The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder Or More Extreme.

It seems quite straight forward. He is proposing an approximate 60 year weather cycle. It is increasingly accepted that the 22 year cycle of sun spots influences the weather. Recent noaa and science papers show correlation with percipitation and changing la nina and el nino events. If you add effects of the moons gravitation on the sun you can get to the approximate 60 year cycle, he is proposing.

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

Certainly we can find periodic patterns in the weather, and the period can be checked for correlation. The theory that CO2 is the bigest influence on weather should predict a linear relationship, not a periodic one. You can howerver look at CO2 as a aid to the slope on a periodic function.

 

Oh, great; so now, when global warming becomes obvious to all, someone will suggest solving it by blowing up the Moon.

 

Just hope Republicans in power don't see this.

 

No, but it would make a good movie ;-) We need to go beyond CO2 when analysisng weather. Those looking at sun spots, which are a proxy of solar radiation, predicted a colder winter in NA, which turns out to be correct. The moon somehow modulates this according to that one physicist but it is unclear how. We also have the solar flares and icelandic eruptions which according to some of these same people point to further eruptions. Less solar radiation and more volcanic ash point to a cooler NA for the next couple of years. We can track these predictions and see if they are correct. The effects of solar flares on weather patterns in the pacific are being added to most of the good climate models.

OMG, and afterward there would be less GHG generated in india and pakistan. I'm sure there is someone in Europe trying to get this started ;-) Those congressional deniers would say the plan wouldn't change a thing warming wise.

 

I think that you are short changing climatologists if you believe that they only consider CO2... (and I hope you meant climate rather than weather there).

 

<denier>You say that as if there's a difference </denier>

 

I hope you noticed it was responding to posts about blowing up the moon and limited nuclear war.

This thing is about extreme weather not climate. If the religionists believe extreme climate is caused by agw, then they need to provide a good model, and see what happens to the "Weather" with and without what ever level of co2 they are describing. Since these models are extremely poor, I'm not sure how one would make the statement. When we are looking at the cold in oklahoma and Dallas a much simplier model works looking simply at weather patterns in the pacific and solar flares. As I said in my previous non-farcical response climate scientists have been including solar radiation and flares in the good climate models for a long time. We recent research confirming their effects and predictive powers over local weather now too.

 

How about this? A company selling crop weather insurance

WeatherBill Weather Insurance - Home

They have been around for a few years, use historical data and (apparently) conventional atmospheric circulation and energy balance models. They base policy prices on how likely it is that your corn (etc.) won't get to market. They pay if your crop does not.

In the news today for having attraced a new chunk of googly venture capital.

Perhaps this is the business model for Corbyn? He could compete, and with his better weather/climate models. prevail over the competition.

Is that happening? If not, is it appropriate to wonder why?

 

Farmers have been buying crop insurance for decades, most specifically hail insurance. It is traditionally more of a co-op insurance rather than an actuarial based insurance for specific locations.

Icarus

 

Being an AGW skeptic,Corbyn gets zero state funding .
He used to place bets on the weather in the UK. I gather bookies there will bet on anything.But hes won so many times, hes no longer allowed to bet.
He sells forecast subscriptions to farmers and others.
Im actually thinking of subscribing (if its not too expensive)and using the knowledge to play commodities futures.

 

I'm guessing that the reason he gets no funding is not as a result of being a AGW skeptic, but rather because of his methodology. Just a thought.

 

His record is like that of a baseball player with a batting average of 850.
If a ball player doesnt get a contract with that kind of batting average,something is seriously wrong with the league,not the player.
$70 billion to study AGW,but nothing to
contradict it.

 

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over this, but I would argue that climate science and climate scientists are not motivated by the dogma of if AGW is real or not, but rather the science of what is actually happening in the environment.

To say that:

is rather disingenuous. The science either speaks for itself and stands the test of peer review or it doesn't. If the vast majority of climate studies revealed that AGW was not an issue, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact is, there is a plethora of overwhelming evidence that AGW is real, it's effects likely to be significant going forward. The only real debate among peer reviewed science is what the modeling predicts the net effects are likely to be. Even erring on the side of best case scenarios, the consequences are likely to be both significant and not totally predictable.

My argument is, as always, the consequences of doing nothing are likely to be significant, but the consequences of doing something is positive on a number of fronts. From slowing the rise of energy costs, to creating green jobs that can't be off shored for conservation and renewables, a more efficient use of the energy we do use, developing technologies that hold promise to move us past a carbon based energy environment, to basic energy security, which in turn brings a modicum of increased national security.

If we had done some real conservation, really pushed RE, would we really be so concerned with what is happening in Libya for example right now?

 

Micheal Mann gets $5 million to do seriously flawed reports.
Piers Corbyn gets nothing to do brilliant science.
Rest my case.

 

From Wiki,,, bolding mine!

It seems that one who "has declined to publish the details of his method" is hard to take seriously as a scientist. He may be good at predicting the weather 24-48 hours out,, but as a climate "scientist" I find it a bit lacking. (My channel five TV guy is pretty good predicting 24-48 hours out, but that doesn't make him a genius!


I rest my case.

Icarus

 

Im sure his forecasting was nowhere near as accurate in 1997 as it is today.
Try and find something criticizing his predictions in the last year.
Hes perfecting his analysis with every mistake ,and he openly admits that .
Today he doesnt have any peers capable of reviewing him.
Thats a dilemma.
Piers has no peers.
Piers is batting 850 ,traditional science is batting ZERO for long range weather and climate prediction.
Let me add that all Scientists at one time thought that the Earth was flat.There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.
Galileo was NEVER peer reviewed.He was ostracized.

 

That would be funny if you didn't take it seriously! (Especially since according to Wiki he won't allow anyone to review his methodology.

Like I said, he may be good at predicting the weather short term, but that does not make him a climate expert. I'm sorry, but I think you need to stop drinking this cool-aid.

Ps I would be curious to hear what tochatihu and Chogan and people who are real scientists feel about this.

 

Chogan is self imposed ignorant.

Piers Corbyn predicts weather long term as well as short term.
Traditional science predicts nothing long term and %50/50 short term.

 

BTW Wikipedia can be edited by anyone.
Except the AGW freak who edits anything threatening to AGW was banned by Wikipedia for a few months because of his bias.
Why not just ban his nice person permanently if hes adding distortions?