Better Than The Models ?

[Roger J Smith]

I don't find that a reasonable list of questions at all, many major scientific discoveries of the past five hundred years have come from isolated researchers working against the grain of the establishment in their fields, and by definition all new science involves previously untested new principles of nature.

In my own case, this is how I would answer each of these questions from my own experience.

1. Does the discoverer pitch his claim directly to the media?

My earliest interaction with the media came when they contacted me and set up a trial forecast situation where they independently involved the national weather agency in Canada and the well-known Farmers' Almanac. The media came away with the conclusion that I had the best of the three outlooks for the period they had asked about (this is back in 1982). A climate of hostility was then deepened as a result but that was pre-existing because the established people thought I shouldn't hold ideas different from theirs. This was the year before AGW came on the scene as a result of the strong 1982-83 El Nino and the astonishing temperature anomalies of Dec 1982.

2. Does the discoverer say that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work?

In almost all important cases of scientific advance especially in the earth sciences which are less prone to advances through laboratory work and strict equations like particle physics or various fields of organic chemistry or astronomy, this has been the case. Think of geomorphology (ice age theories of the mid-19th century), continental drift, and Milankovitch. In each of these cases, and the work of Nicholas Tezla, there have been powerful establishment suppression campaigns that often lasted most of the lifetime of the upstart (and eventually vindicated) scientist. In my own case, I've heard through back channels that I am a hated person inside the weather establishment in more than one country and that people say things like "over my dead body will I read anything from that idiot" and various other things showing a complete disregard for true scientific method, and this often after a demonstration of significance of the research. Meanwhile these are the same people who want you to pay enormous taxes to reduce the temperature of the earth by 0.01 degrees and prevent an imaginary environmental catastrophe that they made up.

3. Is the scientific effect involved always at the very limit of detection?

In my case I would say no, and could point to statistical profiles that show a significant effect. These are always ignored when sent into scientific journals as if they never existed. Denial basically.

4. Do they only offer anecdotal evidence?

In my case, no, I offer statistical evidence of the effects on a long-term basis from 170 years of data.

5. Does the discoverer say a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries?

I do find it interesting that the ancients recognized some significance to lunar declination and incorporated the observation of that into their observatories (apparently) but I don't know why they found it significant, perhaps they just noted the 18.6 year cycle and wanted to keep track of it for any number of reasons. Otherwise, the belief that I am examining has been around for a while but I sincerely believe that it was never fully observed or documented in appropriate detail to gain significance in past attempts.

6. Is the best evidence for the theory decades old?

No, the best evidence awaits publication.

7. Does the discoverer work in isolation?

What choice does this discoverer have? See question 2. People who were 2-3 grades behind me in school then came out into the professional ranks and decided they were much more intelligent than me, simply because they were too lazy to do the kind of hard work that I've done all my life, and still persist in the entirely unsubstantiated belief that I am practising a pseudo-science, and in reality the reason is a combination of professional jealousy and inability to see past the ends of their noses. The weather establishment are a bunch of second-raters who don't even know what real science is, and who have conned the entire scientific community into believing that climate science is fully vetted the way other sciences do their work -- which it never was and never could be, given the flimsy assumptions involved in it. This truth has dawned on a large part of public opinion who are simply sick and tired of being sold a bill of goods by a corrupt and demonstrably stupid scientific establishment, yet these people are still fully in control of publication and research funding. So don't expect any change unless there's something on the order of divine intervention.

8. Does the discoverer require us to abandon well established laws of science & proposes new laws of nature to explain an observation?

This is just a red herring in the case of research into magnetic field or lunar-atmospheric interactions. There are no "well established laws of science" in meteorology to predict atmospheric variability on time scales beyond the momentum detected in numerical modelling. There is absolutely no established scientific reason for the GFS or ECM model or any other conventional model to introduce energy cycles that begin past time zero into their calculations. Since they have no such established science, then by definition all forecasting that seeks to incorporate theoretical energy peaks from external sources on a predictable basis will be "proposing new laws of nature" -- new to the establishment for certain. One could investigate the close correlation between astronomical agenda and storm formation being documented in the above cited thread on Americanwx.com to see that scientists ought to be looking at evidence for such new paradigms.

9. Does the discoverer use terms and phrases that make their claims sound scientific, but which are in fact bogus?

Not in my case, I have developed entirely logical paradigms and constructs that any new science requires to provide a framework for understanding the theory and observations.

10. Is the subject only taught in unaccredited institutions or not taught at all?

This makes me laugh really, I suppose I could say it is taught on Net-weather. But really, how on earth would something blacklisted by the scientific establishment get taught in a university? Has anyone been to a university in the past two or three decades? They have become minefields of legitimate and bogus learning, with most of the bogus learning on display outside the physical sciences which have probably remained untouched by the modern hysteria for political correctness, but our own science has been degraded to buffoonery by the unwarranted intrusion of politics into scientific method. Climatology was an honorable, if perhaps obscure, calling in the 1970s as I remember it being taught at university. Now it is a rigged dog and pony show meant to give credibility to the ultimate false theory, global warming, a theory so bad that it can't even be marketed under its real name any more.

11. Does the discoverer make supportive claims that are fabricated?

I have never made a fabricated claim, but in one validation study of about 6,000 data points, some boffin discovered that one of my six thousand anomaly checks was slightly wrong side of zero due to a map error, and made an enormous stink about that even though the change in that one statistic out of 6,000 made less than 0.l% difference to a validation study showing 65% of the data points had been on the correct side of zero anomaly. That much larger fact was never subsequently discussed as the people on the other side of the discussion (this goes back to 1986-87) obsessed over the one data point and tried to fit me to the paradigm of cheating scientist over it. These are the same people basically who have given us the giant falsifications of global warming science and this dubious set of statistics in which every year is supposedly warmer than the year before while the people are wondering why it's getting progressively colder where they live.

12. Does it employ the shyness effect: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't?

Here again, this sounds like a cute way of dismissing advances in a science that clearly will only advance through incremental improvements over random. Everyone active in long range forecasting realizes that being on the right side of normal 70% or 80% of the time is a vast improvement over 60% ... this is not a science like astronomy where one day a person will stride out of a lab and say "from today on, we will know with complete precision how the atmosphere works," although that may eventually come to pass within a slight error range, I imagine that it will only happen through 2-3 per cent improvements over decades, and what's slowing it down even more is the lack of research funding, imagine how much faster I could advance my research if I could employ people to do similar data studies for hundreds of points around the globe. The methodology is so time consuming that I have really only had time to do an adequate study of two or three key points and to build outward from them.

13. Do they appeal to ignorance?: "There is more out there than you know"

This is never a bad thing to tell people, but especially weather people who are in no position to be smug about complete knowledge. Our science is so far behind all the others that it is basically out of step with modern science altogether, still back in the head space of the 16th century. We don't even have an accepted theory of what causes weather to happen. So yes of course there is "more out there than you know."

14. Do they attack the critic rather than the criticism?

My critics tend to offer up one-line anecdotal put downs and then go silent if you try to engage them in discussion. I've always thought that a ten-minute to half-hour debate in a public setting or on a news program would set the record straight about which of the two theories (AGW or what I've called astro-climatology) is really worth funding, but of course that would be an inconvenient truth for people who have stumbled into the biggest welfare program ever invented, being paid for commenting on the weather. Every instance of weather can be packaged up to become "proof" or a "strong indication" of climate change. The elite classes in Canada and I suspect in the U.K. and other countries have fallen for this even though it's my observation that three quarters of practising operation mets in the U.S. and maybe four-fifths of weather enthusiasts on weather forums can see right through this charade and have said so on numerous occasions. Yet it goes on without end, every time there's a flood somewhere or a warm spell and now even if there's a cold spell, this is offered up without trace of embarrassment or irony as "proof" of "climate change" which of course is just a phrase designed to keep research grants flowing. Even nominally conservative politicians play along with this and affect to see no problem with the endless flow of money into bogus research and entirely unnecessary activities. If our science had any REAL credibility, some of our leading figures would be saying this and not leaving it to the likes of me. Also they would be warning about the economic disaster that looms if we switch too much of our energy reliance to wind power and unproven solar technology. Carbon capture is also proving to be a very dubious operation. The degree to which our "science" is falling short of real scientific principles is not only alarming, it is the biggest scandal of scientific history.

15. Do they say things that are largely true but are unrelated to their claims?

Look who's talking there ... same point as above ... but in my case, the theory is supported by relevant facts and any efforts to explain it or give a theoretical foundation are based entirely on genuine scientific method.

------------------------------

There may be instances where some people doing alternate research have given ammunition to this kind of critique, but even in Ken Ring's case, I think he's made at least some of the same observations about lunar declination being important in weather, and not all of his work has been shown to be as bad as this link suggests. But the bottom line for me is, the weather establishment needs to confront me and my research to get this matter resolved, in collaboration with Fred (BFTP) here on NW, I believe that I have the best track record of alternate-method forecasters (to use a phrase that has no known preferable substitute) and this has been freely expressed by a significant number of members here in a free poll of their opinions even in the presence of some conventional alternatives and a large number of choices on offer. So I get frustrated when the weather establishment types just brush this off after a lifetime of work, and I see a pattern of denial and obstruction going back most of my adult life now to around 1980, together with a campaign of character assassination that would be legally actionable if it were not conducted largely in off-the-record back corridor sessions (but I've had these reported back to me by people who overheard them). This has become a nasty, petty discipline over the years, where second-raters and mediocrities seem to prevail, and it's no wonder to me that we make no real progress in understanding. What we need is a whole new science with the establishment sent packing, there is no way to reform this science, it is full of compromised people who must by now realize what it is they have allowed and sanctioned. But who has the authority to overturn an entire branch of science? The rest of the scientific community? Governments through funding? Universities? I don't know the process by which our science can be reformed, the more genuine people interested in the science fall into two groups, operational meteorologists who have very little power outside their own restricted work operations, or enthusiasts who may be well-educated in some other field and able to see what's going on in this field, but powerless to interact with the weather establishment. I think the answer does lie with a restart for a re-named and reconstituted atmospheric science but at this point getting rid of the establishment in this corrupt and flawed so-called science will require unusual concentration and a total lack of mercy for those who have screwed things up. So far I don't see that resolve, despite the climategate business the elites continue to tolerate if not grovel at the feet of the establishment in global climate science and there seems to be no getting rid of these people, no accountability and no place for public debate because they have the mass media on their side (the internet on the other hand has become a huge forum for very strong debate on these subjects and rightly so, because there is a real and present danger of the global economy being ruined by this false science).

So whatever good or bad I am doing, I am not coming to your house and demanding that you change your life and pay me a lot of money for my theory. In fact, I've never received one cent of public money. Yet compare achievements especially on a per capita basis. This needs to be said, and it needs to be acted on. Is our science capable of overthrowing its corrupt leadership?

(edited note -- the above list of questions had been posted on this thread and was then removed while I was typing the above. I still think the answers are relevant).

Edited January 18, 2011 by Roger J Smith

[VillagePlank]

I don't find that a reasonable list of questions at all ...

(edited note -- the above list of questions had been posted on this thread and was then removed while I was typing the above. I still think the answers are relevant).

That's why I removed them ...

[Roger J Smith]

I think the questions are valuable mostly because they reveal the hidden mind-set of the climate establishment, they think that people who question their authority are just like cranks who come into physics department offices with alternate theories of gravitation. The two things are really not that comparable. You could certainly have an alternate theory of gravitation, but that's the sort of science that can be debated in terms of equations and lab observations. Our lab is the free atmosphere. But our theories are by necessity approximate.

My lifelong experience has been that people near the top of the climate and that side of meteorology (not so much the operational side) profession have a vastly inflated sense of how much real science they have at their disposal or under their personal academic belts. A lot of meteorology is empirical, it's a technology more than a science. This is why after a short period of familiarization, it is quite possible for people without any real science background to take weather models and use them to make forecasts just about as accurate as the top "science professionals" can make, and in some demonstrated cases, even better. You can't do that in other sciences. Even if I were passionately interested in organic chemistry, there's no way I could go in and work at some top chemistry company tomorrow morning, but you or I could probably go into the Met Office or any other weather forecast service and their operations would not really change for the worse. They don't like to be told this, but we all know it's a fact.

The met establishments around the world have used this period of climate change hysteria to build up their prestige, you can literally see the media fawning over them as if they are actually saying something of value or meaning, when they pontificate about how we face this impending catastrophe of weather continuing to happen (I think that's what it boils down to). When you've met these people and gained a sense of how mediocre and limited they are in reality, it becomes rather funny, but then that's the communist mind set, in communist countries the media also fawn over every tin-pot local official and regional commisar as if they were the great Lenin himself, and the great Lenin was of course himself a mediocrity who got off on killing people.

Guess it's a good thing I escaped that particular part of the voluntary gulag although this part is really about the same, only we live further apart.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Great post by RJS. Self-publish a textbook to make your work more accessible. Stop trying to appeal to those who are already getting a salary by being fake. Pitch for the students who are still willing to learn. Announce it like it's a done deal.

As for MB's forecast, 12z and 18z today give no clue about the Great North Sea Storm (if it's going to happen).

[Roger J Smith]

I guess, AFT, that would be a good idea, the problem has been that I have had little extra time and continue to make progress so the dream remains alive to nail down this complex problem before I pass.

And I am one of those guys who does not age much so I've just kept going at my thirties sort of pace right up to the present day (61 now) but the stark realization is setting in, I could hit the wall now, this could all amount to nothing and in the chaos of our science in its present broken-down corrupt state, there is nobody you can appeal to either, it's like being in some sort of empty hall of tombs and monuments but no living people.

I really think the answers are locked in this theoretical paradigm but the irony is, the only way to unlock them is through massive co-ordinated effort, exactly the one thing a maverick scientist working on his own cannot do.

Net-weather has been helpful on the whole because my situation and research are at least known to others now. In Canada, it is a total "omerta" (silence) situation. There is nothing here but a profound disinterest, any scheme that promises an easy life for no work is very attractive to our ruling elites.

[La Bise]

I do seem to remember you mentionning a global communist plot as well, through the UN possibly? Everybody is corrupt, the elites are a mafia and only you and a few select friends are pure enough to fight against it...

Complete utter car crash of a thread really, great fun to read mind...

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I guess, AFT, that would be a good idea, the problem has been that I have had little extra time and continue to make progress so the dream remains alive to nail down this complex problem before I pass.

And I am one of those guys who does not age much so I've just kept going at my thirties sort of pace right up to the present day (61 now) but the stark realization is setting in, I could hit the wall now, this could all amount to nothing and in the chaos of our science in its present broken-down corrupt state, there is nobody you can appeal to either, it's like being in some sort of empty hall of tombs and monuments but no living people.

I really think the answers are locked in this theoretical paradigm but the irony is, the only way to unlock them is through massive co-ordinated effort, exactly the one thing a maverick scientist working on his own cannot do.

Net-weather has been helpful on the whole because my situation and research are at least known to others now. In Canada, it is a total "omerta" (silence) situation. There is nothing here but a profound disinterest, any scheme that promises an easy life for no work is very attractive to our ruling elites.

Yes, this is true in many areas of life and when there is a fat middle class willing to pay more taxes, because they do believe everything they read in the media, these schemes can get really impressively pointless. It's not the thread to bring up examples.

Just a note on the 12z - nothing in FI. Yet, blocks have a tendency to persist longer than forecast. Could it possibly last until the end of the month and end with this Great Storm? I think by this weekend we'll have an idea which way this is going.

[Roger J Smith]

La Bise, you may remember incorrectly, I am not one of those mainline NWO conspiracy folk, I think the "new world order" exists more as a general theme among leftists in general without any real organization or co-ordination from any actual central direction, and if you find that paranoid I would say, get out of the UK and see the world from the wide open spaces some time, when the claustrophobia and the need for the nanny state decline a little, the reality of how our world tends to tip left to its detriment become clear ... the UN IPCC episode and its complete waste of resources is a good example of how the global community have been steered into false paths and dead ends by this two-generation-old obsession with political correctness. I'm not a cowboy by any stretch but I value freedom and I always think of Britain as the foundation of our freedom in the world, but a place where the rot of globalism has set in faster than even here, once again I would say to your own detriment, what good has really come from any of it? If we just called things as they really were in this world and not the way university professors insist they be called, we would be so much further ahead. We need a counter-revolution both in atmospheric science and in society in general, but there are only timid people near the top of the political right so the order of the day is conformity to the mass-unconscious wishes of the left, with doubts and misgivings left to private grumbling sessions both at 10 Downing Street, in our own case at 24 Sussex Drive, and if Obama gets the boot in 2012, at the Mitt Romney White House, I believe centre-right politicians are nothing more than go-slow socialists and the very end result of it all is that we will be colonies of the emerging global masters in Beijing.

And if that suits you folks in your post-hippie Maoist faint aroma of marijuana, as it suits so many self-styled progressives in North America, then enjoy your slavery, I am too old to be a slave.

And by the way, the worst news of the day for me is that my proposed map for 3 Feb looks very much like the 15 and before that 16 day outputs of the GFS, which is probably the kiss of death for my map (LOL).

Gung hey fat choy a bit early. Full moon at 1932 GMT, can you feel the vibes?

[jethro]

This is drifting a bit too far off topic now folks.

[La Bise]

Yeah Jethro, sadly it's best leave it there...

Back to subject, what next for MB if this mega storm does not come to pass? Blame political correctness maybe?

[FROZENFOOT]

does anyone have any thoughts on what weather geek predicted for 2010/11

[Candice]

Just for fun, will post these every day if I remember - Tuesday 1st Feb from GFS

does anyone have any thoughts on what weather geek predicted for 2010/11

Which "weather geek" are you talking about - Murcie Boy has only made three forecasts so far, this is the third

Edited January 19, 2011 by Candice

[Interitus]

This is drifting a bit too far off topic now folks.

I thought it had been an interesting interlude whilst we await the climax and dénouement of this story.

[Candice]

I thought it had been an interesting interlude whilst we await the climax and dénouement of this story.

I guess if it does "come to pass" then the Big Storm will be the ONLY topic -

[FROZENFOOT]

Just for fun, will post these every day if I remember - Tuesday 1st Feb from GFS

Which "weather geek" are you talking about - Murcie Boy has only made three forecasts so far, this is the third

james madden , he has been spot on right through

[jethro]

I thought it had been an interesting interlude whilst we await the climax and dénouement of this story.

There's always the option to open a specific thread if you want to continue the discussion, it just makes it a tad difficult to keep track of the purpose of this thread if it wades completely off topic.

[Weather-history]

The actual crux of the forecasting of this event took about half an hour, as I wanted to undertake certain checks. Writing up the narrative, compiling the charts and the video took about 18 hours!

Part of me wants this forecast to be totally wrong.

I could be proved wrong, but I cannot see how this forecast will not come to pass. If this forecast is not closely fulfilled, I shall spend an awful long time probably trying to work out where it all went wrong!

If my level of expectation of the 12 Nov ’10 prediction was say 75% positive; my expectation for this forecast is considerably higher.

So here it is folks, the Great North Sea Storm of 2011 that should (if it happens) go down in history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iGKjdOo_A0

There is an air of Corbynesque sensationalism about this if I was being honest.

The Oslo pressure ensembles don't really support this outcome at the moment

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/MT2_Oslo_ens.png

[La Bise]

And will no doubt be hailed a success by the kind of gullible contrarians crawling all over the internet, if there is so much as a sniff of wind and a bit of drizzle on that day...

But let's wait and see...

[Roger J Smith]

Just wanted to clarify that I had posted an alternate forecast map for 12z Feb 3 back around the 13th in post 190. This is in the form of pressures on a 5 deg grid. I have the following grid for MB's map (which is for 14z, but I consider that 12z would validate this adequately).

If somebody wanted to check my numbers against his map, that would be appreciated. I have had to extrapolate slightly near the edges. The pressure grid correlation with reality will not be unduly influenced by the actual pressures so if the 945 mb centre in Sweden turns out a bit excessive that shouldn't affect the scoring.

**** 20W* 15W* 10W* 05W* 00E* 05E* 10E* 15E* 20E

70N..1025..1018..1012..1000..980..984..988..992..996

65N..1018..1002..0990..0975..960..957..960..964..970

60N..1012..0988..0978..0968..957..952..952..952..954

55N..1015..1000..0990..0980..970..960..959..958..962

50N..1022..1010..1000..0990..980..970..965..965..965

45N..1028..1018..1010..1002..999..980..975..979..982

This can be directly compared to my forecast in post 190.

If I see that either forecast correlates well with maps at some other standard time on 3 Feb then I will note this peak in correlation during the validation.

As to how contrarians might rate the outcome, anything short of a wind in the North Sea region between west and north gusting over 60 mph would surely be a complete miss, but we'll see how the correlation goes. The gradient on the map is certainly strong enough near the Orkneys to suggest wind gusts over 100 mph.

It needs to be noted that despite the verbal portion of the forecast video, an experienced forecaster using these maps would likely predict winds for Hamburg at about 40-60 mph perhaps rising to 60-80 later. That's certainly strong enough to produce a bit of damage there.

The most likely location of high pressure on various model runs leading into this period would at this point be close to Germany or Holland. But 'tis early days yet.

[pottyprof]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[Red Raven]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

That's what I thought too.

[Timmytour]

There is an air of Corbynesque sensationalism about this if I was being honest.

The Oslo pressure ensembles don't really support this outcome at the moment

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/pics/MT2_Oslo_ens.png

Mr Data.....it's fascinating stuff.....but no more than that at the moment. To me the thread reads like those who've seen enough from his previous forecasts to express an interest in what will happen are being accused of hero worship! But I've seen no one on here declare him to be a weather god. that's maybe not the impression that's given by those who seem, for reasons no doubt of their own, to dismiss him out of hand while being content to discuss every ebb and flow of the models as they lead up to what will happen on Christmas Day. I do appreciate that they might not want to be bothered with it, but then just leave it instead of "anti-preaching"? :lol:

I have to disagree with the Corbyn link....when have you ever seen him be so specific with forecasts? There is a man who thrives on being as vague as he can. Although he desperately needs a very cold February to come in and save his "reputation".

The detail that MB has put into his forecasts is what does it for me. And the crux of the forecast he has put up is the newsworthy element of it. No matter how accurate or not his detail might prove to be, if the weather for the area is in the news at the time he said it would be in the news, then the first test for me is passed. It's all very well saying "oh it's often in the news at this time of year" but I'd dispute that it is to the extent that he says it will be.

Remembering that we are probably talking about a North Sea event that will dominate the headlines, I wonder if, to pre-empt those who are ready to say "well it's something that regularly happens", anybody could put up links to show where that has been the case in the past?

[Coast]

I wonder if, to pre-empt those who are ready to say "well it's something that regularly happens", anybody could put up links to show where that has been the case in the past?

I'm still sitting on the fence, so cannot be titled 'one who is ready to say it's something that regularly happens'. However, to add some detail to the discussion, (and I'm not sure that this qualifies for your request) here is a list of major storm tides in the North Sea back to 838AD:

• 838, December 26, Netherlands, more than 2,400 deaths
  
• 1014, September 28, Netherlands, several thousands of deaths[2]
  
• 1064, February 16, Saint Juliana flood, Netherlands and Germany, several thousands of deaths
  
• 1170, November 1, All Saints' Flood, Netherlands, marks beginning of creation of Zuiderzee
  
• 1206, Netherlands, 60,000 deaths
  
• 1219, January 16, Saint Marcellus flood, Netherlands and Germany, 36,000 deaths struck West Friesland[3]
  
• 1248, a year with three storm tides in The Netherlands with major inundations
  
• 1277, Netherlands and Germany, formation of Dollart
  
• 1277, Netherlands and Germany, formation of Lauwerszee
  
• 1282, Netherlands, separates island of Texel from mainland
  
• 1287, December 13, Saint Lucia flood, Netherlands, formation of Waddenzee and Zuiderzee, 50,000 - 80,000 deaths
  
• 1288, February 5, Saint Agathaflood, Netherlands, several thousands of deaths
  
• 1322, Netherlands and Belgium, Flanders loses all coastal islands, many deaths especially in Holland and Dlanders
  
• 1334, November 23, Netherlands, several thousands of deaths
  
• 1362, January 16, Grote Mandrenke (big drowner of men) or Saint Marcellus flood, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, created a great part of the Wadden Sea and caused the end of the city of Rungholt; 25,000 to 40,000 deaths, according to some sources 100,000 deaths
  
• 1404, November 19, first Saint Elisabeth flood, Belgium and Netherlands, major loss of land
  
• 1421, November 19, second Saint Elisabeth flood, Netherlands, storm tide in combination with extreme high water in rivers due to heavy rains, 10,000 to 100,000 deaths
  
• 1424, November 18, third Saint Elisabeth flood, Netherlands
  
• 1468, Ursula flood, should have been more forceful than second Saint Elisabeth flood
  
• 1477, first Cosmas- and Damianus flood, Netherlands and Germany, many thousands of deaths
  
• 1530, November 5, St. Felix's Flood, Belgium and Netherlands, many towns disappear, more than 100,000 deaths
  
• 1532, November 1, All Saints flood, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, several towns disappear, many thousands of deaths
  
• 1570, November 1, All Saints flood, Belgium and Netherlands , several towns disappear, more than 20,000 deaths
  
• 1634, October 11/12, Burchardi flood, broke the Island of Strand into parts (Nordstrand and Pellworm) in Nordfriesland
  
• 1651, February 22 in Germany, March 4-5 Netherlands, St. Peter's Flood
  
• 1686, November 12, Saint Martin flood, Netherlands, 1586 deaths
  
• 1703, December 7, Great Storm of 1703, England, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, many thousands of deaths
  
• 1717, December 24, Christmas flood 1717, Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia, more than 14,000 deaths
  
• 1825, February 3, Netherlands, 800 deaths
  
• 1916, January 13, Netherlands, due to the many inundations this flood led to the construction of the Afsluitdijk, appr. 20 deaths
  
• 1953, January 31/1, (North Sea flood of 1953) most severe in the Netherlands, leading to the Delta Works, 2533 deaths
  
• 1962, February 16/17, (Hamburg-Flut) flooded one fifth of Hamburg and claimed 315 lives
  
• 2007, November 8/9, North Sea flood of 2007
  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_tides_of_the_North_Sea

We are looking for aspects that will be in the top 5 of the 6 shown since 1717 as I understand it?

There is quite a lot of historical reference here, which you can read on line.

Extract:

[Timmytour]

Coast

Not much ammunition there for anybody saying he got lucky with the timing and severity of the event then should it come to pass...

Edited January 20, 2011 by Timmytour

[Paul Sherman]

I have to disagree with the Corbyn link....when have you ever seen him be so specific with forecasts? There is a man who thrives on being as vague as he can. Although he desperately needs a very cold February to come in and save his "reputation".

Dont want to take the thread off topic.........But what has exactly happened to his "The Coldest and Severist Januaries in the Last 100 years" What country is he going to accept the Plaudits for that forecast.......Hmm maybe Siberia or Greenland I suppose. Why he has so many followers that are hoodwinked by him irritates me, It is like he has foreced drugs into their system.........Baaaaaaaaaaa (Sheep)

Paul S