AGW catastrophism Omniclimate Science Skepticism Sun

Corbyn Admits Being Wrong

The feeblest of minds will see this as a sign of failure.

The rest of us should instead take notice that WeatherAction’s forecasts can be and are at times falsified. The same cannot be said of the usual AGW predictions

Note 23 Jan from Piers Corbyn re letter 21 Jan and ‘on-line’ comments in The Times:

1. Our long range forecast for January particularly* in most of England and Wales has – exceptionally – been a failure for most of the month and two reasons for this are mentioned in the correctional update on our website One reason was to do with the timing of events originating on the sun, the other was a data transfer error. The consequence has been – and independent monitors have said – this is exceptionally the largest forecast error we have made for years. In view of our data transfer error we will compensate forecast subscribers appropriately although please note the terms and conditions do not give us any duty to so do.

(* For Scotland and parts of Northern England and Northern Ireland the often cold and snowy weather is more in line with our forecast for southward shifts of the jet stream at times – which we had expected to shift further).

2. Observers should note that our forecast never said this January would be ‘more like 1740’ (than 1987) and concerning the end November / start December storm period we never said gales of the severity of the 1703 windstorm. In both cases we clearly said the weather would NOT be as extreme as then. People who claim we said such must please quote sources and say by whom such mis-information has been put about and for what purpose.

3. It is noteworthy that Paul Simons did not feel confident enough that our actual forecast would go wrong to wait for it to do so; and instead chose to make a false statement about our forecast (of an “apocalyptic freeze” in the first week) which he could instantly denounce since it wasn’t physically possible for such to occur after such a short duration in the British Isles. This we find doubly unacceptable since Mr Simons was sent forecasts in advance and could read what we actually had said.

4. Objective independent measures (by academics, subscribers and weather bets) of our Weather Action long range forecasts show they are much better than chance – ie significantly skilled – and much better than any others available anywhere in the world. For more about proven skill and priase from subscribers visit eg our British or european website )

5. We are an advancing science and a proportion of forecasts will go wrong and subscribers – in farming, business and commerce – recognise this and stay with our forecasts for years because they are profitable for their business. Our succes and sales enable ongoing research to improve forecasts so now they more skilled and include more detail. Indeed application of our Solar Weather Technique has been extended in trials to other parts of the world (see eg re our first trial forecast for tropical cyclones in the Bay of Bengal which correctly predicted the Cyclone which became the terrible storm Sidr last year).

6. It is sad that some seek to misrepresent our work (other than noting genuine forecast errors in a fair minded way) rather than say attacking – if they have a driving desire to attack long range forecasts – forecasts from others which are made at public expense and were so misleading to UKplc (eg) over the summer. The reasons for such extremely churlish behaviour must surely be about something other than forecasts and I suggest often are more to do with the desire of proponents of ‘man made global warming’ to claim all weather extreme events as “theirs”. Our success at predicting extreme events and long periods of high risk of extreme weather variations using solar-based methods is not something they want to countenance.

Thank you, Piers Corbyn

0 replies on “Corbyn Admits Being Wrong”

In late December, Mr Corbyn’s site said that the month of January was ‘expected to include at least one exceptionally cold spell similar in type to that experienced in part of January 1987 and in the legendary January 1740….’

If people are saying that Mr Corbyn’s site prophesied that January 2008 would have some days as cold as January 1740, then I can understand why. That’s exactly what he did say.

Thanks. The ‘falsification’ we refer to is such as mentioned above in sections 2 and 3, and a number of other falsifications made by eg Paul Simons in the Times – see his articles and my letters. Fair comment on errors in our actual forecasts are reasonable and might help advance long range forecasting. However Paul Simons for example cannot wait that long and has made a succession of deliberate mis-representations of our foreacsts even though he has been regularly sent our actual forecasts in advance.

I’m not sure that “falsified” is the word I would use. According to item 1 from Corbyn it was a data error combined with what appears to be an assumption that some solar event was about to happen but it didn’t.

What I regard as encouraging is that someone should openly admit to errors and indicate that they have worked to identify the causes.

Did the UK Met Office admit to an error about last summer’s forecasts? Did it show signs of investigating the causes of those errors and doing something about them?

Has the Climatic Research Unit admitted to errors in its HadCRUT3v dataset, which is used extensively by the IPCC? It certainly should when it can be shown that certain grid cells over land can show temperatures more than 8 degrees different to the surrounding grid cells.

I am reminded of sayings about errors being the best way to learn and proof of that learning is when the same mistakes aren’t repeated.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.