UKC

If you could have a long range weather forecast, say 6 months in advance, before winter kicked in, would you pay for it? As a Winter Climbing Collective we could get the forecast in October, covering Nov-Apr. Every wknd for Snowdonia, Scotland, Lakes and the Alps. Ideally, we want high pressure and cold yeh? In between the snow dumps. Because, we all know Global Warming has been consigned to history right!?

There's a Guy called Piers Corbyn who has a long range weather forecasting technique using Sun, Moon and Ocean observations. He gets it right 85% of the time, sometimes years in advance by looking back in history at Lunar Eclipses, Solar Eclipses etc and what happened at those times. He predicted the Pakistan floods, Russian heat wave (both a year in advance), the coldest December in a 100 years this year for us and recently the USA snow on the East Coast (both recent events).

http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact2&fsize=0

If we club together it won't cost much for his forecast. I for one, want the snow and ice. I want to guarantee the snow and ice when I go out. Thanks to business and family commitments I have to book the time off well in advance. Thanks to our supposed "mild" climate it's a lottery! And we all know never to trust the Met Office or the Beeb until the weather's 8 hours away!!

Wouldn't it be great to have a forecast 6 months ahead for every weekend. You could plan your trip well in advance and keep the Boss happy! The wife that is!

If you need to know more, check out this site too, bit political but the info is there. http://climaterealists.com/index.php

I'm waiting for a quote from Weatheraction. I'll let you all know how much. It would be good to know what everyone thought and who'd be interested so I can guage the numbers.

Weatheraction sell their forecasts to farmers, companies etc so can't publish them or the paying customers would get mighty upset, hence the need to form a collective!

In reply to singers:

Err... predicting trends is one thing, predicting what it'll be like on 26th January 2012 is quite another.

In reply to singers:

'85% correct' in terms of weather forecasting could mean just about anything.

"He predicted the Pakistan floods, Russian heat wave (both a year in advance), the coldest December in a 100 years this year for us and recently the USA snow on the East Coast (both recent events)."

Proof?

And re the climate'realists'(!) site: so you have evidenntly decided to disregard the opinion held by vast majority of the World's climate scientists (based upon well established theory, the study of huge and diverse data sets along with sophisticated modelling etc), but you are prepared to believe one snake-oil seller who makes his forecasts by looking back at the history of 'Lunar Eclipses, Solar Eclipses etc'.

In reply to singers:

Which "we" are you referring to? Never seen you here before!

In reply to singers:

Shut up and
Pay for your
Advertising and
Marketing

In reply to singers:

I have seen a sample forecast by Corbin and it's in amazing detail down to periods of a couple of days with probabilities of occurrence and alternative occurrences.

I also saw the TV documentary about his methods that appeared many years ago that showed him betting on the weather at William Hill, knowing that Hills had to go to the Met Office for help to set the odds. The final scene showed a smiling Piers sitting in the bath looking at a £1200 cheque from William Hill.

What seems to have happened in the intervening years is not an outright acceptance of Corbins work but tiny movements closer and closer to his methods as the Met Office and others develop their models.

In reply to singers:

Do you know what, I can give you some predictions for free.

In 2012 there will be a particularly cold, snow spell that all the winter climbers are going to get excited about, there is going to be a warm, dry spell that the summers climbers are going to get excited about, there is going to be a wet spell for the canoeists to get excited about. I think there will be heavy snow causing disruption to live on the eastern USA and there will be floods in foothills of the Himalayas.

Please get back to me and let me know if I'm right. If I am, I will charge you for 2013s prediction. Or you can just cut and paste this one.

In reply to singers:

You'll probably have to expect a lot more of the sort of flak we've seen here so far I'm afraid.

There are a lot of people here who would rather drown a in a flood which they knew for a fact was impossible to predict than seek high ground at the word of someone whose methods didn't fit their world view.

In reply to niggle: so you will be putting up some cash for the forecast then Niggler ?

In reply to lummox:

I haven't even looked at the site. Do you think it's worth it?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Never mind £1200, if it works so well why isn't he a billionare? I can see reasons why his methods might capture certain trends missed earlier by mainstream models but the claimed success rates were and are often crazy.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

This can't be true, as he keeps his methods a secret.

Try posting this thread on ukweatherworld.co.uk and see the reaction you get. For a clue, do a UKC search on "bolts on 3 Pebble Slab bolts"

In reply to niggle:

Your house will flood next April.

(I assume you will be moving out now next April)

In reply to Toreador:

Not difficult to see the resemblance between that and some UKC behaviours.

Other people's OCD doesn't mean I'm wrong and doesn't mean Corbin is wrong.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
Indeed, and my inclination was to believe him. But the more I've read, the less likely it all seems. Not his theories, but his refusal to allow them to be tested in any way.

In reply to singers: I'm guessing he has account for the variable of Global Warming, or is that where the 15% comes in?

In reply to RichieBizzle:

I don't think so:

"CO2 has never driven, does not drive and never will drive weather or climate. Global warming is over and it never was anything to do with CO2. CO2 is still rising but the world is now cooling and will continue to do so."

ok....
1. I don't work for Weatheraction
2. I've just joined and I'm into Mountain walking, scrambling, bouldering. Just getting in to climbing again. Skied for 15 years, snowboarded for 12 years. I like the white stuff! And desperately searching for better weather forecasting so I can guarantee quality time in the Mountains with conditions I crave! nowt wrong with that! Oh and my Dad was making stuff for you lot in the 70's and 80's. Slowly going back to my routes!!
3. what climate science! are you havin a laugh! Your so called experts have falsified data, been found out, continued to falsify data, make shit up, never prove their theories and enable the Establishment to tax the shit out of us! utter nonsense! it WILL be proved that the clowns of the IPCC are the crooks out of all of this!! sheesh! wake up!!
4. Why would Piers Corbyn reveal his methods while he is NOT a billionaire
5. statiscally he is 85% correct
6. 2010 was the second hottest in the last 20 years but NOT the last 500, 1000, 10,000, 50,000, 5,000,000 etc etc... another blatant bull-shit line from a despearate bunch of JUNK scientists!
7. watch this if you really want to know the true history of our climate and what we are facing in the next 50 years: http://sc25.com/index.php?id=272 the video is a must, yeh I know it's an hour, so watch it over the course of the day or whatever.
8. if it costs a fiver each and he gets it right 85% of the time. And yes down to the day! then he will make many of us very happy indeed; SURELY!!??

In reply to singers:
I'd want a refund if the forecast was wrong.

In reply to 999thAndy: we'd have to get the t's & c's

In reply to singers:

To be honest no, personally I wouldn't want a forecast that was 85% right. Its what makes my interest (Scottish winter/mountaineering) well, even more interesting. I'd miss going to bed not knowing what the weather was really going to do and then waking up to/walking into the sun splitting an alpine blue sky and getting that rush of YEEEEEEEESSSS! Or going anyway (after correctly assessing danger risk of course in the shittiest weather so far that season but having the best time. It would become too clinical and I could see people starting to stay in one weekend thats perhaps been forecast as 'not so good' as they 'know' the next weekends going to be a belter. You'd not be able to move on the good weekends at some places (even more than is the case now)

In reply to singers:

He wouldn't have to reveal his methods to have his predictions tested


If you believe the statistics provided by himself. Nobody else has been given the opportunity to verify them.

Sadly you've let your cause down by allying yourself with the more rabid "warming sceptics". It's possibly to have doubts (many of us do) without rejecting every possible problem out of hand.

In reply to singers:

3. What climate science? Climate science. Climate science which works in just the same way as the rest of science, and which has recognized the existence of the greenhouse effect for over a hundred years. Climate scientists who have in no way falsified data, were wrongly and wilfully misaccused by people who knew exactly what they were doing, the theories of whom are perfectly well established and can be understood by any idiot once they stop blocking their ears. Research in climate science has little to do with the IPCC, who simply exist to collate, summarize and synthesize data.

4. To give himself credibility beyond a made up statement about being 85% right. What does that even mean?

5. Stick a Statistically on the front. Well that's alright then.

6. Yes you're right, because the climate system is VERY COMPLICATED with interactions between many systems. This does not mean that rapid change now does not affect US, NOW.

In reply to singers:



Wow, what a well informed opinion you have. Obviously there are instances where people are not whiter than white, but it is imbecilic to use those to write off an entire area of science (which is evidence based, rather than "I read it on the internet so it must be true"-based).

In reply to J0: take your point entirely! you might have just changed my mind there. If we have all the gear anyway to cope with all types of weathers. Part of the fun. And the challenge. And the pleasant surprise of a fine day! Nice one!

right, forget it, bin the idea!

I suppose I'm just gutted winter's gone away. I want to know to the day when it's flippin coming back so I can plan me next trip!!!

In reply to Monk: it's imbecillic to ignore the true scientists who are constantly proving this junk science wrong all the time. I've spent the last 4 years researching this stuff, sitting on the fence deciphering the facts for a long time and forming a concerted opinion in the last 12 months. It didn't appear to be cut and dried until very recently. It's only from researching new findings about the SUn in recent months that I discovered Piers Corbyn and his Solar Lunar Technique. It would appear that the Sun has everything to do with the climate. Cycle 23 was a minimum, unusually it lasted 13 years. eg in 2009 there were no sunspots whatsoever. Cycle 24 is extremely weak. 1 layer of the atmosphere is gone. The magnetosphere that surrounds the Earth is weaker thanks to the weak Sun. More cosmic rays are entering our atmosphere theoretically producing more clouds. PROPER flippin Scientists are now investigating and experimenting with the data to correlate temperatures over thousands of years and the patterns of increased cosmic rays and low Sun activity. Currently, el nina, -ve PDO, low Sun activity = cooling temperatures and increased precipitation. There is alwaays a lag so prepare for colder temps maybe even another mini-ice-age like the Maunder Minimum or the Dalton Minimum. If the volcano's kick off too, oh shit!!! forget growing anything! And, by the way, Piers Corbyn said expect a lousy wet and cold Spring and wet cool Summer this year for Europe. Let's see.
stick that in your pipe!! :-O

anyway, bin the idea of the collective, I like J0's response

In reply to singers:

Apparently, it's on its way - see the text highlighted in yellow:

http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=297&c=5

Although, that makes it sound like it should perhaps already have arrived...

In reply to l21bjd: weh-hey! nice one... didn't see that. Let's see if he is right hey!!?? hope so. We need Kinder Downfall and Blackden to come back in to condition.

In reply to singers:


Pretty basic stuff, but there are no absolute truths in science - scientific theories are never 'proven'. A theory may be accepted as being the best model (the one that makes the most accurate predictions and/or provides the deepest explanation of a given phenomena), but it is only accepted so long as there is no better model - when a better model arrives it replaces the old, as happened with Einstein's Relativity vs Newton's 'Clockwork Universe'.

Right now anthropogenic climate change is the model accepted by the vast majority of those who are qualified to comment - climate scientists.


The 'Establishment' don't need to go to such hugely elaborate lengths to increase taxes (which would presumably involve bribing all of the the World's climate change scientists - not to say travelling back to the beginning of C20th to invent the science upon which this 'lie' would be based).

VAT just went up and I don't recall climate change being used as an excuse for that.

I can think of a hugely wealthy and powerful interest group who might have vested interest in seeing climate science discredited. Cui bono.

Like you say - sheesh wake up!

In reply to singers:

That shows a complete lack of understanding about what science is. There are always differences of opinion. Science is always about hte consensus, and constantly improving and expanding on our knowledge and updating theories. The fact that the majority of scientists believe the data says one thing does not make it junk. It may well be wrong, but the minority of naysayers have to produce solid evidence that will make other scientists change their minds. One thing is certain is that climate and weather is incredibly complex, and things will not be easily understood. Piece by piece the puzzle is solved.

Finally, it doesn't do any harm to plan for the worst but hope for the best. It is incontravertible that oil reserves will run out at some point, so a move away from reliance on fossil fuels is hardly a bad idea. Secondly, just because hitting something with a big stick hasn't broken it yet, doesn't mean it will never break. Why should we keep on polluting just because we are unsure what the outcome will be?

In reply to singers:

Then you'll have found some of the reasons that Corbin's accuracy statistics are so good. Here's a random example
http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/66081-piers-corbyns-winter-forecast-201011...

"As for Piers' winter forecast ..... when someone forecasts bizzards across N Europe, affecting SE Engand, and there's some light snow in Glasgow and he claims therefore he got the forecast right when everyone else was wrong ...... then really is there any point in further discussion?"

(the whole thread makes interesting reading)

In reply to singers:

About bloody time!!!... if only they'd got the proper flippin scientists in right from the start!!!

And these so called bloody climate scientists, eh?

Charlatans to a man!!!! (rant, froth, gibber....)

Piers Corbyn has also said that we are likely to return to an ice age in around 25 years time . I'd book some time off for then to go climbing . In reply to singers:

In reply to singers:

Corbyn is well known for press releases crowing about how good his forecasts are when he gets it right, and for some reason never mentioning all the times he is wrong (in fact actually going as far as explicitly banning reproduction of his previous forecasts unless approved by him).
He is also a vocal anthropogenic global warming denier, despite the weight of evidence.

I don't think I will be paying much attention to to his long range forecasts, never mind paying money for them.

In reply to singers:

Good idea. Can I volunteer to collect the money and relay the guesses to the gullible punters ?

In reply to singers:

Yep, indeed, I'm just counting down the days to the 16th/18th. Oh.

In reply to GrahamD:

I'm in. Can I send you my bank details?

In reply to singers: it took me longer to write this than google it..

The economist William Stanley Jevons suggested that there is a relationship between sunspots and business cycle crises. He reasoned that sunspots affect earth's weather, which, in turn, influences crops and, therefore, the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

1871, this is not new research.

global warming makes the weather more energetic not literally warmer.

the nut job is right about the sun, we are in a low output phase, there is less energy going into the system.

I can predict the weather with 90% accuracy!!

for a given location the weather will be the same as today.

that's not very useful though is it.

In reply to singers: Piers Corbyn is seriously unreliable in his forecasts, I've been watching various seasonal forecasts for years and he is near the bottom of the pile for accuracy. I'd try Brian Gaze at theweatheroutlook.com as he's been fairly accurate the last few years

In reply to MattG: yeh, definitely. His TWObuzz info is really good. There's Joe Bastardi too of Accuweather. But he gets it in the neck from all the Warmers.

LOL...as for the rest of those replies...

I never said the science was settled. I think you'll find Mainstream Climate scientists say it's settled with manmade CO2 being the main cause! I think you'll find those who are trying to say it is not settled are labelled "Deniers" / "sceptics" and whatever else, thanks for the kind words by the way...CGASBCW. Do you lot work for the Banks or the other lot who are going to HUGELY benefit from carbon credit trading!?

I can't comment on Piers' record; I've not long since discovered them. I can't find any of the comparisons you're talking about. It's just an interesting theory and method (erm that would be SCIENCE!!! kinell!! have a word!!) All I know is that he's developing it all the time. Solar Weather Technique became Solar Lunar Technique.

With everything considered that is now known about the Sun, PDO, AMO, Cosmic Rays, el nina, el nino the nonsense that is manmade CO2 causing warming needs to be buried forever and them returning to PROPER science.

Yes, there is a greenhouse effect and we add to it, by how much no one knows!! have a go if you think you're hard enough!!?? LOL

The worst problem is pollution. No one talks about that!

I want to know it will be cold and snowy and clear in March. That's all. If there is anyone who can give me that forecast 100% accurate I'd pay for it. I'd even gamble a fiver on a interesting new SCIENTIFIC method of long range weather prediction . Hence the thread! But, J0 might have put pay to that! a little! When it comes to snow forecast for Boarding though, that's another thing. I want a metre of powder in Gstaad for Feb 19th please!!

jetstream looks good for next week; Looks like Decembers

http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/FREE/jetstream.asp

In reply to singers:



You sound very, very confused. The two statements above directly contradict each other. Does global warming exist or not? Does the CO2 humans produce contribute or not?

In reply to l21bjd: well it's started hasn't it. It's a lot colder than it was last week. That yellow text says a return to exceptionally cold temps for the send half of Jan. We're only just gone in to the second half Jan and it's noticeably colder. Look at Jetstream for next week, all from the arctic. Could be December all over again!

we shall see!

oh

and this is worth a read

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/15/unequivocal-equivocation/#more-31727

In reply to singers:

the jetstream has nothing to do with weather, it's a myth made up by airlines trying to make you think America is further away.

In reply to singers:

Yes, the way it's going we'll soon be back down to average temperatures

In reply to singers:

So why did you say in your original post "He gets it right 85% of the time"?

In reply to Monk: oh dear! sorry that you don't get it yet. We add to the greenhouse effect. By how much no one can tell us. Then, no one can tell us either by how much that miniscule amount of CO2 we add contributes to any warming. But, that's all out of the window now becuase the Planet is cooling!! explain that when total CO2 is up!!!

In reply to Toreador: that's what he publishes is his record. Only taking the Guys word for it. Why else??? From what I can see in the last 2 years he's got it right most of the time. Looks like 85% to me!

All I am saying is it would be nice if it was 100%. It might be one day as he keeps adding new SCIENTIFIC methods.

I thought it might be worth gambling a fiver each to see if he is right.

In reply to singers:

you don't really know what scientific means do you? It has nothing to do with secretive mumbo jumbo that no one else is allowed to know about.

In reply to singers:
Well it's not that hard. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm to about 390ppm - that's about a 40% increase since about 1850. In addition, CH4 has just about doubled in concentration over the same period, and other greenhouse gases have also increased - including some, such as the HFCs and CFCs which didn't exist before the 20th century. On top of that, the concentration of H2O, which is actually the biggest greenhouse contributor, has increased with rising temperatures. All this adds up to a total increase in radiative forcing of about 2.5 watts per square metre.

In reply to Mr Powly: LOL... actually, America is still moving away from us as we speak! good riddance I say!

In reply to singers:

The planet isn't cooling. Overall temperatures trends are all up.

The amount of CO2 we add isn't minuscule - we've increased CO2 concentrations by about 40%.

In reply to singers:

Do some googling. His definition of getting it right is rather different from other people's!

In reply to singers:
Don't overlook the possibility that he only publishes the good stuff.

In reply to singers:


I don't think it's me that doesn't get it...

It's crap like this that made me switch off 'Off belay' and 'the pub'. I find it hard to leave scientific ignorance unchallenged.

In reply to tony: but nearly all of human induced CO2 is absorbed by the oceans! You still can't tell me by how much actual human greenhouses gases effect temperatures. You can't there are too many other natural factors involved. But anyway, in the last 4 years temps have declined, globally.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

on the slide, literally, since 2002: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

but its hard to get accurate data these days! seriously hard!! too much at stake now for the survival of this scam

In reply to singers: Dear Moderator: please delete this entire thread! waste of time!!!

I apologise!!

In reply to singers:

That palaeoclimate graph is ace isn't it? One of my favourite pictures ever produced, because it shows just how interlinked life and climate systems are.

Through the very close link between CO2 and global temperature.

In reply to Mr Powly:

Thought you said that CRU one was made up anyway?

In reply to singers:

About 40% of CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. Isotope analysis confirms the proportions of anthopogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher now than at any point in the last 400,000 years


About 0.8C since the late 19th century.

Notwithstanding the fact that 4 years is too short a time period to show any definitive trend one way or another, it's wrong to say that temperatures have declined over that period. 2010 was the hottest year on record ( http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html ). This is particularly interesting if you're looking at solar radiation, since this was low in 2010.

In reply to singers:
In the context of anthropogenic warming, this graph is completely meaningless, since the resolution is not in the least bit useful for considerations of changes in the last few thousand years.

In reply to tony: since 1880!! doesn't mean anything

either delete this post or move it...

In reply to singers:

the graph he's talking about is the one that starts 600 million years ago

In reply to singers:

I presume you're referring to the point of reference in the NOAA data. The date means quite a lot, since it's a measure of the timescale over which we've been making the most profound changes through our actions in emitting greenhouse gases. By contrast, your reference to a graph going back millions of years is pointless in that context.

I'm going running now so I won't be at the keyboard for a bit, but feel free to carry on. You might like to look at this:
http://www.global-climate-change.org.uk/1-1.php

which gives a good account of the science relating to global warming.

In reply to singers: no one will ever convince me or a great number of people, that is ever increasing, that we have anything to do with warming the Planet. We pollute it thats it.

In reply to Mr Powly:

about which the link you gave seems to be mystified as to the origins of the ice age in the ordovician. It's a bit of a confusing one at first and I don't think we really know how it was precipitated yet, but back then the climate was much more the 'black box' like scenario your monkton and corbyn type folks are fond of looking at, and more likely to respond directly to something like changes in solar radiation.

In reply to singers: If we all club together we could get a small super computer and get our own weather forecsts

In reply to singers:


strange words from one who like to write SCIENCE in capitals.

In reply to singers:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." Albert Einstein

In reply to Mr Powly:

Black Body? (Black Box is a term more usually associated with systems analysis)

In reply to hakey:

yup sorry, written in haste and I do a bit of systemsy stuff!

In reply to hakey: he also said: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

In reply to Mr Powly: there is no proof humans influence the climate. No scientific proof. here endeth that lesson!

In reply to singers:

which is why the elegance of the interactions in the earth system is one of the most beautiful concepts in the history of human discovery. It shows great complexity on local scales arising out of ultimately relatively simple interacting processes. It's ace.

In reply to singers:


It's a tired forum cliche, but; Fixed it for ya

ok, we'll keep going until the Moderators delete it.

it would not surprise me if in order to keep Mr Sachs and Mr Goldman in chips there is not a resemblance of truth to the fact that there are reports of temperature stations being moved to city centres, airports, towns, parking lots etc...

thats the few of some, not many, but it would not surprise me

http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/07/shouldnt-we-be-worried-...

In reply to singers:

Can you point to a single 'scientific proof' (ie an incontrovertible truth) of anything....?

In reply to hakey:

I hope no one can, as it wouldn't be science otherwise.

I hope the moderators do look at this thread and maybe move it to 'off belay': it's nothing to do with winter mountaineering really. The subject is a combination of old stories for this site (albeit from a new poster).

In reply to singers:

regardless of the science debate

...just a thought on another tack here. Trends in people going winter climbing are up and rising every year as is the whole outdoor sports industry. If everyone knows its gonna be a bluebird day with great ice conditions in lochaber on 22nd-28th Feb 2012 and other dates its gonna be pretty busy!

Its still possible to get the odd bluebird day in a quiet coire midweek, personally id like to keep that as a possibility.

In reply to Offwidth:

Can they leave it here until next month please? I've got Off Belay switched off and I'd like to see the OP's response when Corbin's January predictions are finally proved wrong but Corbin manages to spin it so it counts as another success...

In reply to singers:


Then I don't know why anyone is bothering to debate the issues with you.

In reply to singers:

So, can you explain how we can continue to increase levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere without seeing an increase in temperatures?

In reply to DougG:

Indeed, at several points following this thread I've thought I can finally appreciate how a billy goat feels crossing a rickety wooden bridge.

In reply to singers:

His forecasts have been rubbish (for the last 10 years) for Central Trinity gully on Snowdon.

Go on take a look on the link you posted - his forecasts for that gully are rubbish.

He's not going to get a penny of mine...