Summer forecast for UK: no 101°F highs this year, no superheatwaves, sez Piers Corbyn
Steve Schulin
News Release
Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
& 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!
There will be NO SUPERHEATWAVES in Britain this summer announced Weather
Action Long range forecasters this morning in a forthright contradiction
of claims from other quarters publicised last month. "There will be
hotspells - and we know when - but none of them will be long enough to
be record-breakers. Nowhere will reach 101 degF" said Piers Corbyn
astrophysicist of Weather Action. "I am ready to bet with anyone on
this", he said
"The alarmist claims from others publicised last month alongside
government concerns are hype which have no scientific basis. They are
Global Warming Spin which will be used to pressure the G8 summit to
increase taxes and support nuclear power", he said.
"Our forecasts are based on predictable aspects of particle and magnetic
activity from the sun. This summer all the hotspells will be cut short
by solar particle enhancement of frontal activity - just like this
week's warm weather is being replaced by a relatively lousy weekend -
"We predicted this particular weather change some time ago and also
warned that whatever traditional forecasts would say about this weekend
it would turn out to be wetter and cloudier"
Mr Corbyn warned that there will be a 'bonanza' of Global Warming spin
in the build up to the G8 and it will 'all be wild assertions or dire
warnings of doom to come (after the G8 event) which will not be be
confirmed.'. He re-iterated comments he made at recent meetings at the
Royal Society and at the Institute of Physics, namely:
* 'There are no dangers from climate change, the claims of more
dangerous extremes to come are just hype - there have been less storms
in recent years not more - for example.'
* 'The so-called threat of extinctions of Arctic animals is 'total
nonsense'; the arctic was warmer than the Global warmers dire
predictions from 8 thousand years ago to one thousand years ago and they
all survived.'
* 'Particles from the Sun are the key to climate change and world
temperatures, and in the long run temperatures control CO2 - not the
other way around'.
* 'The most drastic cuts in mankind's production of CO2 envisaged would
ruin the world economy but could not lower world temperatures by more
than 0.2 deg C. That is just equivalent to people moving 30 miles North,
like moving London to Northampton. Why bother?! The dire warnings of
2degC rise in World temperatures would make Birmingham as warm as
Plymouth. Is this a problem? It happened in Roman times entirely
naturally; was it a problem then?
Weather Action
Delta House, 175-177 Borough High Street, London SE1 1HR
Tel +44(0)20 7939 9946 Fax +44(0)20 7939 9948
E: in...@weatheraction.com
Natsman
see the light.
Spin is what it's all about.
Climate Change is cyclical, "Global Warming" is at best exaggeration, and at
worst invention.
And we, the general public, are gullible. (Well, some of us...)
CK
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-988...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Rob Overfield
You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see what he
says!
--
Rob Overfield
Hull
"Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
news:steve.schulin-988...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> June 10, 2005
>
> News Release
>
> Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
> NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
> & 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!
>
<snipped>>
Rob Overfield
"Natsman" <Chris...@removethisJerrymander.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42aee227$1...@alt.athenanews.com...
> Never been a particular fan of Piers, however, thank goodness even he can
> see the light.
> Spin is what it's all about.
>
> Climate Change is cyclical, "Global Warming" is at best exaggeration, and
at
> worst invention.
>
> And we, the general public, are gullible. (Well, some of us...)
>
> CK
>
So basically you're saying that the very quick (in geological time) rise in
temperature in purely natural? Other rises of this nature have been over
much longer time spans and therefore the current situation seems unlikely to
be *entirely* natural. Sorry Chris, but I think we all ought to at least
think that the subject may have some small added ingredient caused 'man'.
PS Seeing as how you seem to think GW is an invention, explain to us why you
think so?
--
Rob Overfield
Hull
CK
experiencing scientific theories and "facts" being in turn proved,
disproved, turned on their heads and eventually either rubbished or
abandoned, and a cynical notion that those who would have us believe their
version either have an axe to grind or are toadying to some establishment or
other.
And, of course, it's a personal opinion. Something we're all entitled to be
it right or wrong.
Hopefully most of us won't be around to say "told you so", either way!
CK
"Rob Overfield" <rob.ov...@btinternetSHOE.com> wrote in message
news:vr6dnQQDrIG...@karoo.co.uk...
Raymond Arritt
> June 10, 2005
>
> News Release
>
> Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
> NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
> & 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!
>
> There will be NO SUPERHEATWAVES in Britain this summer announced Weather
> Action Long range forecasters this morning in a forthright contradiction
> of claims from other quarters publicised last month. "There will be
> hotspells - and we know when - but none of them will be long enough to
> be record-breakers. Nowhere will reach 101 degF" said Piers Corbyn
> astrophysicist of Weather Action. "I am ready to bet with anyone on
> this", he said
It would be a pretty safe bet. As best I can find on short notice,
before the 2003 heat wave the record highest temperature in the UK was
37.1 degC (that's 98.2 degF) at Cheltenham on 3 August 1990, per
http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/interesting/aug03maxtemps.html .
According to the same source the highest temperature during the 2003
heat wave was only 38.5 degC (101.3 degF), barely above the threshold
for Corbyn's wager.
Corbyn also could predict no hurricanes in Siberia, no blizzards in
Fiji, etc. etc.
Lloyd Parker
"Natsman" <Chris...@removethisJerrymander.co.uk> wrote:
>Never been a particular fan of Piers, however, thank goodness even he can
>see the light.
>Spin is what it's all about.
>
>Climate Change is cyclical, "Global Warming" is at best exaggeration, and
at
>worst invention.
And what makes you more credible than NASA, NOAA, EPA, AGU, IPCC, and the
National Academy of Science? LOL!
>
>And we, the general public, are gullible. (Well, some of us...)
>
>CK
Obviously you mean you.
Lloyd Parker
"CK" <Chris...@removethisJerrymander.co.uk> wrote:
>Just a gut feeling - no evidence to go on at all, really. Just years of
>experiencing scientific theories and "facts" being in turn proved,
>disproved, turned on their heads and eventually either rubbished or
>abandoned, and a cynical notion that those who would have us believe their
>version either have an axe to grind or are toadying to some establishment
or
>other.
Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell uis
all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.
Steve Schulin
"Rob Overfield" <rob.ov...@btinternetSHOE.com> wrote:
> My analysis: Piers Corbyn = fraudster.
>
> You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see what he
> says!
Gee whiz, he might just refer to Dennis Wheeler's peer reviewed article
which reports exactly that which you appear to think undone:
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34, 2001
> --
> Rob Overfield
> Hull
>
>
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote in message
> news:steve.schulin-988...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > June 10, 2005
> >
> > News Release
> >
> > Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
> > NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
> > & 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!
> >
> <snipped>>
> > Weather Action
> > Delta House, 175-177 Borough High Street, London SE1 1HR
> > Tel +44(0)20 7939 9946 Fax +44(0)20 7939 9948
> > E: in...@weatheraction.com
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Rob Overfield
> In article <6xudncsCUuB...@karoo.co.uk>,
> "Rob Overfield" <rob.ov...@btinternetSHOE.com> wrote:
>
>> My analysis: Piers Corbyn = fraudster.
>>
>> You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see
>> what he says!
>
> Gee whiz, he might just refer to Dennis Wheeler's peer reviewed
> article which reports exactly that which you appear to think undone:
> Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34, 2001
And on the basis of that one favourable study you're willing to say he's
right? Piers loves to brag about the results but yet he is not willing to
let his methods be reviewed and tested, and for heavens sake, he's a
physicist not a meteorologist.
There's really no way to tell about the validity of Piers forecasts. You can
of course compare them with the observed weather, but, straightforward as
that sounds, it's an imperfect method since Corbyn's forecasts speak in
general terms.
A study pondered whether it was even possible to render objective
assessments of descriptive weather forecasts. Researchers Ian and Nils
Jolliffe had this tough-to-dispute summary of Weather Action's outlooks: "It
is unusual for most of the detail to be completely correct, but equally it
is rare for nearly everything to be wrong ... Some forecasts are clearly
very good, and a few are very poor, but the majority fall in the gray area
in between, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical
assessor would find fault."
And thats where he gets away with it, the forecasts are so vague, you can
read anything you like into them, depending on what you look for.
Sorry Steve, but if you want to believe the mumbo-jumbo, then that is your
right and privilege, but before you go promoting Weather Action just
consider this. If the forecasts are so good, why did his company lose money
on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London? Surely if his
forecasts are so amazingly good, wouldn't you think he would have MADE
money...?
--
Rob Overfield
Hull
Alastair McDonald
> In article <6xudncsCUuB...@karoo.co.uk>,
> "Rob Overfield" <rob.ov...@btinternetSHOE.com> wrote:
>
> > My analysis: Piers Corbyn = fraudster.
> >
> > You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see what he
> > says!
>
> Gee whiz, he might just refer to Dennis Wheeler's peer reviewed article
> which reports exactly that which you appear to think undone:
> Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34, 2001
I assume you mean this?
A verification of UK gale forecasts by the 'solar weather technique': October
1995-September 1997
Dennis Wheeler,
Geography Department, University of Sunderland, Forster Building, Chester
Road, Sunderland SR1 3SD, UK
Received 27 September 1999; revised 24 April 2000; accepted 23 June 2000.
Available online 29 November 2000.
Abstract
In recent years the 'solar weather' technique of weather forecasting which
takes into account of the influence of the sun has received much attention. No
attempt has hitherto been made to determine the success, or otherwise, of
elements of these forecasts, which include solar predictors and are prepared
6-11 months in advance of the events they predict. This paper conducts an
evaluation of these forecasts but confines attention to the prediction of
gales. Skill levels are assessed over different seasons. The results, whilst
differing greatly between the seasons, reveal a degree of success that cannot
readily be accounted for by chance and suggest that this system of forecasting
continues to be assessed over a longer time period to further investigate
these findings.
Cheers, Alastair.
Steve Schulin
"Rob Overfield" <rob.ov...@btinternetSHOE.com> wrote:
> Steve Schulin wrote:
> > "Rob Overfield" <rob.ov...@btinternetSHOE.com> wrote:
> >
> >> My analysis: Piers Corbyn = fraudster.
> >>
> >> You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see
> >> what he says!
> >
> > Gee whiz, he might just refer to Dennis Wheeler's peer reviewed
> > article which reports exactly that which you appear to think undone:
> > Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34, 2001
>
>
> And on the basis of that one favourable study you're willing to say he's
> right? ...
I've never claimed that Corbyn is right. I do offer my observation that
the group whom I've come to call the "global governance crowd" of
calamitologists seem to focus exclusively on solar irradiance changes
when considering how much of recent temperature changes can be
attributed to sun. Corbyn appears well ahead of them in following the
data to other aspects of solar effects on Earth.
> ... Piers loves to brag about the results but yet he is not willing to
> let his methods be reviewed and tested, and for heavens sake, he's a
> physicist not a meteorologist.
He's a businessman. I sure understand his reluctance to give away that
which feeds his and his employees' families.
> There's really no way to tell about the validity of Piers forecasts. You can
> of course compare them with the observed weather, but, straightforward as
> that sounds, it's an imperfect method since Corbyn's forecasts speak in
> general terms.
>
> A study pondered whether it was even possible to render objective
> assessments of descriptive weather forecasts. Researchers Ian and Nils
> Jolliffe had this tough-to-dispute summary of Weather Action's outlooks: "It
> is unusual for most of the detail to be completely correct, but equally it
> is rare for nearly everything to be wrong ... Some forecasts are clearly
> very good, and a few are very poor, but the majority fall in the gray area
> in between, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical
> assessor would find fault."
>
> And thats where he gets away with it, the forecasts are so vague, you can
> read anything you like into them, depending on what you look for.
He claims the most skill in forecasting severe weather events. His
presentation to Institute of Physics in February included a copy of what
he says was his January forecast for British Isles. Was anybody else
predicting Jan 4-7 2005 and Jan 17-20 2005 as periods of major
storminess 6 months ahead?
>
> Sorry Steve, but if you want to believe the mumbo-jumbo, then that is your
> right and privilege, but before you go promoting Weather Action just
> consider this. If the forecasts are so good, why did his company lose money
> on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London? Surely if his
> forecasts are so amazingly good, wouldn't you think he would have MADE
> money...?
Well, I'm not familiar with AIM, and I didn't know that one could buy
shares in Weather Action. There's a lot of factors in stock price
besides technical excellence. That VHS dominated the VCR market instead
of Beta was not a reflection on the engineering superiority of the
loser, for example.
> --
> Rob Overfield
> Hull
I appreciate your comments. Are you familiar with that Institute of
Physics presentation? It is the most detailed description of Corbyn's
approach that I've seen anywhere. The figure showing historic path of
magnetic north pole is worth a look even if you've closed your mind to
the man. It's a PowerPoint file -- and may still be available at
http://groups.iop.org/EG/05/03/050314a_e.html
Very truly,
Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com
Rockville, Maryland USA
Steve Schulin
"Alastair McDonald" <alas...@abmcdonald.leavethisout.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Steve Schulin" <steve....@nuclear.com> wrote...
That's the right title, and the dates look appropriate for the Jan 2001
hard copy publication issue. doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(00)0015 5-3
Waghorn
"Lloyd Parker" >
> Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
> relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell uis
> all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.
In the current context it might be pedantic to point out that all the
theories you quote have 'exotic' or alternative models proposed,many in the
peer reviewed literature-
Quantum Mechanics-plethora of interpretations including 'Many
Worlds',Hidden Variables etc.
Special Relativity-eg Aether theories , results of Michelson Morley
Experiment and modern equivalents questioned to this day.
Evolution-Creationism,'Punctuated Equilibrium'.
Plate Tectonics-Expanding Earth,Plate Driven Tectonics Vs Plume Driven .
(In theory of the core-the nuclear reactor
model)
Black Holes-Gravstars,Condensate Stars.
If you read New Scientist you'll find an almost weekly diet of such 'left
field' stuff.It would seem that healthy mainstream theories always attract
alternative ideas,some with more credibility than others.Is it a sign of the
vitality and relevance of canonical theories that they attract or leave
room for alternatives?
Also by concentrating on Corbyn the thread seems to ignore other work going
on in the field of Solar-Geomagnetism-Weather-Climate.For a recent snapshot
of research in the peer reviewed literature see-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=JournalURL&_cdi=6062&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4655039ac8561ae96010ffa973acee75
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 67, Issues 1-2, Pages 1-218 (January 2005)
Solar Activity Forcing of the Middle Atmosphere
Free issue online,
King Amdo
Peter Hayes
> June 10, 2005
>
> News Release
>
> Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
> NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
What supercomputer did they use to discover what common sense told
everyone else?
--
Peter
James Annan
> June 10, 2005
>
> News Release
>
> Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
> NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
> & 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!
>
> There will be NO SUPERHEATWAVES in Britain this summer announced Weather
> Action Long range forecasters this morning in a forthright contradiction
> of claims from other quarters publicised last month. "There will be
> hotspells - and we know when - but none of them will be long enough to
> be record-breakers. Nowhere will reach 101 degF" said Piers Corbyn
> astrophysicist of Weather Action. "I am ready to bet with anyone on
> this", he said
Well whoop-de-doo, Piers is really putting his neck on the line with
that one.
I'll bet my house we don't get snow in Tokyo this summer either.
You'll have noted that he pointedly refuses to bet on his "climate
forecast" of cooling in coming decades.
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with-piers.html
James
Lloyd Parker
"Waghorn" <da...@waghorne00.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" >
>> Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
>> relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell
uis
>> all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.
>
>In the current context it might be pedantic to point out that all the
>theories you quote have 'exotic' or alternative models proposed,many in
the
>peer reviewed literature-
>Quantum Mechanics-plethora of interpretations including 'Many
>Worlds',Hidden Variables etc.
Interpretations of QM -- they are not competing theories to QM. Copehagen
and Many Worlds are the 2 major interpretations. Hidden variables doesn't
rise to the level of "theory" because there's no evidence for it.
>Special Relativity-eg Aether theories , results of Michelson Morley
Not really. M-M disproved aether before Einstein's theories.
>Experiment and modern equivalents questioned to this day.
>Evolution-Creationism,'Punctuated Equilibrium'.
You're not seriously saying creationism is a scientific theory, I hope. And
punctured eq. is a variation of evolution, not a competing theory.
>Plate Tectonics-Expanding Earth,Plate Driven Tectonics Vs Plume Driven .
> (In theory of the core-the nuclear reactor
>model)
>Black Holes-Gravstars,Condensate Stars.
All part of the same theory.
Waghorn
"Lloyd Parker" > "Waghorn">>"Lloyd Parker" >
Well,I could come back to you on the individual points,but my idea was that
no theory stands alone as an unassailable monolith.
(indeed in the Popperian sense any useful theory has to be refutable).But
good theories withstand attacks from the wings as you imply,though in the
sense of Kuhn some will eventually give way to new paradigms.But,I'm way off
the thread.........
--
regards,
David
add '17' to Waghorne to reply
Lloyd Parker
tested and not disproved: atomic theory, evolution, quantum mechanics,
relativity, plate tectonics, to name to most obvious ones. Yes, they are
refined from time to time; yes, they are subject to different ways of
thinking about them; but disproven? No. Science is at the point today
where, by the time something is accorded the status of "theory", it's as
established as anything gets.