Excuse this and other late posts I’ve been too busy to reply, until now.
No thanks piers.
You are a bad man beacuse you are killing people around the world by keeping your long range weather forecasting method a secret.
Don’t you pay your weather forecasters were you are?
But that does not really matter because piers is also deluding into thinking that his method actually works. The audited forecasts have a sucess rate of 85%. That is not much better then picking a random set of days in winter and saying that one of more will be very wet.
Ah! So you didn’t mean what you said before
The real killer is all of the extreme weather events that he has probably missed. For example I did not see any forecast of the Queensland floods.
He does his best, it’s just him and a small team working from a tiny office in London and you want him to cover the whole world? Get real RC.
However, he HAS made forecasts about the Queensland floods. “As shown in WA2011NewsNo1* Queensland & Australian floods show a very strong tendency to occur at a certain phase of the 19yr eclipse cycle.” “SIGNIFICANT FLOODS in SouthWest Queensland 25-29 Jan.”
http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=296&c=5
Haig: Are you brave enough to test your almost religious faith in Piers by seeing how many of the
extreme weather events listed by NCDC he predicted?
Nope RC.I haven’t the time, maybe you could do it?
I don’t have faith RC I’m non-religious but I do like Piers style and the way his correct predictions winds your side up. We both know why that is, right?
If someone can predict the weather and climate weeks, months and even up to a year in advance, using the influences of the Sun modulated by the Moon, then that means AGW is NOT significant and the carbon tax to save the planet is a con.
Here’s one of his forecasts lets see if it’s right:
2011 - Another year of weather extremes warns Piers
“Solar-lunar driven major jet stream blocking will continue through January and the whole of 2011 giving more extreme cold and snowy / blizzardy spells in parts of USA, Britain and Europe though January continuing into February and then not the sort of Spring and Summer the warmists want.”
http://www.weatheraction.com/docs/WANews11No1.pdf
Thanks for supplying the reference.
Your welcome.
So do you believe that the satellite temperatures which agree with the weather station temperatures have been faked? After all they both show global warming
I don’t “believe” anything but facts and there ARE doubts surrounding that satellite data.
"The NASA data is being wrongly interpreted. The satellite shots of the Pacific show hot water areas around the coasts of most Pacific Nations. The problem is that that heating is actually caused by hundreds, if not thousands, of undersea volcanoes which are continuously erupting around the Pacific rim, and also along all the areas where the tectonic plates meet and are riding over each other.
This is the cause of some of the Antarctic ice melting, there is a group of volcanoes underneath the sea, just off the Antarctic shore."
And this too
"There is nothing wrong with the data. It is the interpretation of the data that sucks!
I am assuming that the satellite data has now been corrected for decay and the IPCC IR 2007 reporting of “no significant lower tropospheric warming” has now been gleefully re-found.
I am beginning to drown in data representations. I really liked the IR data presentation because it allowed a good visual representation of the Temp change and its geographic location per station. I hate interpreted or smoothed or corrected data!
I have seen some representations of the N vs. S hemisphere that I find interesting, but it is all some form of cherry picking or another.
Can anyone answer me as to why the 0.8 degree temperature increase, apparently unrelated to “natural phenomenon” but to AGW by the IPCC, came out of nowhere and disappeared into nothingness as quickly as it appeared? Did man somehow sacrifice goats or something to the AGW Gods and get a short term indulgence? If 1998 is AGW created, as the IPCC say, then we must have found a cure and then lost the recipe?
Maybe, just maybe, it is virtually all natural and that natural rate of rise is 0.0134 degrees per year or 1.03 degrees C per century!"
How about this RC?
Hansen’s “Hottest Year Ever” Based on Fabricated Data
“It is clear from the following sections that NOAA performs manipulations to create false impressions from the data, including assigning temperature increases were there is zero data.”
http://climategate.tv/tag/temperature-data/
Or is it more likely that the decrease in the number of stations had little effect on the accuracy of the recorded temperatures.
No, less likely:
"NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can’t tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA’s temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.
E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) — the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails — and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.
The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA’s data “was more accurate” than other climate-change data sets, NASA’s Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said “the National Climatic Data Center’s procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate,” admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate reading"
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
And this example about NASA is also interesting:
“Here you can see that NASA keeps revising their historical temperature data for the USA, with no explanation of why.
Here's the current version:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
Here are various older versions:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
According to NASA, the six warmest years on record in the 48 contiguous United States were:
#1: 1934
#2: 1998
#3: 1921
#4: 2006
#5: 1931
#6: 1999
I chose to list the "six warmest" (instead of five or ten) because it happens that these six years are the warmest on record in all the versions of the NASA temperature table which I could find, though the order of the six varies according to which version of the table you use.
The hottest year used to be listed as 1934, but 1934 has now been demoted to 3rd-hottest, behind 1998 and 2006.
There's no explanation for these changes to what is SUPPOSED to be stable historical data.”
Posted by: Dave Burton | May 27, 2010
You are wrong. The predictions are that these will happen, not that they have happened by now.
However
You seem to want it all ways – “They will happen but not by now – however, they are happening.” Make your mind up RC
I remember the global warmers saying that snow will soon be a thing of the past. You will have to tell your grandchildren about it because they will never see it again. Well let me tell you mine are up to their ears in the stuff, just now, and they HAVE been in each of the last three, very severe, winters here in the UK.
The climate has ALWAYS been changing RC but it’s not US causing it!
Those faking the data and receiving public funds for their research MAY end up having to face legal action in court:-
State Prosecutor Makes Breakthrough in Climate Case
”The latest initiative follows hot on the heels of last week’s courtroom success for Virginia Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli against Mann’s former employers at the University of Virginia. The university squandered half a million dollars in a desperate attempt to withhold past records of Mann from Cuccinelli. A court ruling ended such shenanigans”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7023&linkbox=true&position=2
Not when you use the 22 year Hale cycle (magnetic cycle), that's what Piers Corbyn does.
Then there is this:
Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful by John O'Sullivan guest post at Climate Change Fraud
“US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.
The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).
Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.
However, NOAA spokesman, Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis declined to state how long the fault might have gone undetected. Nor would the shaken spokesman engage in speculation as to the damage done to the credibility of a decade’s worth of temperature readings taken from the problematic ‘NOAA-16’ satellite.”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6127
This
could lead to Maunder Minimum type event just as it has in the past.
The Maunder Minimum hapened in the middle of the Little Ice Age. It was a contributer to but not a cause of the Little Ice age.
What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is falling:
About the long-term coordinated variations of the activity, radius, total irradiance of the Sun and the Earth’s climate
"The 11-year cycle represents a simultaneous parallel change in both the activity level
and the total irradiance of the Sun. So, in case of variations of the amplitude of the
activity level - a power of a cycle - the amplitude of solar irradiance variations is expected to change correspondingly. The identical correlated course of the long-term variations of activity and luminosity of the Sun on the secular timescale has been observed earlier by Eddy (1976), and Borisenkov (1988). Moreover, according to the data of Borisenkov (1988), in each of 18 deep Maunder-type minima of solar activity, revealed over the span of the last 7500 years, the cooling of climate had been observed, while warming occurred during the periods of high maxima. Thus, the integral radiation has always been essentially higher at the maximum, and it had noticeably decreased at the minima."
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/Symp_223.pdf
And the above JUST considers TSI (sunshine) we know from Piers the hugely varying solar wind and magnetic effects that buffet our magnetosphere drives Earth's weather much more dramatically.
Haig - that is basic climate science. The external forcings that drive our climate are extensively studied. They are predictable and natural. The observations are that they are being overwhelmed by the internal forcings such as CO2 levels.
Don’t be so sure RC:
Dr. Tim Ball: Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years
“Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, lost data by people like Phil Jones, were all done to falsify the results and prevent scrutiny of their work. This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data. In his autobiography Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) because “it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.” The situation is worse now, sadly due to people at the CRU and government weather agencies”
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7001&linkbox=true&position=3
The second link is to the audit he comissioned for his predictions. It ignores the weather events that he did not predict.
Really amazing he does these months in advance over a six month period getting 85% right “the Severe Weather Event Assessment from October 2008 to April 2009. Each event has been independently looked at in turn and verified.” And you try to criticise him for NOT predicting ALL the weather events. If you think about it he was trying to get the best score he could so, I guess, he would only mention those events he was certain would occur. Are there ANY mainstream forecasters able to do that?
Didn’t agree last time or now RC. Piers has had a verification of his Solar Weather Technique in a peer reviewed paper and you can’t take that away from him. Wheeler was a respected scientist and confirmed “these forecasts, which include solar predictors and are prepared 6-11 months in advance of the events they predict” which is quite impressive.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JASTP..63...29W
