View Article & Comments

How do you view extreme events that occur outside these R forecast periods? For example Western Australia is about to take another storm hit. Australian BOM says "Winds associated with this storm are much stronger than a usual winter storm" "This storm is expected to cause WIDESPREAD DANGEROUS WINDS in excess of 125
kilometres per hour which could cause SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION TO HOMES
OR PROPERTY." (their emphasis)

Hi Elim

We have just gone through an R3 period, 9th-10th, the storm may have powered up in that period and still has plenty of energy.

Its very difficult to judge these events on merit, and to try and call each and every storm as "solar" driven can't be done.

A good example: Each eruption on a Volcano can't be put down to "solar" a event, so when we see these events outside the period they may have been down to normal tectonic plate movements, in much the same way the storm you mention. Unlike the Earthquake's Volcanic eruptions do not have a scale to use, storms have, let us know the rating of this storm you have found.

The Earthquake Volcano trial is to find a rule of thumb. So far this month has been clam on that front (only 4 M6+), this next week or so should throw up more M6+, the qustion then is was there a "solar" infulence involved to make more M6+ happen.

So, if a powerful storm occurs during one of your R periods you claim it is solar driven and when one occurs outside a R period it is not and terrestrial forces are the driver.

How do you know if a storm within your R period has not resulted from terrestrial forces.

Hi Tom

What we are trying to do is to see if there MORE storms, MORE M6+ Earthquakes INSIDE these periods.

You seem to want us to say that ALL Storms and Earthquakes are solar driven.

Nice try

What I am saying is that it is impossible to say what is the primary driver of any storm.

You will need to keep a daily record of all storms over many years and overlay the R periods in the hope of seeing any correlation. Is that being done?

There are some very good sites to monitor severe weather such as

http://severe.worldweather.wmo.int/

Over Europe we have Meteoalarm

http://www.meteoalarm.eu/

and for the US

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/today.html

and you will see that there what could be classed as severe weather occuring somewhere in the world on most days.

Good luck in showing any sort of correlation.

Comment edited by Tom Richards (Twitter) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 at 5:25 AM EDT

The trick is to use some sort of forecast in advance and then see if there was antything to collect in the net, so to speak. Its easy to say there are lots going on etc. but unless you have some sort of way to look at the events in an objective way, your always see lots going on with little knowledge as to what made them start.

I have NO DOUBT that the recent storm in the UK WAS solar driven but proving it is very difficult.

The criteria would be something like this:

Was it a NORMAL event or an UNUSUAL event

If is was an UNUSUAL event what can be added to it to be identified that way.

We know that Earthquakes happen daily, but M6+ seems to be a level of less frequency and from data we have there seems to be more during Lunar Phases. So how many M6+ happen when there are lunar forcing periods and were those periods during active periods on the Sun.

So, was the recent UK Storm/Flood during a Lunar/Solar period?

If it was during a Lunar/Solar period was there something about the event that standard meteorology did not foresee and was unable to forecast in advance. i.e. has standard meteorology identified
periods when it is less effective.

Piers issues a Monthly forecast that works very well, and yet the Met Office can't forecast beyond a few days other then to state it may be warmer or cooler then average at the end of a Month.

Piers doesn't just give an up or down on the average, he trys to give the weather scenario using historc data from Solar/Lunar events. He has come up with a 132 years repeat, but then it depends on the strength of the term and solar cycle we are in to work his forecast.

What you guys are saying is that standard meteorology has got all the answers you need, and all the MO need is a bigger computer.

As they say: "rubbish in is rubbish out"

Comment edited by Co2sceptic (forum) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 at 6:45 AM EDT

So maybe the R periods refer more to the likelihood of an extreme event, rather than the intensity of it? The last R5 Q period was 'confirmed' by an M6 EQ, it would also have been a confirmation if it had been an R3 period. There has to be something to differentiate these different periods.

I still thing the waters are being terribly muddied by using forecasts to see if you're 'right' rather than looking for a pattern or correlation. At the moment it seems that anything outside of a forecast time is completely ignored - that's important information being discarded. Covering most of the month in a forecast period does nothing to help you either, you've vastly increased the possibility of being fooled by chance.

Look objectively at the solar/lunar data, look at weather/seismic indicators and take it from there. There are many pitfalls though, there is a seasonality to the weather of which a substantial component will have nothing to do with any S/L input.

I would like you to find something in all this, but at the moment you seem to have made it into an impossible task. Simplify and objectify. :)

BTW The "Transit of Venus" period, had NO luner forcing and as a result there was not a lot on the Earthquake issue.

Since we wont have another "VIT" for 105 years I can't and you can't read into that side and we will never know the answer in this life.

When was the last named Hurricane?

Come on Co2 - that's just anecdotal on it's own! Have you assessed the 2011 season against the R periods? There were 11 Atlantic hurricanes, how did they fare in respect of the R forecast periods? Remember, you'll need to eliminate chance as part of your assessment.

Nope, if we went back to 2011 there would be a dispute about who said what and when etc.

If we forget the first TWO named Hurricanes fell inside the R period at the end of May 2012 and use June 2012 we then have a blank sheet to work with be it the first R4+ period did not produce a named Hurricane

So the question is... during the next R4 and R5 period will there be a named Hurricane or Typhoon/Cyclone.

We can go through the remainder of the year on this basis to see how many fell into the R periods and the what and when will be less complicated to follow

You could end up with NON or you could end up with at least half, who knows, if we say that there is a Solar/Lunar connection to these storms and a few miss but most hit will you agree to open your mind as to the Solar/Lunar idea from Piers

If your right and there is no connection then they will fall randomly, if we are right, and we think we are, there will be a correlation.

I'm surprised you have no data to look back on?

I've never doubted a solar/lunar influence. I am doubting the methodology :)

It's probably reasonable to start at the season start (1/6)

We've only had one hurricane so far (and three tropical storms)The difficulty is, keeping criteria consistent e.g. Bud was first 'recognised' (TD status)on 20/5/12, reached TS status 22/5/12 then he achieved Hurricane status on 23/5/12. What date would you choose, first? last? all three?

I never said there was no data to look back on, what I did say is that we will then have a debate about who said what and when!

With Bud it was a tropical storm going into the R period and then became a Hurricane during the period.

As you noticed it had a lot of energy after the period.

How's this for the criteria, the Hurricane peaks during the period (+-day)

I wish Elim and Tom* would turn off the new article alert as it's getting boring seeing those two at the top of every Piers related post. I swear they must be getting a bonus for their sterling work in trying to throw the spanner of doubt everywhere someone mentions Piers name. It's a well known online WUM/troll tactic.

*was there a John the other day? I'm losing track of the Twitter accounts created with the express purpose of trying to undermine Piers.

PS on the topic of Trolls, there seems to be a law on this topic. As site admin I can only pass on that debate must be civil and wirth no insults

How we apply that I have no idea other than to ask those who debate with each other to be open as to who they are and what it is as to their intension in remaining in debate when they refuse to answer simply questions as to who they are