Ken Ring

octo · 08-11-2009 9:17am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Once I get back to home base I can work on the data file more and get this worked up to a better overall presentation, but I wanted people to have a chance to see these results.

MT, this is quite unintelligible. Are you saying that malin head full and new moons are correlated with low pressures? What statistical tests have you used? What t-value (probablity of findings not due to pure chance) have you found?

Because the hypothesis you started with wasn't confined to winter. It sounds like a theory in search of the evidence.

octo · 08-11-2009 9:39am

Gene Derm wrote: »

Thanks MT
The main point is that the moon by virtue of creating an upper tide exerts a huge influence on air pressure. Changes in air pressure are what we perceive as 'weather'. Lunar declination moves the volumes of both sea and air and the system 'waits' for full and new moons to culminate as peaks. Yet most meteorologists deny the moon has any role at all in influencing air pressures.
www.predictweather.com

Hi Ken, nice to see you in the discussion. I don't think anyone denies the lunar influence on air pressure, they merely see it as so small as to be practically inconsequential. I imagine it can't be that hard to prove whether the moon effects air pressure. Can you show us the results of your analysis so we can all see them?

I'm curious about your Irish forecasts - they seem to be exact copies of climate data from the previous saros cycle. Again, is there some kind of analysis to show that your method provides a forecast which is more accurate than what you might get from just a seasonal guess?

You could compare rainfall, max/min temps, sunshine daily figures, etc for 3 or 4 stations over a 50-year period, and estimate the likelihood that you forecast was better than an average figure for the day. Wanna do it for the benefit of your Irish fans? Shouldn't be that hard.

Take the root-mean-square of the differences between your forecasts and the actuals, and the RMS difference between the seasonal average and the actuals, and compare the 2. Which is bigger? No need for any weird twists of logic.

M.T. Cranium · 08-11-2009 5:59pm

Octo, the theory being developed has been extensively explained in previous posts. I would expect to see the largest pressure oscillations in mid-winter because of the climatology of western Europe in general. The data shown above apply to the 35 years that were available from the provided link, I would have preferred to use 50 or more, but this is a reasonably long period.

If you took average pressure per day through December and January from the calendar year and not this adjusted lunar timetable, I am sure the patterns would be more random but I will work on that when I get time.

A 10-12 mb pressure oscillation is clearly "significant" -- you mentioned that the literature talked about daily oscillations of less than 0.1 mb, so these are on the order of 100 times as large as what conventional research has decided to be non-significant.

As I discussed earlier, the annual presentation is more complicated than just a standing 14.8 day oscillation; there is another set of equally significant oscillations having a 13.7 day period and these reinforce best in late December and early January, which is why I have selected that period to show the combined effects. I would expect weaker cycles with more of a random appearance through spring and autumn months, but possibly another period of more regular cycles in June and July (when the two different sets overlap again).

One other point, the full moon timing is of course global, there is no such thing as a "Malin Head full moon" -- and these times are derived from published astronomical data for the years concerned.

I certainly can't persuade the atmospheric science community to take these alternate theories seriously, but a pressure oscillation this large over 35 years is not what one would expect if one was testing the alternate hypothesis, "lunar phase has no correlation with winter atmospheric pressure near the main storm track." I would say that on balance, my contention of significance comes out ahead of the conventional reply of no significance after this study.

Gene Derm · 09-11-2009 11:11am

Hi Octo
Do I detect a hint of antagonism in your tone? Are you a meteorologist? It is no secret that I use metonic, double metonic, selene and nodal cycles for moon, and sunspot cycles for sun, plus close planet movements especially Mercury declination. Constellations are really declination-energy roadmaps. Temperatures are combinations of both solar and lunar for instance warmer in Aries or Leo, but being tied to pressure is also a function of declination. Also, I find temperatures are extremely localised and frankly are not constant enough to be reliable indicators of anything other than trends. Some cycles I find are better for rain amounts, and for numbers of rain days in a month, and some for weather event timing. Nodal crossings don't cause weather events, but they do focus the timing of them. Usually moisture in the air develops into a front 2 days after a node. The stone circle builders seem to have employed the metonic. Also whereas saros can put you half a month out which incurs a seasonal error, metonic has the advantage of bringing one back to the same time of the month.
Using one cycle alone is a recipe for disaster. If using solely lunar factors one is well advised to combine all and come up with an average, because no one cycle contains all repeatable lunar factors from one time frame to another. It is akin to calculating sealevel rise..what day of level in the past is comparable to that of a future day? Sealevel is controlled at any one time by perigee+declination+phase+wind direction+wind speed+proximate underwater tectonic activity. There is no day in the past when all these came together in exactly the same way. It is the same with the lunar/solar weather factors, which is why I think a more general, trends-based approach is required.
As to the results of my analyses, they are my predictions which I have been doing all year on various interviews on Irish radio and in media print. I can supply links to these if you are that interested. I do not have time to do 50 years of back data analyses, any more than do the Metservices.
To say the lunar influence on air pressure is so small as to be inconsequential is to call coincidence the observed fact that air balloons float higher on new and full moon days, when there are "king" tides in both sea and air.
regards
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

octo · 09-11-2009 3:55pm

Hi Ken – Thanks for your reply. To answer your personal questions, well, agnosticism perhaps – and leaning heavily towards disbelief. Perhaps this came across as antagonism. My work certainly overlaps with meteorology.

Although I doubt meteorologists are familiar with your arcane terminology. The description of your method certainly sounds very sciencey on a passing reading – and very elaborate. However it doesn’t correlate with my examinations of your forecasts.

For example, your [URL="here http://www.celbridgetidytowns.com/weather/weather-predict-sept-2009.html"]September forecast for Dublin [/URL]is an exact (decimals rounded off) copy of the Dublin Airport daily data from August 22 to September 20 1991. Exact. So what’s all this about ‘metonic’ and ‘selene’, etc?

Your golfing forecast is also an exact replica of the dry periods of18 years and 10 days previously. Erick Brenstrum of the NZ Met Office has pointed out that you previously took NZ weather maps and tippexed out the dates from 18 yrs 10days previously and presented them as your own. It looks obvious this is what you're doing in Ireland also. Although I'm given to understand that in NZ you sometimes you use a period of 17 years and 22 days. What cycle is that?

So your forecast method in fact looks remarkably simple. I think I could do it too. But hey, that’s ok if it works. I mean that.

So, can you show me some kind of evidence that it works? On what basis can we analyse and verify your predictions? What would seem fair to you?

I’m curious about Mercury “close planet movements” – are you saying that mercury effects our weather through gravity also, or is it through some other more ethereal force?

I remain open to persuasion. You assert many things, like “moisture in the air develops into a front 2 days after a node”. If you could point to something in scientific literature to substantiate your claims you might be taken more considerately.

Gene Derm · 10-11-2009 2:00pm

Octo
As you say, I have been accused of using more than one cycle, which I too admit. But if it was only that then would it was so simple! I use astrology, but as "Octo" I cannot trust to any comfortable discussion with you because you have me at a disadvantage. You know my name because I do not hide behind a nom de plume. You could be the Head of Met Eireann for all I know. You also seem intent on drawing me into an unpleasant brawl that questions my validity and credibility, by asking more than once for analyses. I respectfully suggest that you end this small friction that you have brought to this thread. Having to be defensive is tiresome.
Suffice that I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations, and lunar and solar cycles. I believe the sun comes first, then constellations. The moon answers to the sun but is also tethered to constellations.
To avoid appearing inquisitional, may I suggest that now may be the time to express something of yourself and your methods, rather than just query mine.
regards
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

octo · 12-11-2009 6:57am

Hi Ken

I've followed a few of your previous fora conversations like netweather, Silly Beliefs and Ski Forums, (isn't google great?) and I've noticed a similar pattern, whereby you label anyone who questions your work to be 'close minded', 'aggressive', 'antagonistic', etc. So I know that you perceive any critical comments to be a personal attack and I’ll desist asking for any analysis of your accuracy, I don’t want to upset you.

Your forecasts interest me because I am a meteorological officer - it is my work and those of my colleagues that you recycle as weather forecasts – so forgive me if I feel a slight ownership of them. I’m a farmer too – you respect farmers, don’t you? People ask me about you and I’m curious too. There’s no doubt you called a few things right, particularly the start of the September dry spell (although you signaled it to end after about 2 weeks, when it actually lasted far longer). So, frequency of Irish September dry spells aside (‘Buchans’ spells), it was a good prediction, Kudos. Your daily max & min temperatures, sunshine and rainfall forecasts are worthless. Btw, I like the rainfall maps, nice graphics. You did forecast a wet summer - although hardly a freak event in Ireland, and you didn’t say how almost record-breaking it would be - but another good call nonetheless.

So – is it just luck? Is it that you make enough forecasts and on the law of averages some of them are bound to come right, and you then just point to the hits and ignore the misses? Or, is there something to it? You seem determined not to find out.

So now we can’t discuss your results, maybe you’d tell me about your method. You put yourself on an equal footing as our Celtic ancestors who built Newgrange – yet I’m sure they wouldn’t do anything as crude as simply copy exactly the weather from 18 years 10 days ago. They were sophisticated builders. You keep saying you have a complex system – but a cursory examination shows you don’t. I know astrologers – it is a beautiful and complex art form (although I disagree about its predictive properties). Your methodology is a sledgehammer and their’s is a tweezers.

From what you’ve told me, you use some kind of hidden mysterious (arbitrary?) method to decide which period to use to copy your forecasts. But you don’t use astrology to predict the weather. You get us, the meteorological services you constantly insult and deride, to do your donkey work for you.

Are all your Irish forecasts for 2010 based on the 18 yr 10 day cycle? If I go into competition and publish a cheaper version, will you sue me?

Gene Derm · 12-11-2009 8:36am

Octo
Yes, obviously it is a personal attack, and unbefitting of this forum. I am 14,000 miles away and have never threatened you.
You say "I don't want to upset you" at the same time you will "go into competition and publish a cheaper version". How will that not upset me? You admit you are a meteorologist. Well, whoever you are, (who is "Octo"?) such a threat brings disrepute to that profession.
As to my method, I am not bound to tell anyone, especially a meteorologist when I was so thoroughly scoffed at by the head of the Ireland Metoffice on radio. I have already given much away here in the spirit of sharing information, in an interesting discussion with MT Cranium. But now, clearly I cannot share any more, as it will provide fuel for you to bring me down if you can. For some reason you have made my existence a matter personal to you. Even for this discussion, this forum is already the poorer.
Just for the record, no, I don't only use 18/10. I told you, I use the nodal for focus. I also use other cycles, like metonic and Selene and I employ three astrology programmes - Astrolog, Solar Fires De Luxe and Janus4. Some have features the others don't. Sometimes all cycles happily point in the same direction. This is what happened over the Irish summer. My system is as complex as any other system. I crosscheck like crazy.
You say that "Your daily max & min temperatures, sunshine and rainfall forecasts are worthless." If that is the case then surely the public will realise I am useless and no longer buy my work. Your problem about me being around will fix itself by natural selection.
Returning to you saying "If I go into competition and publish a cheaper version, will you sue me?" This is an interesting development. If I am so incorrect why bother setting up a duplicate business? After previously determining my methods don't work, you now claim you will do exactly the same, with what you think is my method, except that you will make it more available by being cheaper. What an odd thing to say.
The upshot is that now you have put into print (on this forum) that you are contemplating harming my business. So yes, I will seek legal advice if you proceed. Can you not abide someone with a different viewpoint?

Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

octo · 12-11-2009 10:20am

Ken - A number of points.

I'm a meteorological officer, not a meteorologist. We work at synoptic weather stations, collecting data - we don't produce forecasts. I represent only myself in this discussion.
I've looked at about 5 of your forecasts - every one of them was a simple recycling of 18yrs 10days climatalogical data, including your golfing forecast for the winter ahead. A child could do it. Even astrologers should be insulted.
Relax. I withdraw my threat to compete with your publication and threaten your healthy livelihood.
As to natural selection - 3 million years of evolution and there's still a sucker born every minute.

M.T. Cranium · 12-11-2009 4:55pm

I'm back from my trip out of town, so now I have access to my data-storage computer again. I hope to work away at extending the winter data that I already stored, so that I can produce an annual set of pressure analyses for the Malin Head data. I wouldn't expect (from climatology) that the curves will have the larger 12-14 mbs amplitude that we see in the segment that I provided above (which corresponds approximately to late December and most of January).

Actually in my own case, this pressure curve for one event would not really be a sort of make or break test for the theory because large parts of my own theoretical framework have less to do with lunar events and more to do with solar system magnetic field sectors that are rotating around at various times. This phenomenon is already known in the astronomical literature and some other met researchers are looking into cause and effect of earth's passage through field sectors relating to changes in large-scale weather patterns.

This research is not very well-developed yet, and I could quite honestly say it is not widely known in the community as few papers have been published. I would look for this to gain ground somewhat gradually over the period 2010-20 as well as the possibility that research into lunar effects and cycles will pass the publication barrier and get into the mainstream of discussion. For one thing, now that I have retired from full time non-met employment I have more time to finish off research projects that are mainly in the data analysis stage without having had much opportunity to work on the idea of publication.

That pressure oscillation shown above is certainly a significant phenomenon over 35 years of data. The fact that you get the same basic curves with about .8 to .9 correlation by arbitrarily taking two halves of data seems to reinforce the notion of significance (the process is working equally in two data sets divided at random in terms of years).

As to this back-and-forth between Ken and Octo, this really settles nothing. If there are significant lunar cycles at the time intervals that Ken is finding significant, then reproducing past data with corrections to lunar dates (or whatever other factors) is merely a shorthand method for a cycle-driven model from index values which would be my approach if I were to try to make the same forecasts (which I don't, I am not set up to engage in commercial forecasting ventures).

So I would not criticize the work on that basis, it would likely not change any correlation factor to do it either way (straight data from past vs index values from analogue cases).

The use of the word "astrology" is also somewhat misleading. Astrology as the modern practice of attempting to forecast events in personal lives or to draw conclusions about personality traits, may or may not have any merit (I am not a follower of this in any case, and have no inclination to suspect that it would be non-random in those regards). However, that kind of "astrology" may be thought of as some sort of long-term corruption of a different kind of "astronomical knowledge" that may have existed in the past, or which we may now be uncovering through this research. The position of the Moon is obviously very important because of its orbital characteristics, and one could debunk the idea that this is "astrological" simply with reference to oceanic tide tables. But a discussion of planetary influences might sound more astrological in the popular sense. I would point to the fact that research shows that the rotating solar system magnetic field sectors are linked to planetary orbital cycles, either the sectors are rotating in sync with some of the larger planets, or in some harmonic of their periods. This is a physical rather than a mystic or metaphysical process and therefore the operational question is not whether the effects are "known to science" but more, how large are the effects?

The solar system magnetic field is basically a portrait of the actual shape and intensity (in three dimensions) of the solar wind. Clearly if there are variations in the solar wind, even on the order of 0.1 per cent, this would have the potential to affect the geomagnetic field and possibly terrestrial weather as well. If the sector differences were as large as 0.5 per cent these variations could be as large as some of the more significant terrestrial atmospheric variations like the El Nino. A researcher named David Dilley has shown some indications that lunar perigee is connected to El Nino as well, but in my research, I found that harmonics in the rotating SSMF sectors associated with Jupiter had a correlation with the SOI (the index that includes the El Nino and La Nina patterns).

Now this is all in a developmental stage and it could realistically take me another three to five years to work up what is already done (numerical analyses of the SOI index values 1950 to present) into a passable scientific paper. The problem for me with all projects concerning publication of papers would be the underlying theory which needs to be at least referenced or mentioned in any given paper. Since an exposition of that requires a minimum of 100 pages (too long for a scientific paper) I have to go the more difficult route of establishing this theoretical framework by making specific cases for it in specific subject areas (like pressure at Malin Head).

Anyway, the real challenge for me at this point is to publish or perish first. As I am now 60.443721265123056 earth years (and rising) of age and mental acuity often declines past 75 (some would say 59 in my case), not to mention life expectancy being about that, I must stop wasting time talking about what I am doing, and just go and do ... and let the chips fall where they may as I go about it.

Danno · 13-11-2009 12:37am

octo wrote: »

Ken - A number of points.
I'm a meteorological officer, not a meteorologist. We work at synoptic weather stations, collecting data - we don't produce forecasts. I represent only myself in this discussion.

Remember, you are employed by the state, paid by the taxpayer. You have NO ownership of data collected. Anybody is entitled to use the data.

I've looked at about 5 of your forecasts - every one of them was a simple recycling of 18yrs 10days climatalogical data, including your golfing forecast for the winter ahead. A child could do it. Even astrologers should be insulted.

He has already stated most other methods he uses, why are you still not satisfied?

Relax. I withdraw my threat to compete with your publication and threaten your healthy livelihood.

Good idea, only the lawyers would win anyway.

As to natural selection - 3 million years of evolution and there's still a sucker born every minute.

Why the personal insult again? This man has done nothing to insult you. Please apologise to him.

Gene Derm · 13-11-2009 2:57am

Danno
Looking at general trends, weather patterns are somewhat dependant on the position of the jetstreams, which are moving air masses between fronts. These winds tend to bring colder weather in the form of depressions, especially when brought to a focus by lunar perigees and by the declination of Mercury. Warmer air mass centers and colder air mass centers dictate where the jet stream positions itself. In a push and pull situation cold air down north seems to push the jet toward the equator and warmer air in enough amounts pushes it toward the poles. Because the air is joined at the hip to the sea, air mass temperatures rely on sea surface temperatures, which are cooler than normal at present around the equator. With the polar river of air riding slightly lower down, Ireland and England has found itself catching colder air pulled down from the North Pole, which is why it has been a wet summer and why there may be colder than expected periods which will produce snow. I expect them around full moons and when new moon combines with perigee.
The next midpoint of the nodal cycle is June 2011. At least until the end of 2010 we in NZ can expect cooler monthly mimimum temperature averages across the country, with a turnabout happening in the last part of the winter of 2011. Heat in the seas requires a heat source, which brings in the solar sunspot cycle, in which we have been in minimum mode for nearly two years, the stage which brings less radiation (sun’s heat) reaching earth. The new Sunspot Cycle #24 is poised to begin, and astronomers are watching with baited breath after occasional spates this year of renewal but which have so far been false starts. The year after a solar minimum has passed down here we usually get an El Nino, and the year after that is normally a tropical cyclone year. This means although there will be media hype and warnings when storms gather strength over the season, mainly around full and new moon times, cyclones will develop but fizz out quickly during the rest of this year and most of next. However, 2011 should again be a danger year for their destructive power.
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

Gene Derm · 13-11-2009 3:16am

Welcome back MT
I call astrology that which gave rise to our modern word astronomy. For anyone to state they don't believe in astrology is to say they don't believe in the fact that stars are out there. Modern astrology has been denigrated to a party and coffee table game, and is not the science that many astrologers, especially nonwestern, study. The advent of the sidereal system vs the tropical is unfortunate, as it is incorrect because the 'values' of the orginal signs are ascribed to new positions on the energy grid that is the constellation system, which esentially is still the road map of energies around a month(for the moon) and the year(for the sun) with respect to earth. Astrology will lose contact with its orginal form if people only study it from a sidereal viewpoint.
As to the SOI, your finding on Jupiter is worth investigating, because I do see a correlation to lunar declination. SOI occurs about every 4.5 years, and is a sloshing of waters back and forth as if in a big dish, to restore sealevels. And that is the rate of change in ocean currents, mainly the one that creeps up the W S American coastline and feeds the Gulf Stream - this seems to come to a standstill at lunar declination midpoints.
I wrote an article about it a year or so ago
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=133
Would welcome your further thoughts.
regards
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

octo · 13-11-2009 8:08am

Hi Danno

Danno wrote: »

Remember, you are employed by the state, paid by the taxpayer. You have NO ownership of data collected. Anybody is entitled to use the data.

Yes.

Danno wrote: »

He has already stated most other methods he uses, why are you still not satisfied?

Because his rhetoric is as follows: Here is this enigmatic, mindnumbingly-complex, unifying grand planetary and meteorological theory, that only Ken really knows and understands. But sadly, contemporary physics and meteorology, blinded by it's own greed and stupidity, has unjustly ignored this great work. Meanwhile back on planet reality, a commercial forecast (€89 p.a. !!) from his website is dressed-up unacknowledged recycled MET climate data. No Danno, it's not what it says on the tin.

Danno wrote: »

Good idea, only the lawyers would win anyway.

Saros-recycling isn't proprietry or coprighted. If it was, Ken'd be suing this guy.

Danno wrote: »

"As to natural selection - 3 million years of evolution and there's still a sucker born every minute." - Why the personal insult again? This man has done nothing to insult you. Please apologise to him.

Sorry Danno. I'm afraid Ken's not the sucker.

Deep Easterly · 13-11-2009 12:28pm

Gene Derm wrote: »

Welcome back MT
I call astrology that which gave rise to our modern word astronomy. For anyone to state they don't believe in astrology is to say they don't believe in the fact that stars are out there. Modern astrology has been denigrated to a party and coffee table game, and is not the science that many astrologers, especially nonwestern, study.

I have to admit when I see the word "astrology" used in relation to weather forecasting I become confused. Ken, is there any chance you could simplify your methodology for those of use who don't have a high degree of scientific understanding? I just find your explanations go over my head a little. Not your fault at all, but mine, as I am a little bit slow on the uptake.

nacho libre · 13-11-2009 1:18pm

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I have to admit when I see the word "astrology" used in relation to weather forecasting I become confused. Ken, is there any chance you could simplify your methodology for those of use who don't have a high degree of scientific understanding? I just find your explanations go over my head a little. Not your fault at all, but mine, as I am a little bit slow on the uptake.

i'm sure you are not the only one viewing this thread having that difficulty. the difference is your humble enough to admit it publicly. So, yes a dumbing down would be appreciated by the layman - afterall isn't that part of the remit of this forum - to convey knowledge to the layman weather enthusiast.

r3nu4l · 13-11-2009 3:19pm

Okay guys, as your mods aren't around at the mo, I'm stepping in with the Category Moderator hat on.

Some of you need to take some deep breaths and weather the storm (hee hee) in here because this discussion is getting heated.

Cool it with the insults and pseudo-insults. If you can't debate scientifically don't debate.

/
Gene Derm (Ken), please don't take this stuff to heart, as I'm sure you are aware anyone who does things slightly outside the 'norm' is always in for a lot of questions and sometimes ridicule. Hopefully, you can ignore the ridicule and answer the questions from those who are interested.

Weather mods, over to you.

Min · 13-11-2009 5:13pm

Octo, are you Evelyn Cusack?

I just remember that debate on the radio with Ken and a guy from Kerry and it got rather heated.

I don't think anything should be discounted out of hand, found Ken to be quite accurate but I also appreciate the work of Met Eireann.

Danno · 13-11-2009 7:41pm

octo wrote: »

Hi Danno
Yes.

Thankfully we agree!!!

Because his rhetoric is as follows: Here is this enigmatic, mindnumbingly-complex, unifying grand planetary and meteorological theory, that only Ken really knows and understands. But sadly, contemporary physics and meteorology, blinded by it's own greed and stupidity, has unjustly ignored this great work. Meanwhile back on planet reality, a commercial forecast (€89 p.a. !!) from his website is dressed-up unacknowledged recycled MET climate data. No Danno, it's not what it says on the tin.

We have a choice, pay the €89 or not. Unfortunately we have to pay tax which is compulsary and thankfully for you, keeps you in a job. If you disagree with his methods and products, don't buy them. Hit him in his pocket, not with insults!!!

Saros-recycling isn't proprietry or coprighted. If it was, Ken'd be suing this guy.

Good stuff!

Sorry Danno. I'm afraid Ken's not the sucker.

I guess I picked up on this wrongly! The tone of the whole post left a feeling that the comment was targeted at Ken.

Can we have some constructive criticism from you instead? Can you point out where his methods are seriously flawed?

M.T. Cranium · 13-11-2009 8:38pm

Since I have been doing similar research for about thirty years, I think some of the following may help de-mystify the situation and also defuse the unnecessary undertone of hostility.

First of all, as to the processes of the Moon's interaction with the atmosphere. I'm going to guess that all readers basically understand the general concept of oceanic tides, how they are composed of both solar and lunar gravitational pull on the oceans, maximizing when the sun or moon are both overhead and at the opposite point due to rotation of the earth, on a daily cycle. The Moon's slow westward motion against the fixed star background results in a longer daily cycle of about 24h 50 min and the highest ocean tides occur at new moon and full moon, even more so when the moon is at perigee (at which point it is about 12% closer than average to the earth and exerting a tidal pull about 20% stronger.)

Now, the fact that the oceans have shallow borders and coast lines means that these tidal forces, moving in a generally westward direction, splash up against a barrier so that tidal ranges are greater where the water has to compress into smaller volumes available, as in the Bay of Fundy in eastern Canada where they have a 10 metre tidal range.

The fact that the atmosphere has no such boundaries means that daily tidal forces are dissipated throughout the atmosphere and any research ever done to find evidence of daily atmospheric tides usually points to rather small if not negligible tides of 0.1 mbs or so. In my research, and I gather Ken has similar concepts in mind, the atmosphere processes these tidal forces in a different way altogether, some kind of interference pattern, standing waves that somehow get linked to the magnetosphere of the earth. I have identified "timing lines" which are diagonal rather than north-south lines that form expected clusters of low pressure events at specified lunar event times. Full and new moon are two of the stronger ones, but both Ken and I have identified declination maxima as strong events as well. To explain that in simple terms, think of the winter sky.

On a clear night looking south around midnight in December or January, you will see the constellation Orion, and above it, the Milky Way heading in a generally lower left to upper right direction (you need fairly dark skies to see the Milky Way, but it's there, and it's the main axis of our local galaxy). You happen to be looking out away from the centre of the galaxy here, but there are some fairly impressive clusters of stars in that direction. Now, if the Moon or any planets are visible in that part of the sky, they will be following the "ecliptic" or close to it (because they all vary up and down by a few degrees in their orbits). So the winter full moon is seen quite high in the sky above Orion, and this is its northern "declination" maximum. Declination is the difference between latitude of a celestial object and the equatorial plane extending out into the sky. Unlike all other solar system satellites, our Moon follows the ecliptic plane -- the others go around their planet's equators. This winter, there are no bright planets in that part of the sky, but in any case, the winter full moon sits where the summer sun sits, plus or minus five degrees depending on where the moon happens to be in an 18.6 year cycle of declination. Right now, this cycle is about 3 years past its greatest range (where the Moon was travelling very high across the winter sky in 2006). By 2011, the Moon will be crossing the ecliptic at this "northern max point" and heading south of it until it reaches the "southern max" position. This cycle continues on because the "node" where the lunar orbit crosses the ecliptic keeps moving east along the path (towards Taurus from Gemini, etc etc, if you like that orientation).

Okay, so this brings about two more energy peaks that may relate to gravitational interactions between the Moon and the galactic centre, which I have called northern and southern max. Now, these occur simultaneously with winter and summer full or new moons the closer these are to 21 Dec and 21 June. The differences in these cycles are 2.2 days a month. Basically, the late December full moon is simultaneous with northern max, then these northern max events fall 2,4,7,9,12 days earlier than full moon in the first five months of the year until you reach June when they overlap with the new moon. And if there were to be a total eclipse of the Sun on 21 June around 1 pm local time, you would see a darkened Sun sitting where the 21 December full moon sits at 1 am local time.

Other lunar events may occur as the Moon passes other gravitational sources such as Jupiter, Saturn and Mars. Venus would always be fairly near the new moon position due to its inner orbit, and Mercury even more so.

Our research may have proceeded differently, but the basic concept in mine is simply this -- these gravitational waves appear to be focused on the timing lines (which are apparently nine in total, and therefore more or less 40 deg apart in longitude) at lunar event times. There are plenty of complexities in this, such as different latitudes of storm tracks in different weather patterns, a tendency for the system of timing lines to oscillate like a slow-moving (set of) pendulums, and energy from non-lunar sources getting involved in the mixture.

A strong indication that this system may be valid is that the average eastward progression of low pressure systems should be on the order of 13 degrees a day if we assume that it takes 28 days for the energy to move once around the earth. Another strong indication is that I have derived temperature, precipitation, wind and pressure signals for the main lunar events near timing line one (in eastern North America) and now under a challenge from a forum reader here, I have shown a large pressure oscillation in mid-winter at Malin head near timing line 3, in sync with the full and new moons.

I hope this above explanation helps to give some visualization of what we are talking about in general terms. The energy process at work here may be partly gravitational (interference waves), it may be partly stimulated by gravitational waves as well as conventional gravitation, and it may well be augmented by geomagnetic processes at work in the upper atmosphere.

In my case, the research is complicated by the existence of a second paradigm that is independent of the Moon. Visualize that the solar system has a large, complex magnetic field that aligns into rotating sectors. These sectors are rather subtle in terms of energy outflow differences, but some sectors may contain some 0.1 to 1.0 per cent differentials of solar wind total energy. You can imagine how our path around the Sun through these slowly rotating sectors would set up variations in atmospheric energy levels, as well as cycles of different lengths if some of the sectors remained intact for long periods. My theory so far is that stronger (warmer) sectors produce ridging near timing line one where the magnetic field is stronger. That ridge development induces troughs in predictable upstream and downstream locations. When the earth is approaching a warm field sector, the ridge shows up to the west, and drifts towards the east. When the earth is approaching a faster-moving sector being flung out of the inner solar system by Mercury or Venus moving through this complex set-up, then the effects are retrograde, the ridge tends to develop to the east of timing line one (over the Atlantic or western Europe) and then it moves west, and often northwest because in the winter months, either Mercury or Venus would be rising in latitude when they approach the passing point known as "inferior conjunction."

Very interesting detail -- these lunar and planetary orbital dynamics change gradually over various cycles due to precession of our orbit, and precession of their orbits too (for the planets).

This may have implications for very long-range climate analysis (back in time) or forecasting (forward in time) although I am certainly a believer in the general validity of the Milankovitch cycles in terms of guiding very long-term changes related to glacial periods etc. But it's interesting to me that the high-latitude retrograde blocking we now see would switch to low-latitude retrograde blocking at another point of the 26,000 year precession cycle. Imagine if those strong Greenland blocks set up more like Newfoundland on a regular basis.

Indeed, many past researchers have noted that shifting positions of the magnetic poles could be associated with long-term climate change. Right now, the north magnetic pole is about as far north as we've ever recorded it (including less reliable historical projections). It is located well north of Canada's arctic islands now, after drifting northwest through them for about a century. Nowadays it is located near 84N 110W, and it's heading rather quickly westward as well as showing a weakening tendency.

In 1840, the NMP was discovered on the Canadian mainland of the Boothia Peninsula at about 67 deg N (!!) -- it has been steadily migrating in a NNW then NW and eventually WNW curve since then. And the climate has been steadily warming since about 1890 in North America. These may not be coincidences. It seems that the arctic vortex is pulled away from its most favoured location on a historical basis by the NMP. It doesn't migrate totally in sync with it, it's more like a child tugging on an adult's arm sort of a thing, pulling the mean position of the vortex in the same direction as the larger movements of the NMP. Imagine if we had a strong magnetic field with poles near 60-65 N located in a place like northern Quebec, west of Hudson Bay, or northern Sweden. Such possible locations might easily be able to generate much stronger and more persistent arctic vortex formations that would establish a different storm track, jet stream, and snowfall pattern. This would in turn promote rapid continental glaciation. I would note also that this process fits the different energy cycles of the Milankovitch effects, so separating out the causes would be a challenge.

Okay, that's probably long enough for one post -- if people have any questions about these concepts, fire away.

Danno · 13-11-2009 9:51pm

Excellent post MTC... I wonder what would happen our weather if the NMP migrated to say the Faroe Islands?

M.T. Cranium · 13-11-2009 10:00pm

You would need a harpoon, a snowmobile, and a couple of extra wives to keep warm in your igloo.

13-11-2009 10:59pm

lol

Gene Derm · 14-11-2009 5:21am

Yes, good post. Mercury is always close to the new moon because it never strays too far from the Sun. Many places seem to get temperature swings over the two days whenever Mercury's declination matches that of the Sun, and down here the New moon is reknowned amongst farmers for bringing strong westerlies, of great interest to me when I first heard of it as an observation because of the old astrological adage of windy Mercury. Also, the proximity of Venus to the Sun, never straying distant more than a couple of signs, visible either side of around New moon time also probably gave rise to Venus being considered a sign of wet weather.
As to the 26,000 year cycle of polar precession, it means that 12,500 years ago January/February would have been the northern hemisphere summer.
Ken Ring

M.T. Cranium · 14-11-2009 6:06am

The question of which month is linked to which season over long intervals of time is complicated by how we define our calendar year.

The switch from Julian (365.25 days per year) to Gregorian (365.2425 days per year) calendar has been made so that winter will always fall in the months of December, January and February (northern hemisphere).

Extending the Julian calendar back from Roman times to pre-history, the convention of historians, tends to link seasons to different months the further back in time we go. Here's why -- using this convention, after two thousand years (assuming the Julian calendar was just like the Gregorian of today in the first century AD) there would be 15 extra leap year days, which would mean that what should have been January 1, 2000 BC, would actually be recorded as January 16th. Go back to 8000 BC and the first of January would be recorded as about the first of March. Etc etc ... so this would place winter in those times in calendar March, April and May. But only on the astronomy program, otherwise this means nothing. Just in case you really want to get into this using skyglobe or some other program, it's worth noting that some astronomy programs (like skyglobe) skip the year "0 AD" that appears in other programs. In other words, 1 B.C. is followed by 1 A.D. -- this means that leap years in the B.C. era fall in 1 B.C., 5 B.C., etc, at four year intervals. If there's a year zero in the program, it's a leap year, and so are 4 B.C. etc. The thing is, whichever way they handle "year zero" there are leap years every four years back to the beginning of the program. That makes each year a little too "long" on average, which is why after a few dozen centuries of back travel in time, you are only at 1 January when in fact it is 1 November. So if you want to be at 1 January in Gregorian time, you need to stop the count at 1 March in 8001 BC.

The only place this matters is when you use an astronomy program and look at the sky on "January 1st, 8001 BC" or something similar -- what you're looking at would have been 1 November, 8002 BC if by some chance a civil authority using the Gregorian calendar had always been running the world. So, as I look at my skyglobe program for 1 March 8001 BC, I am looking at what would have been 1 January 8001 BC in that Gregorian calendar world. The sun is at its low declination that we see nowadays. What changes is that on this date, the sun is not between Sagitarrius and Capricorn as nowadays, but in Taurus -- sitting below the Pleiades. Had the sun been eclipsed, most of Orion would be below the southern horizon (unlike today where a solar eclipse in May would see Orion sitting where we see it in the winter sky).

One thing that we inherited in modern "astrology" is this precession motion -- the year is divided into the twelve "signs" that the Sun was passing through in Roman times. Nowadays, the sun is not leaving Gemini for Cancer on 21 June, it is one sign behind that, leaving Taurus for Gemini. (The actual constellation boundaries are not as evenly spaced as astrology implies, but generally speaking they were in Roman times where the range of dates in astrology would lead you to believe they are now.) Another 2,000 years or so, and the 21 June sun will be leaving Aries for Taurus. I wonder how many (if any) modern astrologers making their horoscopes even know that.

So the general principles are these -- the ecliptic rotates around so that northern max is one "sign" earlier about every 2,000 years (26,000 divided by 12 actually, which is more like 2,167 years). Since we now fix the calendar so that the Sun's passage through northern max once a year will always fall on or about 21 June, we can say that every 2,167 years, the Sun will be one more "sign" behind than it is already -- by 4,300 AD (approx) when the astrologer says that you're born in Gemini, in fact you would be born in Aries going by where the Sun actually was. This discrepancy will continue to mount until astrologers have some sort of update like the calendar change from Julian to Gregorian, or perhaps forever, then one day, the Sun will return to the signs that it is supposed to be in, according to Roman-era astrology.

As it stands, most calendars actually in use before Roman times were lunar-based and most of those societies figured out that they had to add seven extra lunar months every nineteen years to keep the years aligned with the Sun. Most years would have 12 lunar months, some would have an extra thirteenth month.

The concept that the year should begin near the winter solstice is relatively modern. Most lunar calendars had new years in either the spring or autumn, connected to the growing season.

Now, it's not only a question of which calendar you apply to back time. There are real structural changes in the relation of Moon, sun and planets to the sky due to precession. If you could go back to the first century AD, you would find that the ecliptic peaked in declination more towards Gemini than near the Milky Way (boundary of Gemini and Taurus) as today. Go back further in time, and ignoring the problem of the straying Julian calendar, the real change would be to see the northern max slipping ever westward as you went back, until you would see it against the part of the Milky Way that we see at night in northern summer. Thus the point I was making earlier, if Mercury's orbit remained constant, it would be as far below the ecliptic as it overtook the earth in northern hemisphere winter, as it is above the ecliptic nowadays.

However, Mercury's perihelion and other orbital variables are not fixed in today's set-up, so it becomes more complicated over many thousands of years.

Many other details change slowly over time -- the Moon's declination range has changed slightly, and this at first threw off investigators of the stone rings in the British isles, until it was realized that the alignments were not "a little bit off" as first believed, but exactly where they should have been for the sky conditions of 3,000 BC.

This thing about the calendar is hard to grasp at first, because we are so used to imposing it on back time as well as present and future time. But there was nobody alive on earth before the Roman era who had any concept of twelve secular months named for emperors and Roman numbers and gods. They thought of the year as having 12 and sometimes 13 lunar months, and in the case of the Jews for instance, a year that began with the spring planting season.

However, as long as western civilization persists, it is likely that the earth will have a Gregorian calendar with occasional new wrinkles that keep the shortest days in late December (n.h.) and the longest days in June (n.h.) -- we will change the calendar to keep this constant, even if the earth slows its rotation, or some other changes take place. At present, the Gregorian changes made to the former Julian regularity (every fourth year was a leap year, now we drop years ending in 00 if not divisible by 400) will probably keep the year regularized for many centuries to come. Had we not made the switch, today would be 1 November, not 14 November, 2009. You'll see that over time, this would make winter come earlier and earlier in the "year" as we continued to accumulate extra days and slowed the timing of the ending of civil years. Another background sign of this -- you may have heard the term "October Revolution" applied to the Russian Revolution of what we know as 7 November, 1917. To the Russians who were still using the Julian calendar, the date was 25 October.

Deep Easterly · 14-11-2009 7:54am

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

One thing that we inherited in modern "astrology" is this precession motion -- the year is divided into the twelve "signs" that the Sun was passing through in Roman times. Nowadays, the sun is not leaving Gemini for Cancer on 21 June, it is one sign behind that, leaving Taurus for Gemini. (The actual constellation boundaries are not as evenly spaced as astrology implies, but generally speaking they were in Roman times where the range of dates in astrology would lead you to believe they are now.) Another 2,000 years or so, and the 21 June sun will be leaving Aries for Taurus. I wonder how many (if any) modern astrologers making their horoscopes even know that.

Hi MT. I am an Aries. I am not exactly sure what phase of the moon I was born under or where Jupiter was placed in relation to Pluto when I was physically and spiritually forced upon this earth , but is there any chance of a personal horoscope reading?

By the way Ken, thanks for answering my question. Much appreciated.

Gene Derm · 14-11-2009 8:36am

Deep Easterly and Nacho Libre
The astrology as I understand it is the Tropical system whereby the 360° of sky that the earth rotates beneath each day which of course is the same 360° the moon moves through each month around the earth was arbitrarily divided into 12 areas and given names. They are as you know Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. In the Northern Hemisphere the sun is the highest in the sky during Cancer, which occurs around June, and the moon is also the highest in the sky during Cancer and this can be most seen as the winter full moon. The names may change in real life as the constellation moves gradually out of kilter compared to where it was 2000 years ago, as MTC has described, and new constellations added as they are discovered, but no one is discovering more degrees to the circle. So we can take the basic 12 divisions as a fixed energy grid guide.
When the moon is in the sky the weather tends to be more settled, because then, more of the atmosphere is gathered under the moon by virtue of gravitational pull, and it is the atmosphere that acts as a buffer to the two factors that generate unsettled weather, these being greater than usual heat from the sun and greater than usual amounts off colder air being able to come closer to the ground. The air prevents these nasties and wherever the moon goes, a bulge of air follows underneath it causing an airtide, just as a bulge of water follows beneath it that we call the ocean tide.
So on one hand it is important to know what phase the moon is in and what is its declination, which means whether or not in the month it is in the south or north part of the sky or crossing the equator, during both day and night bearing in mind it moves around the 360° of sky during the month by only about 13° per day. On the other hand it is important to know the characteristics of each portion of the declination route it passes beneath, which is the constellation and which is divided into 12.
For instance right now the moon is coming up to new moon phase which is next to the sun. In two weeks time it will be opposite the sun and in full moon phase. Then it will come around again. Because the sun is in the south, over the southern hemisphere, the moon is also in the south, as viewed from space. The sun will stay in the southern hemisphere until the next equinox but the moon will keep changing hemispheres every two weeks.
The moon acts as a planet and has different weather characteristics ascribed to it according to which "sign" it moves through. At the moment the moon is in Libra which is described as a time, potentially, for cool winds. The moon changes signs every 2-3 days and tomorrow will be in Scorpio. The characteristics of moon in Scorpio are an abundance of rain. Each of the 12 signs has, for the moon, an interpretation describing potential weather. The planets, too, traverse these 12 signs as they orbit the Earth, the inner planets orbiting more quickly - for example Mercury takes a week to change signs, Venus 2 1/2 weeks, Mars nearly 2 months, Jupiter nearly a year, Saturn 2 1/2 years, Uranus seven years, Neptune 13-14 years and Pluto 20 years. Of these, the inner planets are of most importance because they move more quickly. As the planets pass through the signs, they also have weather characteristics as described in old texts. For example at the moment Venus is in Scorpio and is said to bring south winds and gentle moisture. Mars is in Leo which is dry with not much rain. Mercury is in Scorpio and brings cold fronts and blustery weather. Whether or not these characteristics come to fruition depends on what is called "applying" or "separation". Usually only those aspects that are within a few degrees of applying are given any weight.
I use this astrological approach when writing reports in my almanacs for any locations, because they speak of the potentials for that location and there are any number of computer programs, some free shareware such as Astra log, that can be used for any latitude and longitude and for any minute or second of any day of any year so that you can determine exactly where the planets are at any time. The skill is then in the interpretation, and each location will take the potentials that are happening above it and transform it into a weather pattern. For that, local knowledge is fairly important. For instance a north-facing elevated location in the north of Ireland will be more expectant of snow if that is the potential, than a south-facing beach at the bottom of the country.
You can see that this astrology is quite different to the type that says you will meet a tall dark stranger and that this is a bad time for romance. But I believe the astrology that I am describing gave rise to planting calendars, fishing timetables, and told travelers when it was safest to depart, especially on the oceans. It also played a part in determining the timing of particular battles. It was quite well known that stormy weather brought out the best in warriors. Equally, there have been studies that suggest that students do better when the weather is inclement or if exams are held during lunar perigee. This may or may not be true, but biodynamic gardeners all over the world find that these principles do apply to planting and harvesting just as they did many thousands of years ago.
For more about my specific methods, there are bits and pieces in the many articles on my website and especially in the ezine archives which date back to 2002.
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

octo · 14-11-2009 8:42am

Danno wrote: »

Unfortunately we have to pay tax which is compulsary and thankfully for you, keeps you in a job.

Public service-bashing should probably be in the political or economic forum.

Danno wrote: »

Can we have some constructive criticism from you instead? Can you point out where his methods are seriously flawed?

His method is unscientific - there are no equations - no quantifiable theory - there is no measurable or falsifiable hypothesis on which to assess his 'forecasts', and requests for same are met with accusations of 'bullying'.
His forecasts wrongly give the impression of having been derived from a model, when in fact they are re-cycled data.
Nowhere does he say on his site that he recycles data.
Astrology??
If it were this simple, don't you think everyone would be doing it by now?
His forecast are no better than random guesses. We always get dry spells, we always get wet spells. You fellas here with weather stations know that well. Give your forecasts a wide enough margin of error - and you'll never be wrong!

There's an pdf article attached below from the New Zealand Geographic in 2006 that analyses his use of old weather maps and puts it all in a historical context. I have more - if anyone's interested.

Min wrote: »

Octo, are you Evelyn Cusack?

No!! As I said in an earlier post - I'm a meteorological officer. I represent only myself in this discussion - I'm not here on behalf of any meteorological organisation and I'm writing here in my own (unpaid, Danno) time.

Gene Derm · 14-11-2009 11:10am

Why are not the flaws of meteorologists referred to by the one that seeks to shove me off the planet for unreliability? That they all, to a man, got the Irish summer so badly incorrect should be cause for soul-searching, not attack of someone who did better than them in this instance. The whole reason I am the subject of so much discussion is that the metservice meteorologists all performed so abominably. Perhaps it is because their preoccupation seems to be criticising others, from Evelyn Cusack to the anonymous meterologist on this forum. How, when they cannot go beyond a day ahead can they call themselves forecasters, when in reality the method of snapping photographs from satellites of current conditions, assuming these will stay the same tomorrow, is actually nowcasting. Further, the practice of reacting to the weather, which is all that is really achieved by this method, puts these so-called state-paid meteorologists into the role of journalists. Journalism is not a science. So why label what I do as unscientific?
Ken Ring

Deep Easterly · 14-11-2009 4:07pm

Gene Derm wrote: »

When the moon is in the sky the weather tends to be more settled, because then, more of the atmosphere is gathered under the moon by virtue of gravitational pull, and it is the atmosphere that acts as a buffer to the two factors that generate unsettled weather, these being greater than usual heat from the sun and greater than usual amounts off colder air being able to come closer to the ground. The air prevents these nasties and wherever the moon goes, a bulge of air follows underneath it causing an airtide, just as a bulge of water follows beneath it that we call the ocean tide.
So on one hand it is important to know what phase the moon is in and what is its declination, which means whether or not in the month it is in the south or north part of the sky or crossing the equator, during both day and night bearing in mind it moves around the 360° of sky during the month by only about 13° per day. On the other hand it is important to know the characteristics of each portion of the declination route it passes beneath, which is the constellation and which is divided into 12.
For instance right now the moon is coming up to new moon phase which is next to the sun. In two weeks time it will be opposite the sun and in full moon phase. Then it will come around again. Because the sun is in the south, over the southern hemisphere, the moon is also in the south, as viewed from space. The sun will stay in the southern hemisphere until the next equinox but the moon will keep changing hemispheres every two weeks.

www.predictweather.com

Thanks Ken.

I get the impression (maybe wrongly

) that you consider various conditions on the ground to be only a minor factor in role of a particular weather set up. If I have this impression wrong, then I apologize.

Is it possible, even if this was not the case, that a particularly astrological influence on the weather may be over-ridden, neutralized, or even reversed by an unprecedented stronger factor within the earth's atmosphere in the short-term, which, in effect, could trigger a domino effect and jar these planetary influences out of all proportion? or "sync" over a longer period of time?

Even away from that, is there room for a possible lag effect in these astrological influences on the earth's volatile atmospheric conditions, given the colossal hugeness and slumbersomeness (for want of a better word

) of interplanetary communication?

Sorry if that seems like a bit of a quiz, but personally I have always tended to see a particular weather event as being the sole result of atmospheric conditioning at a particular point in time.

M.T. Cranium · 14-11-2009 5:11pm

DeepEasterly, I realize you are probably kidding but of course I don't follow that kind of astrology at all, when I did look into it briefly many years ago, I quickly realized that various people born "under a certain sign" would not for any rational reason have a similar kind of day, or life, etc. It was only recently that I came to understand that the system of the 12 signs of the zodiac has gone "off" by the extent of one full sign already due to precession.

Same goes for all other details of the behavioural mumbo-jumbo of moon in this sign, Pluto at right angles from Uranus, etc etc. ... It would be only if by some physical process all of this affected the environment, and then the environment affected human behaviour, that there could be anything to it, but to give specific forecasts for people "born under a sign" is more or less ludicrous. For example, I believe my daughter shares a birthday with Al Gore.

I rest my case.

Gene Derm · 14-11-2009 9:55pm

The idea that something on the ground can affect weather is even believed by some skeptics of global warming, and that the use of fossil fuels affecting the atmosphere is indeed a believable scenario. I would like to suggest that commonsense dictates that this cannot be so and the impossibility of it is observable.
The weather is generated at about the level a Boeing flies, which is about 8 miles up. There is no way that any gaseous emissions either from factories or from vehicle exhausts, nor even from the backsides or mouths of cows and sheep can make it up that far from the ground. Even if they did, the quantities are far too minute to affect the huge quantity of air that comprises the atmosphere.
In fact, CO2 itself is only 3.8 parts in 10,000 in terms of air composition. That means that if in the area in front of and the size of your face there 100,000 molecules, only 38 of them would be CO2. Add to that the fact that when these controversial gases leave the ground level they are lukewarm, yet 8 miles up the temperature is -50°C as far as the eye can see in all directions. There is no way .03% can seize control and warm an area that is -50°C. Even the projected estimate by the IPCC of 2° over the cost of a century would scarcely dent -50°. Add to that that at the level planes fly there is still half the atmosphere still above you.
Another glaringly obvious misconception is that something in the air can change weather. Let us remember that as soon as steam comes out of a chimney, whatever weather is present arrived well beforehand, and will simply deal to the smoke. In other words if there are winds about then those winds will blow the steam away. If there are no gusts of wind then the smoke will hang there until the next gust of wind arrives. It is not the case that weather is some kind of vacuum of nothingness waiting to see what will be put into the air before it transforms itself into a weather system.
Nothing put into the air will ever change weather in the same way that nothing that can be poured into the sea will ever change the tide. Even when tankers run aground and burst open releasing massive amounts of oil from their holds, the oil does not change the tide but is merely brought in by it to the nearest beach. Like Tokyo trains the tides run on time, and tide tables can be purchased commercially. There are millions of impurities added to the sea every day through rivers and runoffs yet tide tables remain true. The atmosphere is very similar. The day will never come when a cloudless day will be changed by the act of getting in a car and going for a drive.
Let us also remember the scale. A weather system can be as large as to engulf the whole of Europe. Such a weather system, as we see each night on the TV news, may have come across the N Atlantic, where there are no cars, belching animals or factories. How then can any of man's emissions or for that matter any behaviour, affect our weather? It is like saying that menstruating women can regulate full moons or influence sunspots. Yet there is a backlogged religious momentum in western countries that dictates that the behaviour of man can affect the deity's wrath so much that eventually some wider punishment will arrive from the environment and threaten his very survival.
I wonder if the ants and cockroaches and bears and worms have that belief also. I imagine they have more sense and just get on with the at times difficult process of living, rather than ordering each other about.
Ken Ring

M.T. Cranium · 15-11-2009 12:41am

I agree in general that we tend to over-value surface conditions and undervalue the importance of external drivers in meteorology and climatology (the official versions at least).

The official science probably undervalues these external drivers by a huge margin, making some of them appear marginal when they are very strong, but I am confident that sooner or later the evidence will change that way of thinking, as it did in other sciences that underwent paradigm shifts, like continental drift for example.

The carbon dioxide debate has at least become well publicized both within the official science and within the larger community of interested parties including non-professionals. Basically, the debate is this -- can an artificial increase in greenhouse gas production force up the overall temperature of the atmosphere by a significant amount, or is this based on a flawed assumption since past cases of naturally released greenhouse gases were in fact caused by naturally warming climates.

I find it a puzzling question and not easy to answer at all, but I suspect that our human contributions are only forcing a small part of recently observed warmings; that otherwise these warmings would have taken place anyway, but perhaps what we are doing is to create slightly different atmospheric stability parameters and other subtle effects that may be working their way into the complexity of the whole system.

If this warming has been over-estimated, then its impact on storm track and jet stream positions has definitely been over-estimated, but even if not, the theory of external forcing would argue that warming of the surface layers might not extend very far into the realm of storm track or jet stream location, and that basically all we have is the same old circulation but with all component parts slightly altered.

There is also the complication of the seas acquiring different mixing parameters through absorption of greenhouse gases.

However, if we really wanted to change the climate (and prove our theory) the way to do that would be to haul some fair sized asteroid in from the belt and place it in a near-earth orbit about 30% of the way to the Moon. This could have very sizeable effects on our atmosphere and lead to much more complex patterns.

One day in the distant future, there might be some form of weather modification using smaller, more subtle effects from 50-100 km sized asteroids in designed orbits.

Surface does play a role -- for example, snow cover can radically alter temperature profiles in the lower layers of an air mass forced to travel across snow-covered land. In southern Ontario, it would be pretty rare for a clear winter night to see temperatures much below -18 C with bare ground; add 5 cms to that bare ground, and the -18 would easily turn to -30. That sort of difference is not going to dissipate in the climate system as soon as the high pressure area (presumably) drifts away into the Atlantic -- it will retain an imprint of this deep-layer cooling for many days and will cool the SST regime of the ocean as it passes over it. Eventually one would lose all evidence of the modification given enough time and distance, but surface changes on the earth would be expected to have significant impacts on the atmosphere.

However, I still believe that the science generally underestimates how powerful the external drivers are (aside from the Sun's heat which is of course an obvious major factor).

Gene Derm · 15-11-2009 1:38pm

Yes, I believe surface would play a role, but only to modulate what was arriving already, and not to create new systems. Valleys retain cooler temperatures and mists, and cities retain heat, and the latter are manmade. But their effects are very local and have nothing to do with weather systems and climate, unless you call climate that which befalls a tiny area and not a country land mass. And any contribution by man to what we usually refer to as a geographic region and to the total weather received by the planet would be as negligible as that provided by an ant. What rules science is research funding rather than quest for further knowledge. The money trail is dictating the climate change debate. The notions of both ozone depletion (Rowlands) and global warming were at first laughed out of court by the scientific community - until research funding suddenly became available. As the word 'climate' means latitude, there can be no climate change unless countries alter their distance from the equator, and this does happen over thousands of years as the poles shift. 20,000 years ago the S Pole was near Perth and western Australia was snow-covered. The North Pole was then over Chicago, the Illinoisian Ice Sheet. The seas were lower in the N hemisphere but higher in the S hemisphere as a result. Rebound after glaciations changes sealevels which is why the south of England is going slightly under the sea but the north of Scotland is still emerging from it. But Man cannot achieve these effects just by recycling aluminium cans, paying 10c for a plastic bag or cycling to work.
Ken Ring

M.T. Cranium · 15-11-2009 7:12pm

Ken, do you mean the terrestrial poles were in those positions 20,000 years ago, or the magnetic poles?

I would not be surprised if the NMP was well south of its recent historical positions in the height of the Wisconsin glaciation, and if the SMP were well to the north. From my research, positions near northern Manitoba (Canada) and let's say Heard Island southwest of Australia would be sufficient to bring on severe glaciation. Chicago sounds a bit extreme.

However, if you mean terrestrial poles, then this is not supported anywhere in the literature, the terrestrial poles are generally thought to be wandering much, much slower than that -- essentially, throughout the past million years and the four major glacial periods that came about, the terrestrial poles were probably within five miles of where they are today. Geography may have changed substantially with rising and falling sea levels, but the larger-scale geology has not changed more than incrementally. For example, the Rockies, a relatively new major landform, were created over a hundred million years ago.

So I would like to hear a bit more about those statements before making further replies -- are we talking terrestrial poles, magnetic poles, or "meteorological poles" which would be mean centres of arctic and antarctic vortex circulations?

Gene Derm · 15-11-2009 9:14pm

Hi MT
I do mean terrestrial. Just Google Illinoisan Ice Age. Here's one link: http://www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Intro/Iceage.html
Extract: the small ice cap centered over Greenland at present is the last remnant of several coalesced caps that covered all of Canada and much of the northern tier of the U.S. at the height of the (Wisconsinan) glaciation 20,000 years ago.

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=-AGm3Ny_NsgC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=illinosian+ice+age&source=bl&ots=04JQNd7AUX&sig=InKfd71zHq57DVMow6rOUOz4e-o&hl=en&ei=G2kAS72nAY_WtgPzwuGHCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Extract: This ice age appears to have ended about 12,000 years ago.

Or read The Path of the Poles, by Charles Hapgood.

I have a book called Maps of the Ancient Seakings, available from Amazon, showing mariners' maps made many thousands of years ago, including one showing Antarctica as two islands with no snow and ice, which, according to NASA is how the area would have looked 10,000 years ago.

I think there is much suppression of new research for political reasons. It is easier to suppress than to rewrite textbooks. But polar shift is perhaps more rapid than is realised. The Asian earthquake tsunami event shifted the North Pole an inch. The recent Te Anau earthquake in NZ shifted the South Island another inch. Every major tremor has the ability to infold the floating crust and thereby move either pole slightly. Add the annual extreme events and multiply by the years and there is considerable scope for polar terrestrial relocation. If there are 300 such jolts in more active years at an inch per time, even that would represent a relocation of 100 miles. There are something like 135,000 known volcanoes, most underwater. It is not difficult for me to imagine them all contributing to this process, nor to suggest that there may have been be many more fissures, emissions and outgaseous episodes that could have lead to crust movement that have been thus far been detected or recorded.
Ken Ring

M.T. Cranium · 16-11-2009 12:31am

Okay, I will have to look into some of that in more detail, I am already very familiar with the detailed history of the ice ages and in particular the last one, which of course is very evident in Canada here, but this idea of the poles being that far away from their present position is not something that I had ever heard discussed before this exchange, and as I have no particular reason to believe it or not believe it, I'm just not prepared to react to it at all.

You could have an extensive glaciation due to the factors discussed in the Milankovitch theory (such as diminished insolation at high latitudes, higher obliquity meaning the earth tilted more away from the Sun in winter) without needing to shift the poles at all. Once you lay down a permanent reflecting surface cover in northern mainland Canada (and Scandinavia) the high latitude ensures that summers will fail to melt the snow, within a century or two the accumulations will turn to ice and then you have a sort of runaway reinforcing glaciation at higher latitudes (down to 55-60 N) that will eventually spread under its own inertial momentum further south until it reaches a point where the mean annual temperature cannot sustain ice cover even under these new albedo conditions.

The climate of the Hudson Bay region in general is very "fragile" in that only small shifts in the arctic vortex nearby could plunge that region into perpetual winter quite easily. We saw how close we still were to this possibility in 1816 when (probably due to the dust veil from Tamboro, 1815) summer came very late and very weak to eastern N America, and lakes in central Quebec that normally thaw in late May or early June stayed frozen almost all summer; snow came and went all season near James Bay (not usually seen from mid-June to early September) and had this continued for several more years, one could have imagined a regional snow pack developing. As it happened, the climate gradually warmed back to more normal values over 3-5 years.

It must be remarkable for people in Ireland to consider that in their latitudes in central Canada, the mean January temperature is -20 C or lower in some places, that snow is often on the ground from October to April or early May, and that lakes routinely freeze for six months or more each year. The summers are at least as warm as in Ireland, in some places 2-3 C deg warmer, except that east of Hudson Bay, the summers are actually 3-5 C deg cooler than in Ireland. This large body of very cold water has a profound impact on regional climate. If it got just a bit colder and remained frozen year round, it could be the catalyst for glaciation too, although this would require complex feedback processes to kick in, because you would lose some snow cover as a result. You would need a much more depressed jet stream bringing in snow bearing systems year round to over-compensate, then a runaway glaciation could begin.

nilhg · 16-11-2009 1:50pm

Since we're discussing ice ages this might be of interest, it suggests that ice age conditions could switch on in the space of a few months "It would be like taking Ireland today and moving it up to Svalbard". They believe that the trigger was the slowing or stopping of the gulf stream, which would contradict Ken's belief that events on the ground can't affect the weather.

M.T. Cranium · 16-11-2009 8:22pm

Such a development might not contradict Ken's assertion as much as it might first appear -- it would depend on why the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift weakened and dropped southeast towards Iberia instead.

If it was because of a widespread atmospheric circulation change, that would be more towards Ken's point of view.

If it was because of feedback from dissolved carbon dioxide that would be a different matter.

Almost certainly in the late stages of the Wisconsin glaciation, cold spells like the Dryas events were caused by large amounts of fresh meltwater pouring out of North America into the North Atlantic. That would not be a factor in starting up a glacial period however.

Gene Derm · 16-11-2009 9:20pm

My comments about surface factors not affecting weather were more in reference to human activities like producing emissions that could change the composition of the air in a very tiny local way only, and not natural forces like a slowing of the Gulf Stream. One has to ask why such a current would be slowed. My belief is that as soon as the ocean is brought into a discussion then moon and sun angles are somehow involved. The Gulf Stream does slow down when the currents up the western side of South America are canceled out by counter currents, and this seems to be a regularity that is a function of the SOI which in turn relates back to lunar declination. There is no doubt that nature can operate quickly at times, within days as the growth of tropical cyclones and hurricanes can attest. But I think that Ice Age formation is in the realm of geology and has more to do with the ordering of the crust, tectonic activity, and magnetic alignments than weather. Interplanetary forces are no doubt in the background.

boardswalker · 19-11-2009 11:40pm

octo wrote: »

Again, is there some kind of analysis to show that your method provides a forecast which is more accurate than what you might get from just a seasonal guess?

Hi Octo, you wanted an analysis of Ken Rings forecasts.

Have a look at the Irish Independent's August 09 look back at Kens Forecast.

By Breda Heffernan

Monday August 24 2009

AN unorthodox weather watcher who uses the moon and the tides to create long-term forecasts is celebrating after his predictions for the Irish summer have largely come to pass.

New Zealander Ken Ring correctly predicted the summer's mini-heatwave at the start of June and was on the money when he calculated that July would be a washout.

His achievement is all the more remarkable as some of the experts have got their long-term forecasts spectacularly wrong. The UK Met Office was left with egg on its face after trumpeting a "barbecue summer" in April only for the UK to see its wettest July on record.

Mr Ring is an Auckland-based professional weather watcher and made his predictions about this summer's weather on Marian Finucane's show on RTE Radio 1.

While his novel means of forecasting have been greeted with some scepticism, he was largely on the mark.

"I think I've done quite well, or at least the farmers tell me so," he said. "Of course, weather forecasting is not an exact science and so the best we can come up with are trends that have a few days' leeway on either side. For instance, I did say summer in Ireland for 2009 was never going to be all that hot -- maximum temperatures may not exceed 25 degrees."

He forecast that many parts of the country would be dry for the first fortnight in June and that temperatures would reach above 20C before the weather turned unsettled for the rest of the month. While there were some heavy periods of rain on June 6, 12 and 13, he was largely correct and temperatures did reach a high of 27C.

Experience

Ken predicted that July would be a mainly wet month, although parts of the north, west and east would experience dry conditions from July 12 to 17.

And so it came to pass, with Met Eireann saying it was the wettest July for over half-a- century for many parts of the country.

His forecast that August would be another wet month has proven largely correct.

Ken stands by his prediction, made months ago, that September would be the "warmest and most summery month".

Meanwhile, Met Eireann meteorologist Joan Blackburn said more orthodox long-term forecasting, such as that used by the UK Met Office, was still in its infancy.

"If it could be done with a degree of accuracy that would be invaluable, but it's not happening at the moment," she said.

What Ken said:

June: Many areas will be dry for the first half and temperatures will be above 20C, unsettled for the second half.

July: Mainly wet month for all. Parts of the north, west and east will have chances of dry days only between July 12 and 17.

August: A wet month for all. The east has a chance of dry windows from August 4 to 9 and 21 to 25. The south will see some sun from 25 to 30.

What happened:

June: First week was largely dry and sunny with temperatures well above normal. Second week was cool and windy with occasionally heavy rain. Rest of the month was unsettled with showers and some thundery downpours.

July: Wettest July for over 50 years in many places. Very wet at some weather stations in the east and west on July 13 and 14, but July 12, 15, 16 and 17 saw practically no rain.

August: Started out very wet, particularly in the south. Almost a perfect score for August 4 to 9 in the east.

- Breda Heffernan

octo · 20-11-2009 7:42am

Thanks for that Boardswalker. Although why do I get the feeling he wrote most of it himself?

Interesting he said that it wouldn't be hot, yet it almost a degree warmer than normal. People forget that.

Because back in March he predicted in the Tribune a "fine summer ahead, with September a scorcher" - saying "a marginally better summer than 2008.... [and] September will be the warmest and most summery month for all".

Really? Were average temperatures and sunshine figures for september larger than July? But true believers like Boardswalker and others probably aren't men or women of science and such questions probably come across as petty and irrelevant. And Ken would never retrospectively change his forecast, would he?

So, Ken's predictions (yours for only €89) give you 4 factors for each day, max temp, min temp, sunshine and rainfall. Three of those for the summer gone by, the summer that I hear being trumpeted to the high heavens, were wrong. It's not looking good for a serious analysis of Ken's forecasts.

Anyway, I was hoping for something more substantial, over a longer period. Ken's forecasts, as we all know, consist of max & min temps, sunshine hours, and daily rainfall amounts - copied from the climate database from 18 years and 10 days ago. Look for it yourself on the world climate data center for free.

An analysis would consist of a statistical examination of his forecasts with the actual reported data. Ken's usual defense against this, is to say that his figures are just trends. But it's quite easy to measure correlations between two corresponding streams of data - you can do it in ms excel - this will indicate if they're even any good at trends. Ken's a former maths teacher - he understands this stuff.

Accept Ken Ring's theories and you reject the scientific method. Ken is rewriting the laws of physics - attributing significant gravitational and meteorological effects on the atmosphere to the moon and the planets, without either theoretical or empirical evidence. He's saying that meteorolgy, a developing science since the early 1800's, has got it all wrong. Something has been revealed to Ken that has eluded everyone else.

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and Ken Ring's claim is as extraordinary as they come. But he refuses to submit evidence and accuses people who request it to be 'forcing him off the planet'. While for a number of years now he's been doing a healthy trade down under, and this year expanding his operation into Ireland. One wonders why he isn't making a fortune in Wall Street on weather derivatives instead of hawking his wares over the internet. But let me guess - high level traders are secretly using his methods?

M.T. Cranium · 20-11-2009 9:03am

These are basically the charges brought against all those who look into alternative research theories, and in my case, I have endeavoured to be very open about the theories, the limitations I continue to see, the advances that I feel justified in pointing towards, and all I can say is that the actual situation is probably more mixed than this previous view would have us believe.

For example, it seems unfair to Ken to suggest that September was not a better month than July, I think had this discussion not been taking place and you just asked around, that would have been the general consensus.

Ken has had some documented reasonably successful long range forecasts in my estimation, and I am not approaching his work with any sort of rose-coloured glasses; for example, I am also aware of the work of Piers Corbyn and I don't rate it as highly. So it takes some actual accomplishment to get any particular alternative forecaster into my good books. I'm aware of several others at work in the UK and over this way, as well as my own efforts, and the basic theme of the whole enterprise is that we may all be on the right track and seeing some valid connections, but some may have more of a handle on a possible new approach than others.

The criticism that involves the observations that if this were all so obvious other people would have noticed, or that we should all be filthy rich, are not scientifically valid criticisms, there is no requirement to show ease of discovery nor value of discovery in a scientific context. And how do you know that Ken (or myself for that matter) are not making huge amounts of money on the stock market? I can tell you that I would be playing these futures markets if I could set aside enough capital, but to start into that you have to have some money set aside and presumably from some other type of employment since obviously the climate is such that we are not going to stumble across research contracts or high-level positions in meteorology.

I know most people who get interested in this alternative methodology do so gradually over a period of watching weather events from some amateur perspective; anyone already working in the field is probably culturally conditioned not to look at this stuff, as you can see from the negative response my rather strong pressure curve generated. While global warming proponents would snap up something half as convincing and require everyone to repeat "this is serious proof of something really important," it appears that we will need to have an act of God take place before anyone in conventional meteorology will accept any evidence for the alternative theories -- and this then allows them to continue to claim they have seen no evidence.

I think Galileo had roughly the same problem getting people to look through his telescope in 1609 or so. Plus ca change ...

Now, I don't want to get into a running battle with Octo or anyone else; I would just say let's keep an open mind about whether these alternative approaches are promising or not -- Ken has come as close as anyone I know to showing the signficance of these approaches. I suspect there is more ahead of us in terms of discovery, convincing proof, and physical cause and effect. I suspect there is some force operating that is stronger than conventional gravitation over large distances, but weaker than electromagnetic over short distances, for example, some of the effects that I have researched can be quantified fairly well by taking a much less augmented distance factor than distance squared; I will try to post some of this in a few days because it's off on some other computer at the moment. I was working on some sort of physical explanation for the field structure that is important in my theory, and finding that it was best handled by this different set of equations but still using mass and distance.

Anyway, what I also have to wonder is why there is so much hostility to the alternative research, if it's basically no good, then what threat could it be, and if it's showing potential, then why be hostile to it? Does it offend anyone to suggest an external source of energy, as though our planet needs to be in control of its own destiny and only allow solar energy, the obvious external factor that none would deny? Is it a fear of finding out that some people who were ridiculed for their beliefs were actually right all along? (Bingo)

Or is it just human nature to suppose that we, as experts, must be smarter than everyone else? (Double bingo) I've dealt with this attitude myself on a number of occasions. It goes basically like this, "MTC (but use my real name), we know you did well in school and are a bright chap and have observed the weather night and day for forty years and follow astronomy very closely, but other than those clues, how could you possibly think you knew something that we, Canada's smartest five people who just happened to choose climate research as their future career, did not discover for ourselves, even though we never even tried to do so, nor would we have, because the other smart people would have booted us up to Eureka to clean out the latrines had they found out about it?" (I had no helpful answer for that)

I suppose one day, people like Ken might be the new experts with the same attitudes to yet another group of outsiders with yet another set of theories. I excuse myself there on the age factor. :cool:

Listen, I'm working on expanding that data base to the whole year for Malin Head, and it's going to take a few more days, then I'll have a better basis to show what I feel would be signficant evidence that the Moon is more than just another pretty face.

boardswalker · 20-11-2009 9:49am

octo wrote: »

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and Ken Ring's claim is as extraordinary as they come.

Can you provide evidence that conventional long-range forecasting is better.
Its easy to knock - but give us your better alternative.

And by the way, rather than being a true-believer, I would consider myself open-minded. It gives more options.

I like your "non-personal" approach to scientific debate.

octo · 20-11-2009 10:07am

M.T., I'll get back to your later on the other stuff. In the meantime, your results will be worthless without signifigance tests - and my hunch is you'll need far more than a year's worth of data to prove a signifigant correlation.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Listen, I'm working on expanding that data base to the whole year for Malin Head, and it's going to take a few more days, then I'll have a better basis to show what I feel would be signficant evidence that the Moon is more than just another pretty face.

The moon and the weather
May change together
But change of the moon
Does not change the weather
If we'd no moon at all
- and that may seem strange
We still would have weather
That's subject to change
(1882)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1935JRASC..29..108H/0000109.000.html

To say that this topic hasn't been looked into before is simply a myth. Attached are three papers which I easily found in the literature. It's been well researched and abandoned as a fruitless line of inquiry - along with perpretual motion machines and frontal labotomies.

M.T. Cranium · 20-11-2009 10:36am

See though, there are glaring errors there.

First of all, my research investigation for Malin Head, as clearly stated before, is for 35 years of data, I am just talking above about getting the full year into my data set to replace what I first showed, the Dec to Feb portion.

Then as to the poem written in 1882, that's not even remotely proof of anything except a minimal talent in poetry. Anyone could write any poem they wanted about any theory, for example I just made this up:

The only thing wrong with the theory,
and perhaps this may make Al Gore teary,
is that no globe is actually warming,
but much Antarctic ice is now forming.

And as I tried to explain, those early studies on lunar atmospheric pressure interactions were not done with any respect to a grid where storm tracks and atmospheric processes were first studied and identified, so they tended to show the effects more on a daily scale in places that were far from the locations where the interference patterns are strongest. This may have diverted attention away from a possible research avenue prematurely. I don't see any of those studies as being a refutation of more focused, grid-oriented studies that seek to identify actual locations for a lunar atmospheric response. I believe one of the places first studied was Berlin, Germany, which is the last place I would look because it's between two timing lines and in a climate zone with a lot of meso-scale developments and lee waves from mountains to the south. I would not expect certain locations to show any kind of an organized signal.

So you may feel like you have won some debate with those points, but sadly, those points have deceived several generations of meteorologists into wasting their time and resources trying to make numerical weather prediction techniques work over 10-20-30 day periods which will be a very difficult challenge indeed when it's realized that large energy cycles come and go from external sources over 7-10 day periods -- in other words, it's like trying to predict whether the light at the far end of the city will be green or red on your drive home from work, using 30-second intervals updating your current position on a GPS map. It may show weak signs of significance, but the better way to predict it is to have a timetable of green and red lights and a known time of your arrival. It's that sort of paradigm shift where conventional meteorology will presumably just keep banging its head against the brick wall of guaranteed signal degradation no matter how fancy the computers become -- a fact made evident by the continued inability of the models to give us an accurate view of day 10 to day 16, despite advances from day 3 to day 6. It's not anyone's fault, but if energy cycles that haven't even started yet are not somewhere in the initialized data, then how could the computer model possibly know about them in two or three weeks' time?

With our approach, we at least have some sort of coherent time scale for energy peaks and the main question is not when but where. This eliminates half of the challenge that an empirical model would have.

The other point I would make is that, despite all the cold water poured on our research approach, meteorology has had 150 years to come up with a theory of why there is weather on a given date and has failed to do so. There is no other theory extant but ours, that can hope to explain why there was a stronger storm on 22 November 2009 than say 22 November 2007, 2002 or 1997, or questions of that sort. This makes meteorology far less than a real science, it is an empirical process with scientific theory embedded in it, but that science does not extend to prediction. Numerical weather prediction as now handled by supercomputers is essentially a sophisticated study of momentum; it is not scientific in the same way that a NASA space probe to a distant planet predicts with great accuracy where the spacecraft will be at very long time intervals. It is more like some medieval approach where a skilled warrior could say to the general where the catapult would fall in the distant castle. In other words, it is very much based on similar past experience and not some set of independent equations of motion.

Gene Derm · 20-11-2009 2:14pm

In the ancient past the religion was measurement itself, and the moon the great measurer, due to its clockwork nature that sees it lose only 10 seconds a year with respect to its position relative to the background of stars. Societies ran around the lunar clock, hence were much more ordered and stratified. Communities sought a confidence of identity by mathematically plotting their physical position in the cosmos. The word 'measurement' comes from the word 'moon'. While we have moved away from that, some very much older societies still have not. Today there is very little respect for alternative ideas despite chest-beating about multiculturalism and scientific open-mindedness, which is mainly tokenistic, the real agenda being the further entrenchment of conservatism.
In the main a university trained academic will regard their training as the last word in a subject, and if they come across an idea that was not covered in their courses then their immediate conclusion is that it is probably too unimportant to take seriously, or they would have been told about it, or it must be wrong or even evil, because there are "our" scientists and all the rest are charlatans, end of story. The simple fact that there is no chair at any university that offers study in my subject does not make my work unscientific or invalid. It just shows how limited universities can be when it comes to any wider scientific viewpoint, in the same way that acupuncture until a few years ago was considered quackery.
A classic example is the comment that I must have made up the newspaper article that was quoted from the Independent newspaper. It is my lament that most of the newspaper articles that feature me are usually full of misquotes and incorrect interpretations by the reporters, something I have no control over, and I am always quite relieved when an article does print what I might have actually said, as this one did.
The meteorologist on this forum keeps quoting what he thinks is my system. He does not know that I have looked at all possible cycles and that I have picked the bones from those that I have found work best, from trial and error over a period of 35 years. If anyone views one of my almanacs they will find that there are many systems and cycles being considered and commented on, and each one is factored according to application.
I have often been criticized for being critical of meteorologists, but such is not the case. Most are only doing what they were trained to do and I appreciate but cannot help that. The fact that a long-range prediction technique cannot be found in textbooks of meteorology apart from some analysis of past long-term averages does not mean that such a concept is an impossibility. Meteorology concerns itself with the atmosphere, in other words not weather at all, but the effects of weather upon the gas we call air. It is only after the fact stuff, and will never develop into a system of prediction, because by the time the specimen is examined the process has already happened. Perhaps this is why so many weather reports tell us what transpired me that in the past 24 hours or over the past month, as if we were not there to see for ourselves. Any comments as to weather due to arrive can only come from an assumption that current weather patterns will continue which will indeed work 50% of the time because sometimes systems are slow moving.
As I do not have any interest in now or backcasting, but only in what lies ahead, there is nothing about my techniques that should be analyzed by meteorologists intent on drawing comparisons. I know what they do and it doesn't bother me, in fact many do what they have been trained for brilliantly, and I ask that they extend me the same courtesy. I do not call myself a meteorologist, so there is no deceit, and I cannot be responsible for what others think I am and having decided then proceed to be critical of it.
The scientific method does not call for analysis, so the fruitless calling for analyses in my case does not make me unscientific. The scientific method only calls for open-mindedness, because the process involves the careful selection of variables, and testing for each. As it is never possible to discover all variables, the process is always inconclusive, which gives rise to the null hypothesis and which is why the process relies on hunches and intuition stories. If the scientific method was ever truly carried out, then all known variables would be listed one by one and isolated using double blinds. Also, the same scientist would have to do all the experiments, to overcome operator bias.
Really, what we call science is only an attempt to find precision, it is an approach and never reaches a destination. As soon as someone who calls himself a scientist declares that only what he is doing his science, and what others are doing is not, he ceases to be a scientist. It is an easy line to cross over without realizing. The brief of the scientist is to assume patterns and to discover them, which means cycles. He/she must assume predictability, and then set out to discover rules to make such predictions. The brief of a scientist is never to say such-and-such can never be predicted. Take the tides as an example. No one would dispute that the tides are measurable. Take medicine as another example. No one would dispute that swallowing poison would incur severe illness. Prediction is what science stands for and exists to pursue. But being able to predict weather is for some reason labeled unscientific. If that shoe fits then I would suggest that this is only an indication of the labeller being at fault and in need of re-education.
Ken Ring

octo · 20-11-2009 2:54pm

Gene Derm wrote: »

As I do not have any interest in now or backcasting, but only in what lies ahead, there is nothing about my techniques that should be analyzed by meteorologists intent on drawing comparisons.

Gene Derm wrote: »

The scientific method does not call for analysis

This is a complete copout Ken. You and MT know well that the scientific method as put together by Popper (a one-time resident in NZ) put falsifiability as a central core of scientific argument. It's not scientific if it's not falsifiable. You have resisted all efforts to enquire as to the falsifiability of your work, and all the while label yourself 'scientific'. You're right in saying you can't prove a theory - you can only disprove it. But the more failed attempts there are to disprove it, the more the evidence for it accumulates - but of course nothing is 100% conclusive.

Stop slithering around. Put up one of your day-by-day forecasts here on Boards for the next 4 months, we'll compare it to what actually happens, and judge for ourselves.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The only thing wrong with the theory,
and perhaps this may make Al Gore teary,
is that no globe is actually warming,
but much Antarctic ice is now forming.

Nice poetry. Alternative science.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

First of all, my research investigation for Malin Head, as clearly stated before, is for 35 years of data, I am just talking above about getting the full year into my data set to replace what I first showed, the Dec to Feb portion.

Apologies. Is your mind made up about the conclusions before the results are in? What about significance testing?

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

meteorology has had 150 years to come up with a theory of why there is weather on a given date and has failed to do so. There is no other theory extant but ours, that can hope to explain why there was a stronger storm on 22 November 2009 than say 22 November 2007, 2002 or 1997, or questions of that sort.

agreed, but

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is no other theory extant but ours

this is not the only option! You can go back as far as the big bang if you like, looking for ultimate causes, but they won't help you predict the weather.

You may very well discover some correlation with moon phases that could be incorporated in the numerical models. I wish you well.

boardswalker · 20-11-2009 4:10pm

octo wrote: »

Put up one of your day-by-day forecasts here on Boards for the next 4 months, we'll compare it to what actually happens, and judge for ourselves.

Two things Octo.

Firstly, I don't think you understand what Ken does.
His website states that he produces long range weather forecasts.
He calls it the home of long range weather.

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me better long range forecasts using conventional methods. Your silence here is eloquent.

There's a lot of people out there who, like me, aren't worried how he does it but are just happy with his accuracy levels. We have compared his long range forecasts to the actual weather patterns and found that they were quite reliable. As far as I am concerned he passes your key test.

Met Eireann don't even try to do long range.

M.T. Cranium · 20-11-2009 6:25pm

No, I haven't made my mind up before seeing the results. I was honestly quite surprised that the full-new moon cycle in midwinter was quite as strong as it was in that part of the data. A researcher always has some preconceived idea of what he might find in the research, otherwise, he wouldn't have chosen that approach at all. But quite frankly, I already studied this question of position of low pressure near the British Isles from another angle than daily pressure at Malin Head, and so I am rather expecting to find evidence of several interlocking cycles that just happen to reinforce in midwinter (as explained before). However, what I actually do find will educate me as to some details, and if those details include a total reworking of the theory, I will go in that direction.

I have already done all this kind of research work for timing line one locations and have that documented and ready to publish. Time has been a big problem for me in recent years, I was for several years working full-time at a non-related job that was physically demanding so that when I had spare time some of it was not available for research work at all. As a result, I tend to have a backlog of projects half finished or half forgotten as I try to do the work of ten ordinary men so to speak. Sound familiar, Ken?

Who knows when this debate might be resolved? I have the strong feeling that one day, this will become one of those "sudden new paradigm shift" situations that has happened in the past in other sciences, like continental drift, the Milankovitch theories, ice age theories in the 19th century, even evolution or Big bang, size of the universe, etc etc.

If it does become one of those sudden paradigm shifts, it will probably be because somebody in my situation either publishes an irrefutable paper, or if somebody in Ken's situation (or mine) becomes so well known as a reliable long-range forecaster that people will have to change the normal rules of peer review and make a sort of de facto change in the way meteorology views these questions. Perhaps Ken at that point would be too busy to publish but could be surrounded by people assigned to familiarize themselves with his methods for general publication purposes. I know it sounds a bit unlikely given the history, but in my own case, I am not really putting up any barriers, at any point in time where the WMO, UKMO, NWS, Env Canada, Met Eireann, or anyone else official and big-time wants to know what I'm doing and how I'm doing it, I would share what I have and given my age I hope this happens soon because you don't want some doddering old codger chasing the boffins around the cafeteria with a walking stick (although I could probably do that now).

Some may read this sort of thing and say "well they are dreaming about that" but realistically, it's their gain more than ours, we already know this stuff.

Ken Ring

Comments