Steve Schulin wrote:

I've often noted that there's more to the sun than discernable by
measuring total irradiance. An example is discussed in the appended news
release from Piers Corbyn.


Lightning risk +Tornado risk rel to norm
Mod
(7-9th )
High
(10-13th )
Mod
([dates snipped, per above request] )
High
([dates snipped, per above request] )

Make sure you remember to fill in the dates once they have passed :-)

Oh, the "yesterday's tornado" already was in the past, even before this
was published. Odd, that.

I predict a press release from Corbyn this morning. What's my prize?

BTW he is still ducking the challenge to bet over his "prediction" of
imminent global cooling, in direct contradiction of his public statement
of "I'm happy to bet loads of money".

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

In article ,
James Annan wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

I've often noted that there's more to the sun than discernable by
measuring total irradiance. An example is discussed in the appended news
release from Piers Corbyn.


Lightning risk +Tornado risk rel to norm
Mod
(7-9th )
High
(10-13th )
Mod
([dates snipped, per above request] )
High
([dates snipped, per above request] )

Make sure you remember to fill in the dates once they have passed :-)

I'll be happy to do that. Please remind me anytime after end of month if
I don't.


Oh, the "yesterday's tornado" already was in the past, even before this
was published. Odd, that.

He reportedly has paying customers for his forecasts. It doesn't seem so
odd that he wants to protect his business.

I predict a press release from Corbyn this morning. What's my prize?

BTW he is still ducking the challenge to bet over his "prediction" of
imminent global cooling, in direct contradiction of his public statement
of "I'm happy to bet loads of money".

How is he ducking it?


James

Steve Schulin wrote:

Oh, the "yesterday's tornado" already was in the past, even before this
was published. Odd, that.

He reportedly has paying customers for his forecasts. It doesn't seem so
odd that he wants to protect his business.

That "psychic" still getting paying customers like National Enquirer,
Jeanne Dixon? Maybe his paying customers are paying for his solar
leprechan predictions with leprechan gold?

You never answered the question: how old is the earth when you add your
biblical chronology to the unspecified stuff that came before, like
apes and dinsaurs, all that stuff that came before Adam?

And where did Cain & Abel find convenient mates? Which is an easier
question to ask then where Noah's kids found mates.

Steve Schulin wrote:
In article ,
James Annan wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

I've often noted that there's more to the sun than discernable by
measuring total irradiance. An example is discussed in the appended
news release from Piers Corbyn.


Lightning risk +Tornado risk rel to norm
Mod
(7-9th )
High
(10-13th )
Mod
([dates snipped, per above request] )
High
([dates snipped, per above request] )

Make sure you remember to fill in the dates once they have passed :-)

I'll be happy to do that. Please remind me anytime after end of month
if I don't.


Oh, the "yesterday's tornado" already was in the past, even before
this was published. Odd, that.

He reportedly has paying customers for his forecasts. It doesn't seem
so odd that he wants to protect his business.

We have a fair grasp on how our National Weather Services produce THEIR
forecasts, and THEY have paying customers to protect haven't they? All we
want to see is his methodology. If he won't, who's gonna give him the
respect he craves, cos otherwise he'll always go down as a crackpot.


I predict a press release from Corbyn this morning. What's my prize?

BTW he is still ducking the challenge to bet over his "prediction" of
imminent global cooling, in direct contradiction of his public
statement of "I'm happy to bet loads of money".

How is he ducking it?

We haven't seen the self-publicising announcement that he's backing his
forecasts with a bet.. How much will YOU bet ME that the "prediction" of
global cooling turns out to be forgotten when it's shown to be just a pile
of ordure...?
--
Rob Overfield

"Seasons don't fear the reaper, Nor do the wind, the sun or the rain.."

Steve Schulin wrote:

In article ,
James Annan wrote:


BTW he is still ducking the challenge to bet over his "prediction" of
imminent global cooling, in direct contradiction of his public statement
of "I'm happy to bet loads of money".


How is he ducking it?


He is not responding in any way to repeated attempts to find an
acceptable bet on the matter. No counter-offers, no discussion, in fact
no reply at all to the most recent attempts at contact.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...-stand-up.html

He has, however, claimed in conversation with a journalist that he is
willing to back his forecast with a bet (as quoted above, from the
Nature article). Perhaps if you are in contact with him you would like
to ask him about it.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

In article ,
Rob Overfield wrote:
Steve Schulin wrote:
In article ,
James Annan wrote:

[snip]
Oh, the "yesterday's tornado" already was in the past, even before
this was published. Odd, that.

He reportedly has paying customers for his forecasts. It doesn't seem
so odd that he wants to protect his business.

We have a fair grasp on how our National Weather Services produce THEIR
forecasts, and THEY have paying customers to protect haven't they? All we
want to see is his methodology. If he won't, who's gonna give him the
respect he craves, cos otherwise he'll always go down as a crackpot.

Methodology would be best. But it would be sufficient if he were
to release, prior to the events, forecasts (not to be disclosed until
after the verifying dates past) for scientific study. That, too,
has been unavailable, iirc. So posts from his fans after a forecast
'verifies' is all that is available. Worthless.

Depending on which nation you're talking about, they don't have
paying customers in the sense that Corbyn does. The US NWS does
not. Certainly there are tax payers. But the principle involved
is that the nation is providing a service. The US NWS can't
charge an extra fee if you want more service than the baseline,
for instance. If you want more, you hire a private meteorology
company. US NWS relies on, and makes some contribution to,
science. That including, as science does, that it is an open
process. Methods are discussed openly to improve our state
of knowledge, and that others can make further improvements.

Back to Corbyn, he is certainly making no contribution to our
knowledge by his refusal to openly describe his method. His
prerogative, of course.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

In article ,
(Robert Grumbine) wrote, in part:

Rob Overfield wrote:


We have a fair grasp on how our National Weather Services produce THEIR
forecasts, and THEY have paying customers to protect haven't they? All we
want to see is his methodology. If he won't, who's gonna give him the
respect he craves, cos otherwise he'll always go down as a crackpot.

Methodology would be best. But it would be sufficient if he were
to release, prior to the events, forecasts (not to be disclosed until
after the verifying dates past) for scientific study. That, too,
has been unavailable, iirc. So posts from his fans after a forecast
'verifies' is all that is available. Worthless.

Well, there was the independent verification as reported in Journal of
Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34 (2001),
doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(00)00155-3

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.

Author Keywords: Weather forecasting; Forecast assessments; Gales

Depending on which nation you're talking about, they don't have
paying customers in the sense that Corbyn does. The US NWS does
not. Certainly there are tax payers. But the principle involved
is that the nation is providing a service. The US NWS can't
charge an extra fee if you want more service than the baseline,
for instance. If you want more, you hire a private meteorology
company. US NWS relies on, and makes some contribution to,
science. That including, as science does, that it is an open
process. Methods are discussed openly to improve our state
of knowledge, and that others can make further improvements.

Back to Corbyn, he is certainly making no contribution to our
knowledge by his refusal to openly describe his method. His
prerogative, of course.

In a different thread yesterday, I mentioned geologist Henry Pollack's
view that science thrives on uncertainty. Corbyn, by virtue of the value
that his customers place on his forecasts, is apparently able to support
his own research into refining the solar weather technique. Even if his
methods don't survive him, his contribution by inspiring others (via
such things as presentation to Institute of Physics -- the PowerPoint
file is available at http://groups.iop.org/EG/05/03/050314a_e.html --
may outweigh the contributions of the many grumblers and hays-ey
thinkers who promote the notion that measurements of total irradiance
are enough to relegate solar variations' influences on climate to the
ranks of the piddling, cmpared to atmospheric CO2 rise.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

In article ,
James Annan wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

In article ,
James Annan wrote:


BTW he is still ducking the challenge to bet over his "prediction" of
imminent global cooling, in direct contradiction of his public statement
of "I'm happy to bet loads of money".


How is he ducking it?


He is not responding in any way to repeated attempts to find an
acceptable bet on the matter. No counter-offers, no discussion, in fact
no reply at all to the most recent attempts at contact.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...-please-stand-
up.html

He has, however, claimed in conversation with a journalist that he is
willing to back his forecast with a bet (as quoted above, from the
Nature article). Perhaps if you are in contact with him you would like
to ask him about it.

LOL - I didn't get a reply from him to an email inquiry some time ago
either. I didn't presume that he was ducking or ignoring me, however.
I'd probably write him a snail mail letter, at least, before even
considering using the kind of language you use.


James

In article .com,
a kook who appropriates others' names wrote, in part:

Steve Schulin wrote:

Oh, the "yesterday's tornado" already was in the past, even before this
was published. Odd, that.

He reportedly has paying customers for his forecasts. It doesn't seem so
odd that he wants to protect his business.

That "psychic" still getting paying customers like National Enquirer,
Jeanne Dixon? Maybe his paying customers are paying for his solar
leprechan predictions with leprechan gold?

Maybe.

You never answered the question: how old is the earth when you add your
biblical chronology to the unspecified stuff that came before, like
apes and dinsaurs, all that stuff that came before Adam?

The stuff that came between the beginning and Adam? Already included,
babe.

And where did Cain & Abel find convenient mates? Which is an easier
question to ask then where Noah's kids found mates.

I'm not sure you're mature enough to discuss this stuff.

Best wishes,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:
In article ,
James Annan wrote:

Steve Schulin wrote:

In article ,
James Annan wrote:


BTW he is still ducking the challenge to bet over his "prediction" of
imminent global cooling, in direct contradiction of his public statement
of "I'm happy to bet loads of money".


How is he ducking it?


He is not responding in any way to repeated attempts to find an
acceptable bet on the matter. No counter-offers, no discussion, in fact
no reply at all to the most recent attempts at contact.

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...-please-stand-
up.html

He has, however, claimed in conversation with a journalist that he is
willing to back his forecast with a bet (as quoted above, from the
Nature article). Perhaps if you are in contact with him you would like
to ask him about it.

LOL - I didn't get a reply from him to an email inquiry some time ago
either. I didn't presume that he was ducking or ignoring me, however.
I'd probably write him a snail mail letter, at least, before even
considering using the kind of language you use.

But he did reply at first (via email to wmc, as well as the Nature
quote) and feigned interest, it was only when the subject turned to the
details of any proposed bet that he went all coy. Of course I
understand your reluctance to accept that one of your heros might be
stronger on talk than action, but it certainly puts his bluster into
perspective.

James