Steve Schulin wrote:
June 10, 2005

News Release

Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
& 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!

There will be NO SUPERHEATWAVES in Britain this summer announced Weather
Action Long range forecasters this morning in a forthright contradiction
of claims from other quarters publicised last month. "There will be
hotspells - and we know when - but none of them will be long enough to
be record-breakers. Nowhere will reach 101 degF" said Piers Corbyn
astrophysicist of Weather Action. "I am ready to bet with anyone on
this", he said

It would be a pretty safe bet. As best I can find on short notice,
before the 2003 heat wave the record highest temperature in the UK was
37.1 degC (that's 98.2 degF) at Cheltenham on 3 August 1990, per
http://www.metoffice.com/climate/uk/...3maxtemps.html .
According to the same source the highest temperature during the 2003
heat wave was only 38.5 degC (101.3 degF), barely above the threshold
for Corbyn's wager.

Corbyn also could predict no hurricanes in Siberia, no blizzards in
Fiji, etc. etc.

In article ,
"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

--
Rob Overfield
Hull


"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
June 10, 2005

News Release

Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER
& 'This lousy weekend - We told you so!

snipped
Weather Action
Delta House, 175-177 Borough High Street, London SE1 1HR
Tel +44(0)20 7939 9946 Fax +44(0)20 7939 9948
E:

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

Steve Schulin wrote:
In article ,
"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? 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.

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.

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...?
--
Rob Overfield
Hull

"Steve Schulin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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

I assume you mean this?

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.

Cheers, Alastair.

"Keith Dancey" wrote in message
...
In article , "Natsman"
writes:

Never been a particular fan of Piers, however, thank goodness even he can
see the light.

Spin is what it's all about.

Climate Change is cyclical, "Global Warming" is at best exaggeration, and
at
worst invention.

And we, the general public, are gullible. (Well, some of us...)


Nooooooooooo.... I don't think so. You're just a bit thick, that's
all:-(

Piers Corbyn is a con-man.

"in the long run temperatures control CO2 - not the other way around" And
on
Venus? How *did* it get to be so hot?



No Cheers,

keith



---
I think your'e stretching it a bit Keith if you are suggesting that Humans
are responsible for the c02 on Venus. Why is it so hot ....? Well it's
much closer to the Sun for a start.
Tell me oh scientific one, when do you think we'll see the first problems
with coastal flooding, how long and where.

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

In article ,
"Alastair McDonald" k
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

I assume you mean this?

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.

Cheers, Alastair.

That's the right title, and the dates look appropriate for the Jan 2001
hard copy publication issue. doi:10.1016/S1364-6826(00)0015 5-3

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com

"Lloyd Parker"
Most scientific theories hold up quite nicely -- quantum mechanics,
relativity, evolution, plate tectonics, black holes, etc. Please tell uis
all these scientific theories that have been overturned recently.

In the current context it might be pedantic to point out that all the
theories you quote have 'exotic' or alternative models proposed,many in the
peer reviewed literature-
Quantum Mechanics-plethora of interpretations including 'Many
Worlds',Hidden Variables etc.
Special Relativity-eg Aether theories , results of Michelson Morley
Experiment and modern equivalents questioned to this day.
Evolution-Creationism,'Punctuated Equilibrium'.
Plate Tectonics-Expanding Earth,Plate Driven Tectonics Vs Plume Driven .
(In theory of the core-the nuclear reactor
model)
Black Holes-Gravstars,Condensate Stars.

If you read New Scientist you'll find an almost weekly diet of such 'left
field' stuff.It would seem that healthy mainstream theories always attract
alternative ideas,some with more credibility than others.Is it a sign of the
vitality and relevance of canonical theories that they attract or leave
room for alternatives?

Also by concentrating on Corbyn the thread seems to ignore other work going
on in the field of Solar-Geomagnetism-Weather-Climate.For a recent snapshot
of research in the peer reviewed literature see-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...10ffa973acee75
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Volume 67, Issues 1-2, Pages 1-218 (January 2005)
Solar Activity Forcing of the Middle Atmosphere
Free issue online,

Well lets hope our idiot is correct.

Steve Schulin wrote:

June 10, 2005

News Release

Weather Action Long Range Forecasters say:
NO SUPERHEATWAVES THIS SUMMER

What supercomputer did they use to discover what common sense told
everyone else?

--

Peter