In article ,
"Rob Overfield" wrote:
Steve Schulin wrote:
"Rob Overfield" 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