WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long]
 

Here is a summary of Piers Corbyn's forecast (issued under the
'WeatherAction' name). This was publicised via a press release and
presentation on the 16th October, 2007. The full forecast is at the
bottom of this posting, minus all the stuff relating to Mr Corbyn's
views on the climate change debate, Nobel awards etc.

I recommend reading the posting by Rodney Blackall (" Solar activity
and Earth's atmosphere ": 22nd November, 2007).

.... MY MATRIX FOR ALL THREE PHASES (British Isles ONLY)

Subjective summary:
[ A = substantially correct; for emergency managers, a 'good call' in
the sense that additional staff & facilities being placed on stand-by
on the basis of the forecast either would have been used, or
conditions came close to requiring emergency support.
B = some good elements, some poor elements, a 'benefit of the doubt'
marking.
C = poor guidance for emergency planners: if staff/facilities had been
placed 'on-call', then the actual conditions would have meant that
these would have been idle, and a long way from being called upon. ]

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III
SCOTLAND:................B........................ .A...........................B
ENGLAND:..................C....................... ..A...........................C
N.IRELAND:................C....................... ..B...........................C
WALES:........................C................... ......C..........................C
IRISHREP:...................C..................... ....B..........................C

Phase I: (2007-10-26 to 2007-11-01)

Wildly overblown, particularly the references to the possible UK
election and the probability (if it had gone ahead) of it being
'severely disrupted'.

Phase II: (2007-11-08 to 2007-11-13)

Good advice, including the relative risk assessment, i.e. "probably
worse in Scotland and Northern Ireland than South England".

Phase III: (2007-11-24 to 2007-11-28)

Poor/misleading advice, and completely wrong as to areas most at risk:
linking developments to the 1703 ('Defoe') storm was highly alarmist,
including the talk of trees being damaged, travel chaos etc. In the
south of Britain, which was *explicitly* mentioned, there was non such
activity. Only a 'normal' late autumn storm affecting parts of
Scotland allowed a 'B' marking above, and even there it was hardly a
life-changing event.

As heading, this is highly subjective and open to challenge. I regard
this episode as scoring a hit rate of 1 in 3. Taken with the
climatology, both 'historical' & for the last 20 years, I have seen
nothing since the 16th October that would not have been 'built in' to
any sensible model of disaster preparedness by the relevant
authorities. This section was particularly alarmist:

" The total damage likely to exceed that of the Great Storm of
1987 and aspects of the storms may have more in common with the
devastating Tempest of 1703 ".

Remember, 'WeatherAction' claim to be forecasting these major storms
to 1 day of accuracy, up to 12 months ahead. I'm not convinced that
WeatherAction have any method which improves on normal climatology at
long lead times, or 'conventional' atmospheric models at
short-to-medium range.

.... AND MY NOTES REGARDING FREQUENCY OF CYCLONIC/DISTURBED TYPES OVER
THE THREE PERIODS.

1. Area used: British Isles land mass and Shipping Forecast(SF) areas
contiguous with the coastlines of those islands: also all North Sea SF
areas from Viking and the Utsires in the north, to Fisher and German
Bight in the east & southeast: this then includes the coastal regions
of S & SW Norway, Jutland, NW Germany, the Netherlands & Belgium.

2. Data source: the 'Weather Log' maps published by the Royal
Meteorological Society (data time 12Z), supplemented by the archive
(various types) available from Wetterzentrale.de and Wetter3.de.

3. Periods covered (after the press release from Weather Action):

Phase I: October 26th - November 1st
Phase II: November 8th - 13th
Phase III: November 24th - 28th

[ NB: these periods match closely the periods found by workers such as
Lamb, Brooks et.al., hence my interest to find if latter-day records
would confirm these indications, which were largely based on analysis
of data no later than the 1950s.]

4. Data analysis for the period: 1987 - 2006, i.e. the last 20 years,
when AGW/Climate Change (call it what you will), should, if
significant, have shown some effect.

5. I analysed using the following four criteria:-

(a): 'C' types dominant; this I defined as follows: for each of the
'phases' as defined above, a 'cyclonic' (or 'C') type as used in
circulation indices by Lamb, would have occurred more often than not
over the greater part of the defined region. This obviously included
some 'weak' circulation events due to shallow lows in the region, but
the majority (~75%) were due to 'active' cyclonic disturbances. I
erred on the side of NOT giving the mark, therefore the figures are
the *minimum* number of events.

Number of events (out of 20) & PC%

Phase I: 17 or 85%
Phase II: 17 or 85%
Phase III: 16 or 80%

There is a clear bias towards cyclonic events by this measure in all
three phases.

(b): Low circulation present within the defined area (any depth, any
gradient). This means that single-isobar events are included. Remember
though that I only looked at 12Z data. There were a few events where
using 'other' main synoptic hours might have increased the number.

Number of events (out of 20) & PC%

Phase I: 18 or 90%
Phase II: 18 or 90%
Phase III: 16 or 80%

There is a clear bias towards areas of low pressure of whatever
'complexion' being within the defined area during these times: the
signal is particularly strong for the first two phases.

(c): Gale-strength gradient indicated (based on my experience as a
Shipping Forecaster) which would have triggered gale warnings for at
least 4 of the areas. This would have meant that coastal areas within
the region would almost certainly have experienced gales. I have again
erred on the side of NOT giving the 'mark', so the analysis is likely
to be on the low side of reality; however, it was quite instructive to
note just how many times not only gale-strength gradients, but clear
'Severe Gale' (F9) or higher would have been supported.

Number of events (out of 20) & PC%

Phase I: 19 or 95%
Phase II: 19 or 95%
Phase III: 19 or 95%

There is an overwhelming bias towards 'gale-strength' events during
these three periods.

(d): MSLP observed (at 12Z) to be 984 mbar or lower somewhere within
the defined area. For this category, I did also look at the archived
00Z charts, but in fact including these did not materially affect the
analysis. Again, I erred on the side of a 'no' mark in cases of doubt.

Number of events (out of 20) & PC%

Phase I: 15 or 75%
Phase II: 12 or 60%
Phase III: 12 or 60%

There is a slight bias towards events which produce mslp of 984 mbar
or lower within the waters surrounding the British Isles or across the
North Sea, more especially in the first phase.

Taking all four categories together, this analysis of the last two
decades confirm the findings of earlier workers that the periods
defined in the 'WeatherAction' forecast as published are likely to be
highly cyclonic & often windy, with gales (or higher) a significant
weather type.

Martin.

[quote from WeatherAction press release]



Weather Action - The Long Range Forecasters



News Release - Oct 16, 2007



From Weather Action Special News Conference Oct 16th 2007 on 20th

Anniversary of the Great Storm of 1987



Massive storms to hit Britain & Europe.



snip



- Astro-scientist warns of massive damaging storms -- caused

by solar activity not CO2 -- to strike Europe in three waves between

late October and the end of November. Typhoons and extreme storm

events worldwide also expected.



- Third wave to hit on the 304th anniversary of the

devastating tempest of 1703.



- The total damage likely to exceed that of the Great Storm of

1987 and aspects of the storms may have more in common with the

devastating Tempest of 1703

snip



At a special press Conference on the 20th anniversary of the Great

Storm of 1987 which struck Southern England Piers Corbyn

astrophysicist of Weather Action long range forecasters -- who

correctly predicted the summer severe flooding events in Britain from

months ahead - issued a chilling warning that three waves of storms

will hit Britain and Europe between late October and the end of

November causing £ billions of damage. "There will also be extreme

typhoon and other storm events across the world at around the same

times" he said.



"These storm events are caused by solar particle and magnetic effects

which we can predict. They are nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide or
so-

called man-made Global Warming" In the public interest, because of

their importance Weather Action are -- unusually - making these

forecasts public well in advance.



snip



The three periods for which Weather Action are 90% confident there

will be severe damaging storms:



* October 26th to 31st or Nov 1st. Storm gusts of 80 to 100mph in

places. This is likely to be a major storm period but probably only a

'warm-up' for what is to come in November. It is good there is now no

election (eg on Nov 1st ) because the election period would have been

severely disrupted (NB warning of the storms was passed on to the

Labour leadership). The storm will track East and likely (80%

confident) affect Holland, Denmark, South Norway, South Sweden and

parts of North Germany.



* 8th-13th November. Storm / hurricane force Gusts of 90 to 110

mph and tornado type developments. Probably worse in Scotland and

Northern Ireland than South England. The storm will track East and

bring damage to a band of N Europe which is likely to include (80%

confident) Bergen, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki and possibly St

Petersburg.



* 24th to 28th November. Storm/hurricane gusts of 90mph to 130 mph.

Probably worst in central/South British Isles. This is the 304th

anniversary of the devastating tempest of 26th/27th November (modern

calendar dates) 1703. Likely track (80% confident) of damage

eastwards: Holland, Denmark, N Germany, South Sweden and parts of

Baltic States and Finland.



snip

---



Weather Action - The Long Range Forecasters

Delta House, 175-177 Borough High Street. London SE1 1HR Tel +44(0)20

7939 9946 E:

From: Piers Corbyn 07958713320 (or office above)





[/quote]



--
Martin Rowley
E:
W: booty.org.uk

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long]
 

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
Here is a summary of Piers Corbyn's forecast (issued under the
'WeatherAction' name). This was publicised via a press release and
presentation on the 16th October, 2007. The full forecast is at the
bottom of this posting, minus all the stuff relating to Mr Corbyn's
views on the climate change debate, Nobel awards etc.

I recommend reading the posting by Rodney Blackall (" Solar activity
and Earth's atmosphere ": 22nd November, 2007).

Thanks Martin.

I'd missed Rodney's posting, so thanks for flagging it. Have posted comments
in that thread.

Jim, Bournemouth

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] - more comment
 

OK have thought about this further...

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
Here is a summary of Piers Corbyn's forecast (issued under the
'WeatherAction' name). This was publicised via a press release and
presentation on the 16th October, 2007. The full forecast is at the
bottom of this posting, minus all the stuff relating to Mr Corbyn's
views on the climate change debate, Nobel awards etc.


Part of Piers' press release (rest snipped):

"These storm events are caused by solar particle and magnetic effects

which we can predict. They are nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide or
so-

called man-made Global Warming" In the public interest, because of

their importance Weather Action are -- unusually - making these

forecasts public well in advance.

How can you predict the solar particle and magnetic effects?? True,
recurrent coronal holes can be forecast to return as the sun spins on it's
axis once every 21 days... but major solar flares (which are most unlikely
to occur at a time of zero sunspots i.e. most days since early September
this year) are not that predictable, especially some weeks ahead. Sunspot
groups form at random at all stages of the solar cycle and these cannot be
predicted.
One can make a prediction of the general shape of solar activity over a
period of several years but even now, no-one really knows how big or small
the next solar peak in the early 2010's will be.

Solar activity has been very low in recent months (source:
http://dxlc.com/solar/ : solar flux levels at or below 70 is rock bottom,
sunspot number zero on most days), and magnetic activity has been slightly
elevated at times due to coronal holes, but nothing in any way major)

It will be interesting to see what he comes out with when we have plenty of
sunspots and solar flares once again :-)

Jim, Bournemouth.

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] - more comment
 

Sorry - 21 days below should read 27-28 days!!


"Jim Smith" wrote in message
...
OK have thought about this further...

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
Here is a summary of Piers Corbyn's forecast (issued under the
'WeatherAction' name). This was publicised via a press release and
presentation on the 16th October, 2007. The full forecast is at the
bottom of this posting, minus all the stuff relating to Mr Corbyn's
views on the climate change debate, Nobel awards etc.


Part of Piers' press release (rest snipped):

"These storm events are caused by solar particle and magnetic effects

which we can predict. They are nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide or
so-

called man-made Global Warming" In the public interest, because of

their importance Weather Action are -- unusually - making these

forecasts public well in advance.

How can you predict the solar particle and magnetic effects?? True,
recurrent coronal holes can be forecast to return as the sun spins on it's
axis once every 21 days... but major solar flares (which are most unlikely
to occur at a time of zero sunspots i.e. most days since early September
this year) are not that predictable, especially some weeks ahead. Sunspot
groups form at random at all stages of the solar cycle and these cannot be
predicted.
One can make a prediction of the general shape of solar activity over a
period of several years but even now, no-one really knows how big or small
the next solar peak in the early 2010's will be.

Solar activity has been very low in recent months (source:
http://dxlc.com/solar/ : solar flux levels at or below 70 is rock bottom,
sunspot number zero on most days), and magnetic activity has been slightly
elevated at times due to coronal holes, but nothing in any way major)

It will be interesting to see what he comes out with when we have plenty
of sunspots and solar flares once again :-)

Jim, Bournemouth.

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] -more comment
 

On Nov 29, 5:26 pm, "Jim Smith" wrote:
OK have thought about this further...

How can you predict the solar particle and magnetic effects?

Piers Corbyn is forecasting solar particle and magnetic effects?

recurrent coronal holes can be forecast to return as the sun spins on it's
axis once every 21 days... but major solar flares (which are most unlikely
to occur at a time of zero sunspots i.e. most days since early September
this year) are not that predictable, especially some weeks ahead. Sunspot
groups form at random at all stages of the solar cycle and these cannot be
predicted.

2 words in that paragraph stand out as suspect: "not" and "cannot".

If you can see your way to rephrasing the above to contain a lot less
negativity, you might be able to understand a little more again.

One can make a prediction of the general shape of solar activity over a
period of several years but even now, no-one really knows how big or small
the next solar peak in the early 2010's will be.

Evidently someone begs to differ.

Solar activity has been very low in recent months (source:
http://dxlc.com/solar/: solar flux levels at or below 70 is rock
bottom,
sunspot number zero on most days), and magnetic activity has been slightly
elevated at times due to coronal holes, but nothing in any way major)

But what if the actual processes that Mr Corbyn is researching isn't
actual sunspots? Suppose some of what he says are just a blind to put
you off the chase?

It will be interesting to see what he comes out with when we have plenty of
sunspots and solar flares once again.

It would be interesting to know what happens or what he thinks happens
when he sees a "spike" or whatever he calls them.

You really must try to distinguish the stars from the skies if you
intend to pick on things. Otherwise you will find yourself discussing
background noise and little else of any importance.

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] -more comment
 

On 29 Nov, 17:42, Weatherlawyer wrote:

You really must try to distinguish the stars from the skies if you
intend to pick on things. Otherwise you will find yourself discussing
background noise and little else of any importance.

Seismological / meteorological links, anyone?

Richard

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] -more comment
 

On Nov 29, 6:37 pm, Richard Dixon wrote:
On 29 Nov, 17:42, Weatherlawyer wrote:

You really must try to distinguish the stars from the skies if you
intend to pick on things. Otherwise you will find yourself discussing
background noise and little else of any importance.

Seismological / meteorological links, anyone?

NEIC lists and a search catalogue:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_all.php
http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/qed/
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/software/
http://www.ncedc.org/cnss/

US National storm warning discussion and archive:

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/wwa/

Sea level pressures for the North Atlantic archive:

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/tkfaxbraar.htm

Tropical storm warnings and graphics:

http://satellite.ehabich.info/hurricane-watch.htm
http://www.hurricanezone.net/

Tropical storm archives:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/...ification.html

NASA lists of Lunar tables and much mo

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html
http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclips...se2001gmt.html

Smithsonian collection of various volcano reports. Archived weekly
announcements:

http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/us...ontent=archive

A solar system ephemeris -one search at a time:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
(If anyone has links to tables based on a Nautical Almanac, I'd be
grateful.)

If you really want to take me apart, I can give you a mess of data to
do it with. I did intend to collate it and probably will one day. But
at the moment I have no idea how a database works.

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] -more comment
 

On Nov 29, 11:21 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Nov 29, 6:37 pm, Richard Dixon wrote:

Seismological / meteorological links, anyone?

If you really want to take me apart, I can give you a mess of data to
do it with. I did intend to collate it and probably will one day. But
at the moment I have no idea how a database works.

I don't know if you have followed anything I have said but assume you
paid no attention to most of it and were swayed by an innate ability
to think negative thoughts about the rest. However if I get around to
it in time, I will restate my ideas on my ideas once more.

Of course since I am learning a lot with every event I pay attention
to most of what I said in the past is outdated. Most of the major
tenets are still intact though. These a

1. Earthquakes and storms come from the same cause.

2. I base my ideas on the time or times of the lunar phases not on the
solar stuff Piers Corbyn may or may not use.

3. When there is a very large tropical or subtropical cyclone it
subverts my forecasts.

4. Global weather models tend to account for the behaviour of sub/
tropical/storms but fail to account for the energy from the original
source being used for seismic activity.

5. When these weather models are uncertain or in disagreement, there
is usually a large earthquake about to occur.

6. When my forecasts go wrong, there is either an earthquake or a
tropical cyclone due.

7. A tropical cyclone can subvert my forecast by a factor that can be
calculated according to the Saffir Simpson scale.

8. I am full of ****, so you either walk away from this or look at it
impartially. The alternative is for me to react rather badly all over
you if I get any wrong impressions.

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] -more comment
 

On Nov 29, 11:39 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

8. I am full of ****, so you either walk away from this or look at it
impartially. The alternative is for me to react rather badly all over
you if I get any wrong impressions.

8. A synergy takes place when two or more similar weather spells run
together.

9. Another synergy occurs when tow or more similar lunar phases run
together.

10 These (#9) can actually run into a complex system I have yet to
understand where, as for instance a lot of the times of the phases for
August this year were repeated but not in order in October/November.

11. On several occasions a run of lunar phases at similar times have
been followed by one or two different ones in a sequence that
repeated. This occurred a few times this year and may well have
occurred frequently in recent years but I was unaware of the anomaly.

12. I am still full of ****, so be careful.

WeatherAction forecast issued 16OCT2007: overall review [Long] -more comment
 

On 29 Nov, 23:39, Weatherlawyer wrote:

1. Earthquakes and storms come from the same cause.

Care to explain more? From my viewpoint, Earthquakes are due to
motions at and beneath the earth's crust - from my layman's point of
view. Extra-tropical storms are formed by interactions of the upper
air with surface baroclinicity (temperature gradients). You really
need both in existence for the deepest "common-or-garden" storms.
Hurricanes form where sea surface temperatures are warmest and the
atmosphere is unstable to convection and there is little vertical
shear. Struggling to find any link here with earthquake formation.

Please don't "react badly all over me". I cannot see any single link
in your first bullet point, which I assume being put first sets the
scene for your theory. Hardly the best of starts. Just trying to
deconstruct your thinking so I can understand.

Richard