Piers Corbyn Of Weatheraction.com Predicts May 2012 In UK Will Be Coldest For 100 Years

The title says it all really, apart from the “80% certain” in the original announcement.

Read the announcement at weatheraction.com or see Piers’ tweets on Twitter

I guess by the end of May we’ll know whether he’s right.

[Update 3 July  2012]

Was Piers Corbyn’s prediction right? My thoughts.

[End Update]


[Update 15 May 2012]
It hailed at lunch time where I live today.
Guardian and Mail are reporting snow in the north of England with prospect of more to come.

And both report cold weather will continue into June.
[End Update]

Piers bases his predictions on the position of Sun and Moon. He looks back to when there was a similar configuration of Sun and Moon and asks what the weather was like then.

Well that’s the simplified version.

The Met Office has a complicated computer model, which I believe is based on CO2 – just like the Climate Change models. So if Piers’ predictions are right that tends to count against Climate Change.

Watch Piers explain his ideas in more detail

And download the slides of Piers talk

This entry was posted in Climate Change, Temperature and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Piers Corbyn Of Weatheraction.com Predicts May 2012 In UK Will Be Coldest For 100 Years

  1. Bob Meyrick says:

    To get an idea of how accurate Piers is, have a look at his predictions for April at 9’45” to 10’01” in this video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPNT0t1_bW0#! . He says, “First of all the drought conditions in Britain, due to blocking high pressure, are going to continue for Eastern England, so there’ll be a big shortage of rain, still.” It now seems we’ve had the wettest April in a century (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/wettest-april-on-record ). Doubtless Piers will spin this a s success!

    • Jeremy says:

      Bob I watched the video and I agree Piers did talk about drought, but so did Met Office
      Piers does not claim to be right all the time.

      His prediction of cold May seems different to what others were predicting, so I made this post as a record of the prediction with the intention of coming back to it in June. Then we will know whether he was right or wrong.

      I googled “Bob Meyrick piers corbyn” and found that you have a habit of posting on various sites saying Piers is not right. I wonder if you have made a record of Piers predictions and whether they subsequently turn out to be correct. Which would be interesting.

      On this site http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk you said “I’ve had some fun trying to highlight Corbyn’s lack of accuracy on various right wing/denialist/nutter sites”

      Which suggests your motive is not simply Piers accuracy. Why do you bother.

      The same google search found references to Piers being correct for example anhonestclimatedebate and autonomousmind.

      I note the post on autonomousmind was over 1 year ago and in the comment thread autonmousmind also questioned your motives. Over a year ago?

      • Bob Meyrick says:

        Why do I bother? Because I dislike Piers Corbyn’s arrogance, I dislike the way the right-wing press (Telegraph, Mail and Express) use his pronouncements as a stick with which to beat the Met Office (it’s a government-funded organisation therefore it must be bad). I’m amused by his Dave Spart-like language (“Whacking the McWarmist deluded zealots”), though, probably a relic of his Marxist days. I suppose he doesn’t see his own zealotry.

        “Piers does not claim to be right all the time.” Indeed, he claims to be right 85% of the time, a claim which I believe was based on the study of wind direction for one month. It would indeed be interesting to see how his forecasts compare over an extended period. I can only make a judgement on his rather sensationalist headline grabbing pronouncements. Remember winter 2010-11, the “Stalingrad in the climate wars” as he put it? He got the cold December right, but the January and February didn’t go according to his forecast. In fact February was milder than usual. That’s 33% accuracy. If wonder if Boris Johnson still thinks he’s wonderful?

        Here’s another update – 23 May and the temperature has been in the mid 20s again with not a cloud in the sky. It looks like it’s going to continue for the next few days…

  2. Bob Meyrick says:

    Actually someone has done an analysis of Piers Corbyn’s forecasts for the whole of 2009 here – http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/environment-energy/93140-how-reliable-weather-action-forecasts.html – and comes up with a score of 25%.

    • Katie says:

      He’s still outperforming the warmers…who have a batting average of .000. Not ONE of their predictions has ever come true.

  3. Bob Meyrick says:

    “So if Piers’ predictions are right that tends to count against Climate Change.” Well, here we are at the end of May, and Piers’ predictions are wrong – does that count FOR Climate Change? There’s also a classic example of the way Piers deals with criticism here – http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9685#post_comments – he’s very good at dishing it out but he can’t take it.
    A reasonable criticism was made – “The problem is Piers you gave a long range forecast that described what the overall temperature conditions of May would be. You unfortunately did not just say that it would be a cold start to May – that would have been accurate and useful.”
    This was his response – “I frankly don’t have the time to answer all diversions and misrepresentations of what we do. They are malevolent.”
    Hardly reasonable, is it?

  4. Stu says:

    “The Met Office has a complicated computer model, which I believe is based on CO2 – just like the Climate Change models. So if Piers’ predictions are right that tends to count against Climate Change.”

    This is one of two definitively incorrect statements that Piers persistently makes. You seem to have swallowed this unquestioningly.

    The Met Office model takes the state of the atmosphere at present (as best as we can observe and assimilate it) and progs it forwards using fluid dynamic and thermodynamic equations, just like every other numerical weather model in use. Because CO2 varies so little over the time frame of the simulation, the radiation calculations in the model keep the effect of greenhouse gases constant (except for water vapour which is obviously moved about by weather systems).

    Having greenhouse gases affect the radiation calculations in the model is necessary. If you don’t think it is, then you are saying there is no greenhouse effect.

    So, because CO2 is unchanging when the Met Office runs its model, it cannot drive the weather developments in the model, and the model is not ‘based on CO2.’

    It is true that the Met Office runs what is called the ‘Universal Model’, which means that they use the same model for climate projections as they do for weather prediction. However when a climate scenario is run they do increase the effect of CO2 and other GHGs and run the model for a much longer time. Again, this does not mean their weather forecast model is ‘based on CO2’.

    Oh, and the other incorrect statement Piers persists in making is that the world is cooling, see here for example, where he says “The world is cooling however much the BBC-MO twist data and hide reality.” There are several measures of global temperature, and I’ve plotted 4 of them on this graph from 1979 onwards. Don’t worry that they’re offset from each other, that’s because they use different base periods – it’s the trend that matters. Statistically you cannot say the globe is cooling unless, like Piers, you believe there is a conspiracy to fiddle the data to show more warming.

    • Stu says:

      Sorry, the graph is here:


    • Jeremy says:

      Aha a real person – so nice after all the spam bots

      Stu do you have a reference that you could point me at so I can read up about the statements you have made about Piers being definitely wrong about Met Office model being based on CO2.

      I’m inclined to agree with Piers about the world cooling.

      There are many reasons why and I’ve written about them in this post http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/global-temperature-is-it-rising-or-falling-does-it-even-exist/.


      I don’t thing “global” temperature datasets indicate anything meaningful physically and certainly not how much heat energy the earth has lost or gained.

      There is clear evidence datasets have been adjusted, partly because they don’t agree with paper records, partly because people have taken snapshots of datasets at certain times and the current ones have clearly been adjusted to increase recent warming.

      A much bigger reason is IPCC attributed 0.8w/mm2 of warming to CO2 during period 1990-2000, but ignored a warming of at least 6w/m2 due to solar and cloud variation. Source Chill by Peter Taylor who was for 12 years advocate and scientist for Greenpeace.

      What do you think the errors on the temperature measurements were?

      How many weather stations were there in NH in 1900 and in SH? How many in 1940?

      Ross McKitrick has a paper here (http://www.springerlink.com/content/4331350766569165/) which finds with very high degree of certainty “warming” is correlated with economic activity and urban development.

      What do you think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags are not allowed.

293,387 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

Anti-Spam Quiz:

CommentLuv badge