No he has not. None of his forecasts have been independently tested. All that has happens is that someone has ticked off a list forecasts as happened. No one knows how that list was created or how it compares to a list of random forecasts. As far as I see his forecasts are the equivalent of "it will be wet in winter".
Yes he has. I’d say his forecasts have been “tested” fairly, over many years, by two independent bodies with good reputations: The University of Sunderland and WeatherNet
“Early Weather Action (Solar Weather Technique) skill was independently verified in a peer-reviewed paper by Dr Dennis Wheeler, University of Sunderland, in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Vol 63 (2001) p29-34”
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0
Martin Lilley (BSc. Hons)
Meteorologist - WeatherNet Ltd
Audit on Severe Weather Event Predictions Made by Weather Action Oct 08 - Apr 09
“Weather Action achieved an overall score of 8.5/9 for US based predictions.”
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/data/WAcoverletter.pdf
I know the above is NOT what you mean by “TESTED” but it is valid under the scientific method whereby a theory allows predictions to be made and if they are confirmed, as they have been with the “solar weather technique”, then the theory has merit and has NOT been disproved.
What I particularly like about Piers Corbyn and his SWT is when he makes public predictions about the weather, weeks and months in advance, allowing anybody to judge him. In the few months I’ve been checking them it’s been very accurate, just look now, March 2010:
Late March Snow Britain & USA confirm
WeatherAction forecasts “Spot On”
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews10No14.pdf
Really RC, you will have to do better if you want to rubbish PC but why would you want to? Isn’t it better to look into how he does it?
“It’s conclusive Piers Corbyn is on to something significant using the Solar Weather Technique to with high accuracy predict the future weather and climate. Not a soothsayer but a true scientist working his craft.”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/11...s-while-the-solar-weather-technique-succeeds/
The Met office gave up on long range weather forecasts because they were scientifically tested and found to be unreliable.
No, that's not quite right. They've given up publicly announcing them because of the criticisms when they keep getting them wrong (PC 5-0 Met) They still plan to develop the science of long range weather forecasting behind closed doors:-
"The Met Office, based at Exeter in Devon, added that it would work towards developing the science of long range forecasting."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/7378853/Met-Office-drops-seasonal-forecast.html
That is right. Kh. I. Abdusamatov has a long line of papers linking the Sun and climate change and doesn't accept that man is the cause of climate change.
Here is a quote from Abdusamatov that concludes that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities for the observed rising temperatures. I include a few other quotes from scientists that agree with this view.
RC, I know these won’t convince you that AGW is wrong but I’m puzzled how you dissmiss them? Without more evidance that it is humans causing climate change shouldn’t we just prepare for the cooling, (as it’s the worst case senario) that the Russians say, is coming?
http://search.intelius.com/Khabibul...tp://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/75628-0/
This rush towards a “carbon tax” to save the planet, seems politically motivated to me and as, a layman, more “unconvincing” the more I look into it. You seem a logical person, show me were I’m going wrong? Or maybe you can join me on this fence?
Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity…Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated…Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
Some other views also from "the other side of the argument":-
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly… solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential. I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people. So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."
Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 … climate change fluctuations comes … from cosmic radiation."
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned."
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities."
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "The truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. … About 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes."
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "There's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed."
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect."
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule … it's nothing,'".
Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But–and I cannot stress this enough–we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
And there you go with your obsession with the CLOUD 9 at CERN.
The experiment has not been done yet. All of the reports are about the pilot study that showed that it was feasible to do the experiment and get reliable results.
It’s going too far to say I have an obsession with CLOUD but I AM very interested in it’s implications for Project Astrometria and Piers Corbyn’s Solar Weather Technique. Could it be a possible mechanism, whereby the Sun’s output affects our climate, by modifying GCR’s?
Your bias is showing RC. You said, “the correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature is broken.” However, the well presented and recent “Cosmic rays and climate” Jasper Kirkby /CERN CERN Colloquium, 4 June 2009 shows it is not!
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=52576 give it time to load, it's big!
Cosmic Rays and Climate 26 Mar 2008
“Over the last few years, however, diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate.”
“Considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate.”
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1098138
Latest news articles on CLOUD Nov 2009
“CLOUD has finished its assembly phase and is starting taking data using a beam of protons from the 50 year-old Proton Synchrotron (PS). Here is a quick detour around a cutting-edge physics experiment that will shed light on climate-related matters.”
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/47/News Articles/1221077?ln=en
“supported by satellite measurements, which show a possible correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and the amount of low cloud cover. Clouds exert a strong influence on the Earth’s energy balance; changes of only a few per cent have an important effect on the climate.”
http://the-daily-politics.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate-cosmic-ray-of-sunshine.html
Nice paper. Pity it is probably not about the current climate. The fact that it taks about ky should be a clue.
Yes, it is a nice paper. It isn’t about the present climate; don’t you think we can learn about what may happen in the future by studying the past?
“Galactic cosmic rays—clouds effect and bifurcation model of the Earth global climate. Part 2. Comparison of theory with experiment”
“Earth surface palaeotemperature evolution over past 420 and 740 kyr are compared.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=c377b505b3bbc7985cf7ade3cf742699
The IPCC seem to think you can learn about climate from the past too:
“Palaeoclimatic records document a sequence of glacial-interglacial cycles covering the last 740 kyr in ice cores”
Climate Forcings and Responses Over Glacial-Interglacial Cycles
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4.html
It wasn’t “Man” back then and it, seems unlikely, to be “Man” causing climate change in the present, that’s the point! eg:
“Thus the high goodness of fit between the experimental (Fig. 3d) and theoretical (Fig. 3c) data is a validity indicator of main assumption used in our model; we assume that the temperature of ECS is caused both the variations of isolation and variations of GCR intensity (or, equivalently, variations of Earth magnetic field).
It can be concluded from the above mentioned that the most important, in our opinion, statement of presented model is the fact that the Earth climate, on the one hand, is completely defined by the two controlling parameters - isolation and galactic cosmic rays - and, in the other hand, is quite predictable on the millennial time scales if only theoretical or experimental values on long-term variations of relative palaeointensity HÅ(t) are present.”
http://ikfia.ysn.ru/pdf/Cosmic_Ray_Symp/s1.33.pdf
Look at the graph again. Solar cycle 23, (the last blue peak, just finished) was quite active. There are dashed lines that the authors have put in. That may be a guess on their part. They may have some reasons for this.
Yes, look at the graph again: The astrophysists who study the Sun in Project Astrometria, aren’t guessing, but following the trends in the solar activity. Just as the scientists in Weatheraction, CLOUD and NASA are doing and they are also expecting a less active Sun in solar cycles 24 and 25. These “trends” are predictable but the periods less so. Solar cycle 23 just finished took over 2 years longer than the average 11 years. The peak was much less than Solar Cycle 22 and that was less than Solar Cycle 21, hence, we are on a down slope of solar activity. There are many solar cycles displayed in that graph: the Schwabe, Hale, Gleissberg, and Suess cycles to name a few.
It’s OT but if you look at this paper, it may help you see how graphs like that are read by the astrophysists: POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE DE VRIES, GLEISSBERG AND HALE CYCLES IN THE SUN’S BARYCENTRIC MOTION
“the dominant periodicities that are seen in the long-term level of solar activity i.e. the de Vries (210 years), Gleissberg (90 years), and Hale (22.3 years) cycles,”
http://www.aip.org.au/Congress2006/625.pdf
However, solar cycle 24 (the first red peak after 2000) that has just started, may be less active or may be more active and solar cycle 25 may be even less or more active. No one knows.
Well RC I doubt you’ve accepted much of what I’ve said up to now but maybe you’ll listen to NASA?
Latest from NASA on the Sunspot Cycles and a less active Sun
The Sunspot Cycle (Updated 2010/04/01)
“the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Solar Cycle Prediction (Updated 2010/04/01)
“Both methods give larger than average amplitude to Cycle 24 while its delayed start and low minimum strongly suggest a much smaller cycle”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
I know that you are wrong.
The paper clearly states that the climate chnages were measured to came
6 months before before the change in cosmic ray flux.
Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
Don’t think so RC. It’s known that an active Sun suppresses the effects/amount of GCR arriving on Earth (the Greenland ice core data) If you look at our graph again, (the top one) shows TSI at its highest values, between the years 1970 and 2000 approx. That’s why the cosmic ray effect was reduced and, incidentally, why the last century was “warming” due to the active Sun. So, your point about the climate changes coming 6 months before the change in GCR
confirms the Sun is doing the forcing.
We appear to be on the down slope of a less active Sun
so GCR’s will become more important – a cooling climate!
“The statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, but it will
have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale”
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/07661/EGU06-J-07661.pdf
Clear evidence of the known influence of the Sun's "other effects" influencing the Earth's
ionosphere 
!
These quotes from it makes it very clear IMO:
“Prof. Price, an acclaimed climate change scientist, believes it may help scientists formulate
new questions about the sun's effect on our climate.” and
"because nothing has been done to investigate the
links between changing weather patterns and the rotation of the sun”
This is not much to do with climate. It might be useful if you were interested in predicting the occurrence of lightning, e.g. you would expect a 27-day cycle in that.
Something else RC that you ignored, that suggests the Sun regulates lightning here on Earth but how could that be possible?
“The variability of the lightning activity occurring in sync with the sun's rotation suggested that the sun somehow regulates the lightning pattern”.
Lightning and thunderstorms are part of our weather and climate and this correlation with the changes in the position of the Earth’s ionosphere, suspiciously in tandem with the Sun's rotation I find fascinating and relevant to this topic.
http://www.physorg.com/news177169609.html
!
rof. Price explains. "We noticed that this bouncing was modulated by the Sun, changing throughout its 27-day cycle. The variability of the lightning activity occurring in sync with the sun's rotation suggested that the sun somehow regulates the lightning pattern." 
