This one was posted in the General Discussion forum, so I directed the postor (PinYourEarsBack) here, but he said that this sort of thing shouldn't only be discussed by people who have access to the Science forum (???).
"Is there a great storm on the way?
Would we expect this sort of storm at this time of year? this is my point as well, so can Piers predict these storms or not, ill try and deal with the "not" in my simple way as it then leads into "yes he can".
Most people tend to think in terms of Autumn having storms so when you have one, people tend to think its "just one of those things". The trouble with this is when there is a bigger than average storm, you then get the comment "its from Man Made Climate Change".
So, is there a correlation that can be found from the Suns Solar output to these so called bigger than average storms? This question can go further, if the Sun has predictable geophysical activity on its surface can you then estimate when you would expect these storms to happen.
The point of this thread was to try and show people this calculated observation for a Great Storm in the UK (now likely to be between 1st/2nd December rather than its original estimate of between 24th to 28th November "give or take a day (23rd to 29th November)).
Piers Corbyn was convinced that this storm would happen within a few additional days of his time frame with his Solar Wind calculation. I think we forget that the Met Office regular adjust their normal weather patterns in weekly weather forecasts by a few days.
So when Piers made his extended calculation earlier in the week to notify people that his prediction would be likely to be on or before the 2nd of December. Piers was seen to be a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat rather than someone who calculated this Storm from nearly 11 months ago!!
But my point in all this, is that the energy from the Sun should be seen as powerful enough to influence the surface of the Earth climate in such way that we can actually feel its affect in a tangible way.
These so called bigger than average storms are in fact PROOF that the energy of the Sun is far more powerful than we believe it to be and the observations of the Sun not having any affect on the Earth is INCORRECT"
Two comedy threads in a row and I don't know which was funnier, I think Lucibee picking up her handbag and running back to the SCI forum to "tell" about tops it
As for this Corbyn chappie I give him about as much credibility (incredibility) as those folk who claim to put their hands on a wheelchair bound person (no offence to disabled people intended) and then announce a "miracle cure". (For some strange reason I have a vision of Gregory Peck).
If there's enough pop support I could surf Corbyn pointing out his inaccuracies. I'm sure there's loads on him on desmogblog, climatewatch etc.
Would we expect this sort of storm at this time of year? this is my point as well, so can Piers predict these storms or not, ill try and deal with the "not" in my simple way as it then leads into "yes he can".
Most people tend to think in terms of Autumn having storms so when you have one, people tend to think its "just one of those things". The trouble with this is when there is a bigger than average storm, you then get the comment "its from Man Made Climate Change".
So, is there a correlation that can be found from the Suns Solar output to these so called bigger than average storms? This question can go further, if the Sun has predictable geophysical activity on its surface can you then estimate when you would expect these storms to happen.
The point of this thread was to try and show people this calculated observation for a Great Storm in the UK (now likely to be between 1st/2nd December rather than its original estimate of between 24th to 28th November "give or take a day (23rd to 29th November)).
Piers Corbyn was convinced that this storm would happen within a few additional days of his time frame with his Solar Wind calculation. I think we forget that the Met Office regular adjust their normal weather patterns in weekly weather forecasts by a few days. So when Piers made his extended calculation earlier in the week to notify people that his prediction would be likely to be on or before the 2nd of December. Piers was seen to be a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat rather than someone who calculated this Storm from nearly 11 months ago!!
But my point in all this, is that the energy from the Sun should be seen as powerful enough to influence the surface of the Earth climate in such way that we can actually feel its affect in a tangible way. These so called bigger than average storms are in fact PROOF that the energy of the Sun is far more powerful than we believe it to be and the observations of the Sun not having any affect on the Earth is INCORRECT
As for this Corbyn chappie I give him about as much credibility (incredibility) as those folk who claim to put their hands on a wheelchair bound person (no offence to disabled people intended) and then announce a "miracle cure". (For some strange reason I have a vision of Gregory Peck).
what about people who believe they can predict the future and alchemists(no offense Isaac) or astrologers
I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you
I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you
RP, I admire your chivalry and sense of fair play.
RP & Lucibee sitting in a tree .......
I'd like to use my signature to remind everyone that at this time of year there will be a lot of toads crossing the roads so be careful when you're driving, especially at night. Thank you
Muf, don't mock the people! Even if you 'have' heard it before. Just be patient please.
Best regards, suricat.
PS. Isaac (I presume -Newton) was not an alchemist or astrologer (chemist and astronomer perhaps, but most definitely a physicist of renown in his time).
PS. Isaac (I presume -Newton) was not an alchemist or astrologer (chemist and astronomer perhaps, but most definitely a physicist of renown in his time).
And still today suricat probably the finest scientific mind the world has produced(Sir Isaac Newton, not you(no offense))but he did deal in alchemy, infant, the mercury was what sent him dipsy Guv.
PS. Isaac (I presume -Newton) was not an alchemist or astrologer (chemist and astronomer perhaps, but most definitely a physicist of renown in his time).
And still today suricat probably the finest scientific mind the world has produced(Sir Isaac Newton, not you(no offense))but he did deal in alchemy, infant, the mercury was what sent him dipsy Guv.
You are indeed correct. Although he was one of the greatest scientific geniuses in history, he became obsessed with religion and alchemy in his later life, although it must be said that there was no distinction between chemistry and alchemy at the time. Mercury is mentioned in one bio but I don't know if this is generally accepted.
I would be happy to continue this thread in Gen Disc, this forum is the bottom of the pile and no disrespect to you guys, more people will see the Gen Disc section than this Forum, we are talking about the weather are we not!! That is an area for the public as well
Hi, and welcome to the science forum (even if you intend your stay to be short). Sorry I've not posted directly to you before now, but I don't get as much time to post as I'd like to (and weather is not my strong point, my interest lays in the field of climate and AGW, and my skills are engineering based).
PYEB, of course we can expect 'storms' in the autumn! We can expect them in the 'spring' as well because on a 'weather outlook' viewpoint it's temperature difference and pressure difference in a locality, or region, that causes the turbulence seen as 'storms'. In spring and autumn the greatest changes of temperature are effected in higher latitudes, which understandably lead to local differences that generate the instabilities that become 'storms'. However, I don't think that this is the focus of your discussion.
With respect, the 22 year solar cycle that you have quoted in 'another place' is actually two cycles to my understanding (is this not the 11 year 'sunspot cycle' that you quote?).
quote:
Piers Corbyn was convinced that this storm would happen within a few additional days of his time frame with his Solar Wind calculation. I think we forget that the Met Office regular adjust their normal weather patterns in weekly weather forecasts by a few days. So when Piers made his extended calculation earlier in the week to notify people that his prediction would be likely to be on or before the 2nd of December. Piers was seen to be a magician pulling a rabbit out of the hat rather than someone who calculated this Storm from nearly 11 months ago!!
Well, I'm not familiar with Piers Corbyn's weather forecasts because I can't justify my personal need for these. However, his 'formula' for his weather forecasts remains known only to him! How can his method be discussed here if it is 'secret' and not open for discussion?
quote:
But my point in all this, is that the energy from the Sun should be seen as powerful enough to influence the surface of the Earth climate in such way that we can actually feel its affect in a tangible way. These so called bigger than average storms are in fact PROOF that the energy of the Sun is far more powerful than we believe it to be and the observations of the Sun not having any affect on the Earth is INCORRECT
Your reference is incorrect. I think most groups and individuals agree that the sun has great effect on earth's weather and climate. The debate is really about the 'reactionary' changes caused by anthropogenic influences and whether these are catastrophic and reversible.
However, his 'formula' for his weather forecasts remains known only to him! How can his method be discussed here if it is 'secret' and not open for discussion?
Yes it can be discussed. Weather is chaotic hence you cannot predict more than a week ahead (if that) other than by statistical means and my uncle Berts lumbago. So if in say March, someone says "I predict there will be a fierce storm during the week-end of Dec 1st over England", I say "B@?<><!s". If they say there is on average a 7% chance that there will be a fierce storm that weekend but this year I predict there is an 80% chance of a fierce storm then again "B@?<><!s". Certainly can't be tested. Look into my eyes, my eyes .....
Yes it can be discussed. Weather is chaotic hence you cannot predict more than a week ahead (if that) other than by statistical means and my uncle Berts lumbago. So if in say March, someone says "I predict there will be a fierce storm during the week-end of Dec 1st over England", I say "B@?<><!s". If they say there is on average a 7% chance that there will be a fierce storm that weekend but this year I predict there is an 80% chance of a fierce storm then again "B@?<><!s". Certainly can't be tested. Look into my eyes, my eyes .....
I concur, the 'predictive method' can be discussed for its predictive accuracy, or otherwise. However, what is the point in discussing the accuracy of an unknown method? You have to agree though that it does usually get warmer in summer than it does in winter!
