JSS' in WeatherAction parlance) tendency now and in recent months which is one of our specific LIA circulation type features.

This video makes a good follow-on after seeing our June 1st Video on May and LIA patterns:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9735

and reading our Approach to Little Ice Age list of Weather types
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=461&c=5 - Section 2)

WHAT CHRIS FAWKES DOES NOT SAY
Despite the new meteorological reality now plain for all to see and his admission that the MetO-BBC is now 'fingers crossed' forecasting for anything more than the few days they normally show on TV, Chris Fawkes and BBC will NEVER describe what we are now witnessing as "Approach to The new Little Ice Age weather". THAT in 8 words would destroy the ladles of warmist lies they force fed into the minds of the millions whom they regard as their mental property.
If Chris Fawkes even mentioned the uncanny resemblance of JSS, rapid weather contrasts, giant hail, general cooling, more tornadic thunderstorms in temperate regions, low solar activity, extra earthquakes etc... with what happened during the Little Ice Ages of mid-late 1600s and early 1800s; then he would go the same way as Tomasz Shavernaker

There's more to the Jet stream than standard Met says
THE FUNDAMENTAL LIMIT OF STANDARD METEOROLOGY - "Weather begats weather" was clear in Chris's presentation.
He said temperature changes drive the Jet stream. But this gets us no further than standard Met's 4 days ahead forecasts because if it's true what drives the temperature changes (which have to be very sudden for this to be true)?
OR it could be that the Jet stream motion changes the temperatures in which case what drives Jet stream changes? AND note that sometimes the jet stream moves without any sizeable change in temperature over the temperate regions. (Curiously this way is often put forward in standard MetO vids along the lines 'The Jet stream moved, it got cold here and warm there and it all balanced out', but this is NOT what Chis appears to be saying here).

EITHER way the reality is that Jet stream changes along with changes in temperature in regions and (SOMETIMES BUT NOT ALWAYS) over the whole temperate/ polar regions are DRIVEN by solar activity (and lunar modulation) and essentially predictable in long range by SLAT but not by standard meteorology

AND THE REST OF THE WORLD MOVES WITH WEATHER ACTION 'R5' WARNING
Notably this R5 period was
(i) preceded by an Earth Facing Coronal Hole as explicitly predicted (and note the odds against getting a major near EFCH within +/- 45deg ecliptic latitude in any 3 day period (eg R5 plus the day before) is about 4/1 or in any 4d period about 3/1 against:
http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?day=05&month=06&year=2012&view=view
(ii) confirmed by Explicit WeatherAction forecasts in UK and USA
(iii) backed-up by significant increases in extreme events around the world eg: Netherlands, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa...See:
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=461&c=5 Section 1)2.

*Note the 30day update had incorrectly amended this period to confidence BC blocking and dry+warm with lows and action around edges of /outside Brit+Ireland. WeatherAction 30day and 45day Brit & Ireland subscribers this month now have both the 45d and 30d forecasts and get exciting regular updates as we probe the boundaries SLAT7A to SLAT8 which deal with different aspects of LIA approach, SLAT8 currently changing the June forecast in two of the 8 weather periods. For discussion and to subscribe see
http://www.weatheraction.com/

Thanks. Piers

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Sunday June 10, 2012 at 3:25 AM EDT

How do you work out your odds on getting the EFCH? That one (currently CH520) has been coming round as regular as clockwork.

Great idea having 2 forecasts running concurrently, one wet and one dry - now that's genius!

Oh dear me, more silliness!

1. (Coronal Holes) Not true, not 'clockwork'.
2. Well one could say I got the idea from the Met Office who normally run 5 forecasts together!

In fact this refers to one 4 day period ie 5-8 June. The SLAT7a which worked superbly was valid for 14days and farmers who had it took the right decisions - they need more than 5 days notice. The SLAT8 update which didn't work was valid for 5 days from 1st June.
The MetOffice grossly underestimated the amount of rain in Wales from 12 hours before whereas our R5 advises as standard to at least double what MetO 12-24hr ahead suggests for such periods.

3. It's time for for ET to answer questions put in previous posts.

You heard it here first in some of my earliest articles over 4 years ago.

See this article which attempts to explain it:

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645


"How The Sun Could Control Earth's Temperature"

Or...you might want to say, you heard it hear first...

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3427 "Motive Force for All Climate Change"
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3515 "The Neutrion Effect"

"Motive Force" descirbes Earth's variable fission energy that drives not just 'temperature' but also TECTONICS ! "Neutrino" describes how these cosmic and solar particle emmisions actually set the base rates and fluctuations in Earth's fission heater. We live on 259 trillion cubic miles of molten rock with an average temperature of over 3000F. This is NOT residual heat of origin over 4 billion years ago. For more on the system of government funded LIES about science and history that has made this false paradigm possible, visit FauxScienceSlayer.com and share with your non-Zombie and non-Robot friends !

Coronal hole from earlier this month should be Earth Facing again around 29th June.

I notice on the WA site that there seems to be a feeling that a jet stream displaced from it's climatological norm is a new phenomena and only recently discovered by the MetO. It was noted by them (and many others!)that a southwards displaced JS was a primary contributor to the cause of the UK summer floods back in 2007.

Stephen, Joe,

Interesting and important comments which is what Climate realists OPEN discussion is all about and help us move forward. Thank you! Three points:

1. Stephen. You refer to your article but although writing about general motions of Jet stream which may be good descriptions I don't see how you can explain or even in principle* predict the rapid and intense changes in Jet Stream and frontal activity associated with these huge deluges we have been having in UK (and elsewhere in the world). Comments?
(*I know you don't predict. Could your mechanism help do it in detail in short time periods?).

2. Joe. Similarly, your ideas - coming very generally under the heading electric-universe include ideas whose times are yet to come. Your GEO-NUCLEAR etc stuff however must be much longer time scales than these Jet stream shifts and MORE RAPID changes on weather fronts. Comments?

3. I suggest there is more to the jet stream and development of weather fronts than anything in standard meteorology or the (slower I suggest) processes you both refer to which may indeed matter but over months and years rather than hours and days.

Our WeatherAction (SLAT=Solar-Lunar-Action-Technique) solar particle-magnetic activity and lunar modulation approach forecasts with high success rate
(i) the general track of lows and related Jet stream changes
(ii) VERY IMPORTANTLY we identify with our RED WARNING R5, R4, R3 ... periods (whatever we have forecast for circulation patterns right or wrong) key weather activity changes during R5 and R4 periods (and this is an extract from WeatherAction READER COMMENTS note from me):-
We specifically warn that in all R4 and R5 periods precip amounts in short range Met (12-24h ahead) should be (at least for R5) doubled (This rule is spelt out eg in RTQ forecasts). So considering *STEVE DEVINE's NOTE:-
2(at least)x (50 to 80mm) = At least 100 to 160mm.
So for R5 (eg around 6-7 June in the weather period ~5-8 June) take the upper one and we get 160mm = 6 inches and a bit. THIS = FLOODS FOLLOWING, IS WHAT FELL IN PARTS OF WALES. Pass it on!! Amen
(*contributor on WeatherAction site).

See - espec Readers Comments & Feedback at foot of:
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=461&c=5

I explained some of this on an LBC (London Broadcasting Co) interview 8.30pm London (BST) Time today 11th June

ET, More time-wasting drivel and poppycock

1. On Coronal Holes (or one) Well done on reading our RTQ forecast posted at start of June on this site, why not copy out what might happen too - genius!

2. '...seems to be' - to whom? To you only. AND what point are you making?

We at WeatherAction predicted** the Jet Stream South and floods and more floods in 2007 whereas your Met Office long-range predicted a BBQ etc summer and again for 2008, 2009 etc.

The Met Office did NOWCAST the 'Jet Stream South' (and who says they hadn't heard of Jet Stream or whatever, how ridiculous can you get). Of course and we must acknowledge their excellent nowcasting which is second only to looking out of the window. HOWEVER THEN AS NOW THEY FAILED to get many deluges right from 12 or 24 hours ahead and then as now we routinely warned that their figures should be doubled in certain periods which we quoted and what we said was confirmed. Indeed I was interviewed on Sky news about such.
Do you think £millions more should be wasted on a new supercomputer for the MetOffice to nowcast quicker and get the wrong forecasts quicker for 'long-medium' range?

** I suggest your minders give you more time-off to bone up on things in the past.
PS When are you going to identify yourself?

Comment edited by Piers Corbyn (Twitter) on Monday June 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM EDT

Sorry Piers, on WA you said "I welcome mention of Jet Stream (10 years overdue)"

Anyway the severe weather warnings were timely, accurate and appreciated. Not seen any complaints.

Just noticed your coronal hole comment. No, I didn't get it from your RTQ forecast.

For this CH, date it has become Earth Facing:

i}15/2
ii)13/3
iii)8/4
iv)5/5
v)1/6
So, all being well it'll reappear on schedule on the 29/6

Well if you didn't get it from our RTQ forecasts which was printed on Climate Realists and on which you made the first comment -
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9734
it rather proves my point that you make ill-informed and biased comment on things which you havn't even read properly if at all. Presumably you will claim to have read it well enough to comment yet missed the forecast which was in it.

AND your point...?
If you bothered to actually read the other RTQ forecasts you would see that:-
a) Those dates you list or short periods which include them range from R(orQ)5 to R(orQ)3.
b) They are NOT all for important Coronal Holes either at all or of equal importance or Quakes/Red warnings (NB R and QV periods can be different) of high importance.
NOTE. There are many small Coronal 'Holes' on the Sun which are NOT what we are on about. My Coronal Holes are 'special ones' but you can't tell just by looking at them; and when we get CH pairs which can be important or have just ONE hole important you cant tell which one it is or what it might do, whereas we can.

Obviously many things on the sun follow a 27 day or so repeat that being the approx rotation period relative to Earth. However
(i) YOU don't know when these 'chains' ('clocks' one might say but that is an over-claim) start or maybe re-invigorate, whereas we do.
(ii) You don't know which will be of what importance and how that changes.
(iii) You don't know in which hemisphere (eg) quakes would be most likely to follow whereas we do.

If it were all like 'clockwork' then of course there would just be a fixed pattern on the sun forever forwards and backwards in time which is NOT the case, and NOT what we do.
People who don't know what they are doing might be tempted to assume something on those lines but it would be delusional, dangerously misleading and fail at many of the most important times. I notice as an aside there have been quite a lot of OTT quake forecasts in the last year most of which as far as I can see come from over-assumption of repeats of solar or lunar effects and over-assumptions of causes.

If I didn't get my CH information from your RTQ forecast it proves I didn't read it properly? A strange extrapolation!

The dates I listed were for the same coronal hole. I was just showing that it's not difficult to 'forecast' a recurring one until it closes down.

"You don't know in which hemisphere (eg) quakes would be most likely to follow whereas we do."
Your track record on this has unfortunately, been poor recently.

More schoolboy silliness,

1. Your usual 'assessment' by announcing the last perceived error, which is not honest assessment at all it is just public-schoolboy trollishness and in the end libelous. Overall the hemisphere results are on the side of what was stated and better than luck; and if they werent we would have to look at factors involved.

2. Actually the last one 5-7th June for QV was stated as pretty uncertain - 'NH OR close to equator prob preferred' and normally we say one hemisphere or teh other. The M6 in Peru was 16deg S which is pretty close to equator although we didn't define closeness. If you look at all the M5+ to get more to look at there were 5 in NH and 6 in S, and the most distant one from the equator was NH (SW Siberia). Altogether neither decisively one side nor other which is not against the prognoses I suggested.

3. These are trials so SO WHAT? apart from your desire to waste my time? A marginal result in this example is consistent with us expecting a marginal result and we are doing trails so we expect a range of results. If we didn't get a range we wouldn't be doing trials we would be doing full forecasts.

4. AND...? Yes you know I can add 27 to 27!!!!! Did we say that was skill? The important thing is not that but anything one cannot get by such things eg (i) new CH and (ii) the changing importance and role of old ones (re-activation) / Active regions and (iii) what we are looking for is what the CH appears to do or be related to, NOT WHEN it came (unless it was a new one).
You are trying to deceive people into thinking we are testing our ability to add 27 to 27. Very schoolboy, but anyhow independent people are looking at things so don't worry we are not trialing adding up.

6. I have never seen any study of MetO long range forecasts /prognoses which shows any skill, only the opposite.

Looking back over the 3 months MAM 2012 you actually did quite well with hemispheric predictions. Of the 21 M6+ EQ's that fell within a forecast period 13 were correct as to hemisphere, 8 were incorrect.

So, Do you therefore retract and apologize for your gratuitously damaging and misleading statement:- "Your track record on this has unfortunately, been poor recently."?