Ken Ring

kerry1960

:pac:He also completely failed to 'predict' the record breaking rainfall last November ,the two very major Weather events this Winter each lasting 3 weeks seem to have escaped his attention :rolleyes: , yet he issued the below 'forecast' to a poster on 26/11/09 .


quote=Gene Derm;63205191]Hi Tucker1971
I have mostly dry for the whole country between 1-9 July, except for rain in north and SW on 5 July, and starting to cloud over with drizzle patches across the north and Sligo to Louth on 8th and 9th. If you give me your latitude and longitude I can supply an astrological analysis.
cheers
Ken[/quote][

(''astrological analysis'' :pac::pac:)

some interesting reading here..... http://www.sillybeliefs.com/ring.html
some more...... http://forums.ski.com.au/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=336431&page=1
yet more...... http://thesecondsight.blogspot.com/2006/08/true-lunatic.html.

M.T. Cranium

Whether Ken's right or wrong about any given forecast, I am sure that you can use these approaches to make long-range forecasts, in fact, I have been doing that independently (so far, I think I understand that our methods are similar but not identical).

I would invite interested parties to check out the long-range winter forecast issued on the forecast thread on 7 November and see if that sounds random -- I don't claim much more than maybe 65% accuracy in my program of research-driven forecasts (long-range) but it has been improving over the past two years.

So it seems to me a little bit pointless to dwell on Ken's forecasts if we're perhaps on the verge of making a forward leap through the collaboration of several investigators looking at lunar and/or solar system magnetic field approaches to this challenge. I've also been in contact with two other "pioneer" workers in this field. Unlike Ken, none of the rest of us consider the work to be "astrological" but I understand why he uses that terminology. I consider it to be an application of newly discovered connections between astronomy and meteorology, hence "astro-climatology" a term that I coined in 1980 for my research.

If I can get past the current work crunch with the winter weather etc, I hope to finish off a study of barometric pressure for the full year (1975-2009) to extend the findings I showed earlier, and also to study some of Ken's material and forecasts to give an independent assessment of where I would place the accuracy figures. You can only do this in a meaningful way by taking a fairly long time interval to eliminate random chance of one forecast being right, another wrong, to establish a reliable pattern of percentage accuracy. I have some accepted guidelines for "accuracy" that are used in other studies of long-range forecasts. I've seen some indications that Ken is justified in saying his work is significant but I have no really strong impression of where the accuracy figure would actually end up.

I'm also sadly familiar with the concept of hostile review, for example once many years ago, someone out to "blow my ideas out of the water" so to speak managed to find one incorrect data point in a validation study that was highly objective, out of about six thousand points, and used this to claim that I was doctoring my results and blah blah. It was a total lie, the error was almost negligible against the mass of data and resulted from a station move so that I had its location on the wrong side of a zero anomaly line.

These hostile reviewers then went on to blacklist me from active participation in the community and tried to spread rumours that I was mentally ill and had been in a mental hospital for five years. It came out many years later that a totally different individual living about twenty miles away from me had in fact contacted these authorities and proposed some theories shortly before indeed being confined to a mental hospital (where he may still be, for all we know). This may sound like a missing chapter of the Gulag Archipelago, and in fact it is. My work should have been advanced and recognized at that point (which by the way was 1987) but instead the community went off on the crazy chase for proof of and development of human control over the atmosphere that has more or less wrecked our science (IMHO).

These false stories and the blacklisting have never been formally acknowledged nor compensated (of course) nor will they ever be, I suppose, because science has no ultimate oversight other than human conscience and integrity; these are missing from some higher corridors of this particular branch of science and will remain missing until we have an intellectual revolution similar to the continental drift episode or going back further, the ice age controversy, playing out in climate science.

The way they rationalized their actions was to say, "well, we think the guy is crazy so that's just the same, and he wants to waste the public's tax dollars." So they set themselves up as being not only weather forecasters but psychiatrists and politicians. A sense of megalomania pervades modern climate science at the highest levels, and this house of cards needs just perhaps one more shove before it comes down.

I don't blame most of the people at other levels of the science, they are just following an established scientific routine in the short-term forecasting or other forms of research. But they are being denied all sorts of potential advances by this attitude which stems from a misguided taboo on what they think is mumbo-jumbo style astrology (as in how's your day going to be).

I've got some other stories too, the book will one day be published. Russia was not the only country with thought police.

Villain

I accept your opinion MT but the question I have is Mr Ring is charging for his forecast the forecast he charged for was way out for the first 2 weeks. I'm not having a go just wondering is there any reason why he got it so wrong.

I respect what he does and admire anyone who has an interest but most people do it FOC so when someone charges I think they are open to been questioned?

M.T. Cranium

I think in some countries there is more of an acceptance of private meteorology than in others, for example, in the USA there are many private consultants, in Canada, almost none.

The bigger picture is that Ken is a forecast consultant who charges for his services and is able to do so because there's a market. His share of the market ultimately depends on his accuracy over time. When I did this (by mail subscription) before the internet era in the 1980s, I had roughly 90% voluntary renewals of annual subscriptions. That meant that nine out of ten people who were willing to pay $25 a year to get twelve mailed out forecasts wanted to keep going the next year, etc. That's a pretty good renewal rate in that sort of enterprise. I never found it necessary to send out reminders, people renewed on the first reminder or just when they knew it was time.

The reason I don't still do this ... it was a question of volume of business, stalled out before I had the cash flow to advertise the service more widely (all of the several hundred subscribers were first attracted by a free forecast placed in a publication that they read). Mail and printing costs were going up and I found that $25 was the going rate. I got into other lines of employment that took a lot of my time, and went through the above described experience of having the door slammed in my face despite willingness of some of my subsrcibers to vouch for my forecasts as being better than alternatives available at that time (including the Farmers Almanac which sells mass quantities at $2 a shot covering a whole year in advance; some swear by it, a validation study that I studied showed near-random results, but they had everything worded quite cleverly to cover many different outcomes ... I don't see that tendency in Ken's work at all by the way, he's quite specific).

Then the internet era was looming and we decided to abandon the print-to-mail concept, posting forecasts free on a bulletin board (remember those? pre-internet text only). I was working and/or golfing all the time and found the time required to make an extra few dollars not worth the effort at that point. Then I've branched into further research since about 1999-2000 and I'm doing what people know about plus a few other things besides. The objective is to have a website with a pay option but some basic forecasts for free. I feel no great financial pressure so I keep refining the research because it would be great to launch with even more "figured out" and less error in the outlooks (talking about 30-90 days here, I've found there is no discernible market for short-range forecasts on a commercial basis in most countries, these opportunities have long since gone to adequately skilled competition, people don't want to trade up in this field when they already have market share and name recognition, it's too much of a risk).

A similar situation attends the well-known Joe Bastardi ... he has a sort of mixed reputation in the community but he has a faithful following and can market his services. The only thing that would derail anyone in that sort of enterprise is relentless poor performance, or outside interference, or a bit of both. I trust the farmers and other business people to make these determinations of how and where to spend their money -- they have reasons for seeking and gaining the information, it saves them in many ways to be able to anticipate details of the coming season, in some cases what crops to choose, what returns to expect, some idea of global conditions sometimes helps them too. I'm pretty certain from my own experience that you wouldn't achieve much visibility doing this if you weren't better than average -- such people would not survive the first renewal period. But these are all subjective impressions, I should try to get a numerical handle on Ken's current performance over a year at least. Any one anecdotal "miss" cannot really be used definitively, just as one hit is not necessarily the whole story.

We're near an end game in this long process, I believe; there are just too many people storming the castle now to believe that the status quo will remain in place another generation. I predict that by 2015 or 2020 at the latest, there will be some form of recognition of this approach in general terms. How they do that saving face and maintaining "control" of meteorology remains to be seen. I don't think the alternates have the cohesion or the public credibility to do an end run and set up a new science -- that more or less happened with relativity physics during the ether controversy. But that's probably what is secretly feared inside the castle, that the attackers will retreat to build their own castle, call out to the funding authorities and say, look, our science is better than their science, stop funding them and start funding us. I can't see that happening because the alternates all put together cannot possibly satisfy the volume of demand for routine forecasting and quite frankly, most of the alternates have no skill in short range forecasting, nor much interest in it. And the orthodox science controls the observational side (our alternate methodology would have to go totally nuclear to be able to avoid observation as per tide table forecasting nowadays).

It could happen through sweet reason, but many of us tend to be cranky after years of ridicule and opposition, funny thing about that. I'm quite an easy going person as you might guess, but even I don't really appreciate being called a lunatic by pedants and paper-shufflers getting paid to keep a desk from falling over. Fundamental questions of whether the public are really getting value for tax money need to be raised at these administrative levels, some of these people have a deep sense of entitlement that is not matched by any dedication to the public interest (which is to get better weather forecasts for their tax money). This year's UK Metoffice fiasco, seen against the backdrop of numerous alternate and better forecasts, illustrates my point that the community has failed to keep advancing the science the old-fashioned way, trial and error testing of new ideas, acceptance of those that work better than the status quo, no pre-conceived rejections of types of ideas because they don't suit paradigms taught for a century that have never produced accurate long-range forecasts. It's becoming clear even to the general public that the community is not functioning like other sciences.

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

Ken have you any idea why you got the first 2 weeks in January so wrong in your yearly forecast i.e. didn't have tempatures anywhere near what they were?

Yes, I have already explained this. What I didn’t account for was the colder Sun. On my website and in my books I point out that the moon method is about timing of events. I never claim I am good at temperatures. Temperatures are controlled by the Sun. It has given colder winters to most countries in the past year. Down here we had the coldest May ever and the coldest June in 45 years. N Dakota had snow in June, their summer. The databases that I use for forecasts use cycles of 18-20 years ago, 36-38 and 71-72, when the Sun was in different positions. The Sun is very difficult to predict around, because we don’t know all its influences. The Moon is much easier. Also, historical temperatures are very inexact and untrustworthy. As I have posted here recently but will say again if you have just joined the forum, firstly, a thermometer only measures the temperature of itself. Hold the bulb of one and see the reading, then go a yard away and the reading will be different. Same with shade/sun, night/day, facing N or S, in the wind or sheltered. Secondly, most temperature sensors are at airports, or on top of schools or post offices, and not many people live in those locations and much less farm at them. Thirdly, the mean is not at all representative of the day. All anyone can comment on is trends. Which is why coldest ever, or warmest for a decade, means zilch. My graphs of trends are more important than my data figures, which are just points of focus for trends. I keep saying that till I am blue in the face and still someone will nitpick over one suggested temperature for one day that I was supposed to have gotten wrong. Well, yes, expect it to be wrong if that is going to be the basis of appraisal of what I do. Fortunately farmers don't see it that way and reaIise what is going on. I don't think I was 'out' for events or trends, e.g. around the full and new moons, if you make that the focus and not the extent of the cold, which was so crippling I can understand why it would have been hard to see past it. But I think a good dry period is almost upon Ireland, the end of January will be colder than what has been already in at least some places, because obviously this will vary, and I do feel that after the end of January the extreme cold should abate. Longrange forecasting in the ancient past was used for that kind of information. No one had to be somewhere at 2.25 next Friday week for which they needed a detailed weather analysis. They just wanted to know, will next month be wet or dry and how long will the drought last. For that they set up the kind of forecasting methods I and MTC are talking about and which deliver on that basis and not much more. For some that is worth paying money for. I don't sell to anyone who isn't prepared to pay and I don't force myself on anyone. I also put a lot out free, as you can see on this and other fora, and on my website and in my interviews. If you don't like what I say you can simply shop elsewhere. I sell opinions, that is all.
regards
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

Villain

Gene Derm wrote: »

Yes, I have already explained this. What I didn’t account for was the colder Sun. On my website and in my books I point out that the moon method is about timing of events. I never claim I am good at temperatures. Temperatures are controlled by the Sun. It has given colder winters to most countries in the past year. Down here we had the coldest May ever and the coldest June in 45 years. N Dakota had snow in June, their summer. The databases that I use for forecasts use cycles of 18-20 years ago, 36-38 and 71-72, when the Sun was in different positions. The Sun is very difficult to predict around, because we don’t know all its influences. The Moon is much easier. Also, historical temperatures are very inexact and untrustworthy. As I have posted here recently but will say again if you have just joined the forum, firstly, a thermometer only measures the temperature of itself. Hold the bulb of one and see the reading, then go a yard away and the reading will be different. Same with shade/sun, night/day, facing N or S, in the wind or sheltered. Secondly, most temperature sensors are at airports, or on top of schools or post offices, and not many people live in those locations and much less farm at them. Thirdly, the mean is not at all representative of the day. All anyone can comment on is trends. Which is why coldest ever, or warmest for a decade, means zilch. My graphs of trends are more important than my data figures, which are just points of focus for trends. I keep saying that till I am blue in the face and still someone will nitpick over one suggested temperature for one day that I was supposed to have gotten wrong. Well, yes, expect it to be wrong if that is going to be the basis of appraisal of what I do. Fortunately farmers don't see it that way and reaIise what is going on. I don't think I was 'out' for events or trends, e.g. around the full and new moons, if you make that the focus and not the extent of the cold, which was so crippling I can understand why it would have been hard to see past it. But I think a good dry period is almost upon Ireland, the end of January will be colder than what has been already in at least some places, because obviously this will vary, and I do feel that after the end of January the extreme cold should abate. Longrange forecasting in the ancient past was used for that kind of information. No one had to be somewhere at 2.25 next Friday week for which they needed a detailed weather analysis. They just wanted to know, will next month be wet or dry and how long will the drought last. For that they set up the kind of forecasting methods I and MTC are talking about and which deliver on that basis and not much more. For some that is worth paying money for. I don't sell to anyone who isn't prepared to pay and I don't force myself on anyone. I also put a lot out free, as you can see on this and other fora, and on my website and in my interviews. If you don't like what I say you can simply shop elsewhere. I sell opinions, that is all.
regards
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

Ken I can understand what you say but with respect when someone pays €110 for a forecast which includes max and min temps they expect that they are part of the forecast. I can understand that your method isn't meant to be held down to one day, you say it can 3 days either way.

The reason I asked the question was because a forecast that cost €110 had temps for the first 2 weeks of January that were way off, not 1 or 2 days but 2 weeks. Perhaps you should consider excluding temp data or giving more or warning about the accuracy of them?

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

I accept your opinion MT but the question I have is Mr Ring is charging for his forecast the forecast he charged for was way out for the first 2 weeks. I'm not having a go just wondering is there any reason why he got it so wrong.

I respect what he does and admire anyone who has an interest but most people do it FOC so when someone charges I think they are open to been questioned?

Think of it this way. I am not an astrologer in the modern sense of the word but an analogy may be drawn. Many people buy horoscopes. They accept them for what they are and are happy to pay on that basis, because they know they are buying suggestions. But if that month they did not meet a tall dark stranger, if the week was not good for romance, if travel did not present itself, if an inheritance did not arrive from an unexpected source, if they did not feel it was a good time for new beginnings and for concentrating on family and friends, do they ask for their money back? If they did, then doctors would very soon go out of business, as would economists, teachers and all kinds of other consultancies.
Ken Ring

Villain

Gene Derm wrote: »

Think of it this way. I am not an astrologer in the modern sense of the word but an analogy may be drawn. Many people buy horoscopes. They accept them for what they are and are happy to pay on that basis, because they know they are buying suggestions. But if that month they did not meet a tall dark stranger, if the week was not good for romance, if travel did not present itself, if an inheritance did not arrive from an unexpected source, if they did not feel it was a good time for new beginnings and for concentrating on family and friends, do they ask for their money back?

umm so your saying that your forecasts are as accurate as horoscopes?

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

Ken I can understand what you say but with respect when someone pays €110 for a forecast which includes max and min temps they expect that they are part of the forecast. I can understand that your method isn't meant to be held down to one day, you say it can 3 days either way.

The reason I asked the question was because a forecast that cost €110 had temps for the first 2 weeks of January that were way off, not 1 or 2 days but 2 weeks. Perhaps you should consider excluding temp data or giving more or warning about the accuracy of them?

Nothing I sell costs €110. My year report costs 89EURO, which is 79pds. For that you get the dataspreadsheet, the graphs, moon-event information and the rain maps for the whole country for 365 days. You infer that I charge 110pds for two weeks. That is rubbish. That would only be 22pds.
On every report that goes out the warning is always written about the trends and where the emphasis is to be placed. With the time I spend doing a report it would be more financially rewarding cleaning houses. My research and self-training time has been unchargeable, has spanned many years, and has preceded any forecast work. It is akin to building an engineering workshop. If I was in a university I would have received wages all that time, but I had to find other jobs to finance the study. As I have already said, if you don't like what I offer, simply shop elsewhere.
Ken Ring

Villain

Gene Derm wrote: »

Nothing I sell costs €110. My year report costs 89EURO, which is 79pds. For that you get the dataspreadsheet, the graphs, moon-event information and the rain maps for the whole country for 365 days. You infer that I charge 110pds for two weeks. That is rubbish. That would only be 22pds.
On every report that goes out the warning is always written about the trends and where the emphasis is to be placed. With the time I spend doing a report it would be more financially rewarding cleaning houses. My research and self-training time has been unchargeable, has spanned many years, and has preceded any forecast work. It is akin to building an engineering workshop. If I was in a university I would have received wages all that time, but I had to find other jobs to finance the study. As I have already said, if you don't like what I offer, simply shop elsewhere.
Ken Ring

225 NZ Dollars for a year was €109 when I paid for it and I never said that was for 2 weeks, I simply asked how in the first month of a yearly forecast I paid €109 for you got it so wrong.

You said then that Temps can't really be that accurate but the fact is you include them in a yearly forecast.????

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

umm so your saying that your forecasts are as accurate as horoscopes?

No, you are saying that you think I am saying that. There is a difference. I am saying my forecasts are opinions, just like horoscopes are someone's opinions. It's funny how people twist things to suit their negative purposes. If you look for fault it will be everywhere, in everything someone says, before that someone has even opened his mouth, as in, he's a politician and his lips are moving so he must be lying. I don't believe in horoscopes that are in popular publications, there is no reliability there and it is intended only for entertainment and titillation. Further, a trend, which is a fluctuation, does not invoke accuracy; a method does.
Ken Ring

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

225 NZ Dollars for a year was €109 when I paid for it and I never said that was for 2 weeks, I simply asked how in the first month of a yearly forecast I paid €109 for you got it so wrong.

You said then that Temps can't really be that accurate but the fact is you include them in a yearly forecast.????

I am trying to explain. You have to have points of focus to come up with a graph to show trends. That is stated on top of the data spreadsheet. The figures themselves are meaningless and are not to be taken literally. The mistake is to regard the data in the same way you would view data from Met Eireann. It is apples and pears. If you can get past the actual figures and view it as trends, warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, sunnier or cloudier, you will find my work useful. If you can't, and look for exact day-figure-matches, you will find my work annoying.
Ken Ring

Villain

Gene Derm wrote: »

I am trying to explain. You have to have points of focus to come up with a graph to show trends. That is stated on top of the data spreadsheet. The figures themselves are meaningless and are not to be taken literally. The mistake is to regard the data in the same way you would view data from Met Eireann. It is apples and pears. If you can get past the actual figures and view it as trends, warmer or cooler, wetter or drier, sunnier or cloudier, you will find my work useful. If you can't, and look for exact day-figure-matches, you will find my work annoying.
Ken Ring

So you agree that it was €109?

I think you are too used to defending yourself and are getting very defensive for no real reason. I haven't had a go at you at all, I simply asked a question which you answered and led me to suggest that perhaps you should exclude the temps or add a warning.

I understand what you say about trends etc but its very hard not to ask questions when we have had such a cold spell and your forecast didn't show it all. I'm not trying to beat you with a stick here simply asking questions you have just chosen to jump into ultra defensive mode. I paid the money that was my choice I was just wondering was there a reason it was so wrong and by asking that question it has suggested that temps shouldn't be used to any great extent.

You brought up the horoscopes analogy not me.

octo

Villain wrote: »

So you agree that it was €109?

I think you are too used to defending yourself and are getting very defensive for no real reason. I haven't had a go at you at all, I simply asked a question which you answered and led me to suggest that perhaps you should exclude the temps or add a warning.

I understand what you say about trends etc but its very hard not to ask questions when we have had such a cold spell and your forecast didn't show it all. I'm not trying to beat you with a stick here simply asking questions you have just chosen to jump into ultra defensive mode. I paid the money that was my choice I was just wondering was there a reason it was so wrong and by asking that question it has suggested that temps shouldn't be used to any great extent.

You brought up the horoscopes analogy not me.

So, did he get the 'trend' (whatever that means) right? My guess is you got recycled data from Kilkenny from 17 years and 10 days ago.

octo

Gene Derm wrote: »

Further, a trend, which is a fluctuation, does not invoke accuracy; a method does.
Ken Ring

I thought you were a maths teacher? Ever heard of differentiation?

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

So you agree that it was €109?

I think you are too used to defending yourself and are getting very defensive for no real reason. I haven't had a go at you at all, I simply asked a question which you answered and led me to suggest that perhaps you should exclude the temps or add a warning.

I understand what you say about trends etc but its very hard not to ask questions when we have had such a cold spell and your forecast didn't show it all. I'm not trying to beat you with a stick here simply asking questions you have just chosen to jump into ultra defensive mode. I paid the money that was my choice I was just wondering was there a reason it was so wrong and by asking that question it has suggested that temps shouldn't be used to any great extent.

You brought up the horoscopes analogy not me.

Yes, with the likes of Octo and his meteorologist mates on this forum attacking me almost on everything I say, one does seek to clarify. :-)
I wouldn't call it ultra-defensive, just trying to correct impressions, and you did challenge me to explain what you saw as inaccuracies in predictions. I was just responding. I'm not saying throw away the temperature readings. They should be used to see rises and falls.
Ken Ring

WolfeIRE

Gene Derm wrote: »

I'm not saying throw away the temperature readings.
Ken Ring

Forgive me, but did anyone else notice it is quite hot in here:rolleyes:

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

You brought up the horoscopes analogy not me.

Yes but I also brought up other analogies like doctors, economists and consultancies, but you might like to question why you lept on the horoscopes one like a shark that hadn't eaten for a week!!

Villain

Gene Derm wrote: »

Yes but I also brought up other analogies like doctors, economists and consultancies, but you might like to question why you lept on the horoscopes one like a shark that hadn't eaten for a week!!

You see there you go again with the attack. I think you have no sense of the attitude that I have posted with, if you are going to post like that I don't see any reason to continue to discuss the topic.

I paid for a service, I wondered about an aspect of it and asked a question based on that, I never attacked you or your methods.

Turtwig

Villain wrote: »

You see there you go again with the attack. I think you have no sense of the attitude that I have posted with, if you are going to post like that I don't see any reason to continue to discuss the topic.

I paid for a service, I wondered about an aspect of it and asked a question based on that, I never attacked you or your methods.

Might just be a knee jerk reaction from your user name.:pac:

Gene Derm

Villain wrote: »

I paid for a service, I wondered about an aspect of it and asked a question based on that, I never attacked you or your methods.

And I'm grateful that you are a customer that seeks clarification and interpretation. I think a clearer way of seeing the method at work would be to buy my 440-page book Predict Weather for Ireland for 2010. I am told that the main centres' reports since the start of the year have been spot on so far e.g. fine/mist or drizzles. The trouble is that in Ireland snow doesn't come down in measurable volume, unlike the USA which has an inch system, so there is no good historial record to draw from.
Ken Ring

snow ghost

M.T. & Gene, perhaps one of you can help me here:

Is it accepted by the scientific community that sea tides affect the weather during their ebbs and flows?

Just asking because I have always noticed in this part of the World that quite often the weather and wind changes with the tides, especially high tides, e.g. if the tide is completely out the weather is usually not as wet and wild as when it comes in and is near to full.

I always assumed that there was a scientific reason for this.

Gene Derm

snow ghost wrote: »

M.T. & Gene, perhaps one of you can help me here:

Is it accepted by the scientific community that sea tides affect the weather during their ebbs and flows?

Just asking because I have always noticed in this part of the World that quite often the weather and wind changes with the tides, especially high tides, e.g. if the tide is completely out the weather is usually not as wet and wild as when it comes in and is near to full.

I always assumed that there was a scientific reason for this.

Ha ha, well, this is how and why I got into all this business in the first place, because I lived at the water's edge for 10 continuous years, and noticed lots of things, like storms always accompanying the highest tides. Most older yachties also know stuff, like that there is a big blow just before the tide turns, and calm comes in on the turn. The weather will typically change at that point, either rain (if about) when dry before, or rain stopping at that moment. I doubt that scientists know about this, you really have to ask the people who live it, because otherwise science will have to admit that there is a moon-weather connection and they won't do this any time soon, even if they know there is one. Why? Because they will have egg on their face. People will say why didn't you tell us about that, we could have used that knowledge all these years. Plus, the moon and tide are about cycles, which contradicts the idea of global warming and climate change, the widespread awareness of this truth of which, would stop their lucrative funding.
Ken Ring

Turtwig

Hi Ken,

Did you try taking your observations down the scientific route? There are so many cases of the moon influencing human and animal behaviour,the environment and far more eccentric stuff currently being investigated, that I'm sure you'd find someone who would like to test your predictions.
Also, if you don't mind me asking what is your rationale for rejecting global warming?

Regards,
Malt
P.s The phenomenon of tidal winds that you correctly identified is well known to occur at many coastal regions.

Gene Derm

Malty_T wrote: »

Hi Ken,

Did you try taking your observations down the scientific route? There are so many cases of the moon influencing human and animal behaviour,the environment and far more eccentric stuff currently being investigated, that I'm sure you'd find someone who would like to test your predictions.
Also, if you don't mind me asking what is your rationale for rejecting global warming?

Regards,
Malt
P.s The phenomenon of tidal winds that you correctly identified is well known to occur at many coastal regions.

There is arguably no scientific route anymore as meteorological and climate science is so riddled with corrupted data, fiddling of figures and cooking of books in order to get ongoing funding. No one funds skeptics, nor lunar studies that will divulge cycles. This would destroy mainstream meteorology as it is now known, because it would show weather is predictable and not something random and chaotic. This issue is far bigger than me vs them because it hits at the heart of what is PC christianity and what is still considered heresy (the moon was the symbol of paganism).
What have I against global warming? Only that it is the greatest scam this century, promoted by frauds and liars, justified by made-up evidence and manipulated computer models and supported by tax-grabbing politicians. It will create massive poverty and cause internal civil wars, water shortages and enable warlords to rise in power supported by the internally corrupt UN. Economic blackmail will cripple international trade and if the governing cartels get their way every person on the planet will find their freedoms curtailed. All because a rise of 3 hundreths of a degree over the past century is supposed to signal the end of the planet. The greatest problem is mass gullibility and the biggest challenge is how to stop laughing at the silliness of humans. Global warming? Where?
Ken Ring

kerry1960

Just read back through this thread and it becomes very clear that Ken Ring is a quack , its a case of buyer beware .

Gene Derm

kerry1960 wrote: »

Just read back through this thread and it becomes very clear that Ken Ring is a quack , its a case of buyer beware .

I notice that every time you come on here all you do is complain about me. What exactly is your problem? I also notice you have a weather station. Do you work in the metservices like your mate Octo?

Tipp Man

Gene Derm wrote: »

I notice that every time you come on here all you do is complain about me. What exactly is your problem? I also notice you have a weather station. Do you work in the metservices like your mate Octo?

Gene, i think you are Ken Ring, is that correct??

If so can you tell me if you have produced an almanac for Ireland for 2010, and if so where can i buy it??

also have you anything else on Irish weather, particularly for 2010??

kerry1960

Gene Derm wrote: »

I notice that every time you come on here all you do is complain about me. What exactly is your problem? I also notice you have a weather station. Do you work in the metservices like your mate Octo?

He he , my dear Mr Ring i do not work with Octo , or anyone else for that matter , but since you have mentioned Met Eireann many times in this thread it was enlightening to hear our Evelyn Cusack tear your umm methods to shreds , yes we have met before on page 8 of this thread , this ''straw doll'' is only an ordinary lad with a background in farming , so debating about astrology with a shadow is not one of my strong points , but im calling it as i see it Mr Ring , and i would tell you straight to your face if i had the chance '' you are a quack '', its nice to see such a simple sentence rattles you .

Gene Derm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Gene, i think you are Ken Ring, is that correct??

If so can you tell me if you have produced an almanac for Ireland for 2010, and if so where can i buy it??

also have you anything else on Irish weather, particularly for 2010??

Yes, we produce the 440-page almanac, called Predict Weather for Ireland for 2010. It can be purchased online from our website www.predictweather.com. It covers trends for all counties for the whole year.
I do a monthly column for the Irish Farmers Journal. There are also many updates on my website about what's coming in Ireland for 2010.
Here's some
https://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=159
https://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=164
https://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_home.php?id=68
https://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=143

and yes, I am
Ken Ring

snow ghost

kerry1960 wrote: »

He he , my dear Mr Ring i do not work with Octo , or anyone else for that matter , but since you have mentioned Met Eireann many times in this thread it was enlightening to hear our Evelyn Cusack tear your umm methods to shreds , yes we have met before on page 8 of this thread , this ''straw doll'' is only an ordinary lad with a background in farming , so debating about astrology with a shadow is not one of my strong points , but im calling it as i see it Mr Ring , and i would tell you straight to your face if i had the chance '' you are a quack '', its nice to see such a simple sentence rattles you .

Kerry,

It might it be better to point out the reasons why you disgree with Ken's weather forecasting results or methodology than him as a person.

Turtwig

Gene Derm wrote: »

There is arguably no scientific route anymore as meteorological and climate science is so riddled with corrupted data, fiddling of figures and cooking of books in order to get ongoing funding. No one funds skeptics, nor lunar studies that will divulge cycles. This would destroy mainstream meteorology as it is now known, because it would show weather is predictable and not something random and chaotic. This issue is far bigger than me vs them because it hits at the heart of what is PC christianity and what is still considered heresy (the moon was the symbol of paganism).
What have I against global warming? Only that it is the greatest scam this century, promoted by frauds and liars, justified by made-up evidence and manipulated computer models and supported by tax-grabbing politicians. It will create massive poverty and cause internal civil wars, water shortages and enable warlords to rise in power supported by the internally corrupt UN. Economic blackmail will cripple international trade and if the governing cartels get their way every person on the planet will find their freedoms curtailed. All because a rise of 3 hundreths of a degree over the past century is supposed to signal the end of the planet. The greatest problem is mass gullibility and the biggest challenge is how to stop laughing at the silliness of humans. Global warming? Where?
Ken Ring

Hey Ken,

Many thanks for the reply. It's a pity that you think there is no scientific route. Throughout history many controversial theories have been slow to gain mainstream acceptance. However, in general, the good science based on evidence always comes to the fro. There are thousands of scientists working today trying to get some theory or hypothesis recognised. Many of which are pushing stuff that may sound counter intuitive, or indeed, nonsense to many. The point is though that they are trying, you seem to just have gone the route alone.

I cannot stress how badly the risk you're taking with this particular route. If you have discovered a simple method to predicting the weather (A discovery that would no doubt help many people) then if you don't push it mainstream the majority of the people will never listen to you. It's like asking them to trust an alternative medicine doctor over the conventional one. They'll most likely see you as a quack or a crackpot. I'm not saying you are either of these, but it would really help your case if you tried going down the official route.

Even if you were outright rejected by the peer review route, the very fact that you have a paper rejected and can show people the feedback it received would definitely help your case. If you don't try, then I'm afraid you're just as likely to be trusted as much as if I were to start claiming tomorrow that I figured out a way to make water combustible (via expensively created radio waves that only I know how to create) and we could all run the "combustwater" in our cars but refused to have my methods or theory scrutinised by science. If you don't at least try to get science to examine your claims then skeptics aren't really going to take you that serious. I don't think the general public will either.

As for your excuse of "heresy", I gotta admit that I would be very surprised if this was the case. Every Dec 25th the entire western world celebrates Christmas through the use of pagan symbols such as lights and Christmas trees. Society is far more open these days and no scientist really cares about the religious or superstitious origins of a technique if they work. To give you one example, buddhism sounds crazy to many, yet neuroscience has found many interesting things from examining buddhist claims. Not everything in buddhism is useful, but some of it is. No matter how outlandish the claim, if you have evidence to support your assertions people may not listen in your lifetime, but they most probably will listen eventually. If you don't try; then they definitely won't.

With regards to your stance on AGW, I am more than willing to discuss it with you if you want. Though, I would recommend starting another thread because this one is solely about you weather predictions and queries that others may have. Nobody is talking about the end to the planet.

Regards,
Malt

kerry1960

Your ''outlook for January'' is already in the bin Mr Ring , im sure that Met Eireann can confirm that the the cold spell has already departed , also note the words ''should'' and ''may'' figure a lot in your predictions ...utter rubbish .

Coming up
I have a relatively dry period beginning on 19 January but the cold should persist until the end of this month, which is when the Earth-Moon distance is the shortest for the year, after which extreme cold should start to abate. So there should be respite by the second week in February. Then the Moon will be in the warmer south for the bulk of February, reaching the north again in the last week which is when temperatures may again fall.
So in February, the second and third weeks should be warmer, but spring minimums should rise only slowly, with air frosts in some places continuing until the middle of April.
2010 should be cooler than average as the globe continues the cooling trend it has been experiencing over the past 9 years due to lower solar radiation levels.
Summer arrives for Ireland in the form of a fortnight of sunny weather from the last week of May onwards, then repeats a month later from the last week of June to the first week of July.

Gene Derm

kerry1960 wrote: »

He he , it was enlightening to hear our Evelyn Cusack tear your umm methods to shreds .

I suppose in the spirit of consistency our Evelyn tore the UK mets to shreds after they said it would be a BBQ summer for the UK and Ireland? Oh, she didn't? How very odd. Must be just good fun to tear someone to shreds when they are not there to defend themselves.

kerry1960

Gene Derm wrote: »

I suppose in the spirit of consistency our Evelyn tore the UK mets to shreds after they said it would be a BBQ summer for the UK and Ireland? Oh, she didn't? How very odd. Must be just good fun to tear someone to shreds when they are not there to defend themselves.

A typical reply from you , you start losing a debate so to distract attention you involve a 3rd party (UKMO) as for Evelyn there was absolutely no need for you to be there she knew what she was talking about .

Gene Derm

Malty_T wrote: »

Hey Ken,

Many thanks for the reply. It's a pity that you think there is no scientific route. Throughout history many controversial theories have been slow to gain mainstream acceptance. However, in general, the good science based on evidence always comes to the fro. There are thousands of scientists working today trying to get some theory or hypothesis recognised. Many of which are pushing stuff that may sound counter intuitive, or indeed, nonsense to many. The point is though that they are trying, you seem to just have gone the route alone.

I cannot stress how badly the risk you're taking with this particular route. If you have discovered a simple method to predicting the weather (A discovery that would no doubt help many people) then if you don't push it mainstream the majority of the people will never listen to you. It's like asking them to trust an alternative medicine doctor over the conventional one. They'll most likely see you as a quack or a crackpot. I'm not saying you are either of these, but it would really help your case if you tried going down the official route.

Even if you were outright rejected by the peer review route, the very fact that you have a paper rejected and can show people the feedback it received would definitely help your case. If you don't try, then I'm afraid you're just as likely to be trusted as much as if I were to start claiming tomorrow that I figured out a way to make water combustible (via expensively created radio waves that only I know how to create) and we could all run the "combustwater" in our cars but refused to have my methods or theory scrutinised by science. If you don't at least try to get science to examine your claims then skeptics aren't really going to take you that serious. I don't think the general public will either.

As for your excuse of "heresy", I gotta admit that I would be very surprised if this was the case. Every Dec 25th the entire western world celebrates Christmas through the use of pagan symbols such as lights and Christmas trees. Society is far more open these days and no scientist really cares about the religious or superstitious origins of a technique if they work. To give you one example, buddhism sounds crazy to many, yet neuroscience has found many interesting things from examining buddhist claims. Not everything in buddhism is useful, but some of it is. No matter how outlandish the claim, if you have evidence to support your assertions people may not listen in your lifetime, but they most probably will listen eventually. If you don't try; then they definitely won't.

With regards to your stance on AGW, I am more than willing to discuss it with you if you want. Though, I would recommend starting another thread because this one is solely about you weather predictions and queries that others may have. Nobody is talking about the end to the planet.

Regards,
Malt

As to my method, my free book on my website is a good start. If anyone has my almanac they will see on p33-34 an analysis of sunspot cycles for a guide to what is coming. They will also see weather for main cities on each page - that comes from astrological analysis of planet aspects, no cycles involved. It is a lot to explain to those unfamiliar with astrological language.
As to global warming, fine, Matt. I just replied to you. I didn't bring the subject up.
ken

kerry1960

snow ghost wrote: »

Kerry,

It might it be better to point out the reasons why you disgree with Ken's weather forecasting results or methodology than him as a person.

Fair enough point SG but im not going to get into a three way debate with other posters on this subject , what i think of Kens methods or otherwise i will address to him , if other posters wish to defend him thats fine , after all this is a debating form .

First of all as regards Kens 'methodology' there isn't any , its a total scam , he got a lucky break last September but look at what has happened since , these so called 'forecasts' :pac: have been buried under the record breaking floods of November and the record freeze from late December to early January neither of which this self styled weather guru came even close to umm forecasting , yet he continues to haunt the Boards trying to flog his 'products' at every opportunity ,for people seriously interested in Meteorology ,this Astrological garbage is is about as useful as toilet paper .

As regards his personality i suggest we look back through this thread , same tactic keeps cropping up again and again , arrogance disguised as defence , this keyboard warrior is incapable of answering some very reasonable arguments addressed to him without resorting to aggression , and if he can't bully the poster he resorts to plan B ie involve a third party , well im not one of those who hide behind a straw doll when faced with this 5hite .

Gene Derm

kerry1960 wrote: »

Your ''outlook for January'' is already in the bin Mr Ring , im sure that Met Eireann can confirm that the the cold spell has already departed , also note the words ''should'' and ''may'' figure a lot in your predictions ...utter rubbish .

That's not true. I did get the November rain, we have discussed this in earlier posts and I showed texts that provided for that prediction, and I did say it would be colder from mid December. You can see from my graphs in the links I provided a post or two ago that the air frost days (for Cumbria but same trends for Ireland) were always going to be greatest between mid Dec-mid Feb. The graphs were put up on the web in December but they were prepared in November before Cumbria got flooded. You can also view my post on
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63115693&postcount=103
"Between 11-23 December should be..cooler .."
I was interviewed on radio in Mayo in the first week of January, heard by Padi89 and commented on in this forum on 7 January and I said things were (then) going to warm up slightly and they definitely did within a week of that. But there is more cold to come and it is still winter, and the sun is still dormant.
I thought you said you were going to discuss the science. This is a debating forum, not a mudslinging one. I can't really reply to personal insults.
Of course I say 'may' and 'should' as do all forecasters. I am not God.
Ken Ring

Sponge Bob

This is what you said on the 21st November my emphasis in Bold and Italic

Clare, December to March
December: Chance of rain 1-10 December (FM+N dec) but few if any subzero minimums, most rain arriving within 2 days either side of the 4th (P), and mostly overcast conditions. Between 11-23 December should be mainly dry but cooler (NM+S dec), possibly two subzero minimum days giving frosts about the new moon 18-20 December (A), then rains returning just before Xmas with some heavy falls between then and the end of the year ( FM+N dec).
January: still unsettled weather but contracting to much lesser rainfall amounts in the first 10 days of January (LE+lastQ), followed by some heavy falls around midJanuary (NM+A), with rain potential petering out about 20 January (LE). Then a run of dry days between 21-31 January (1stQ+N dec+FM and P, these events well spaced which suggests more settled weather) but cold enough for frosts between 19-27 January (FM+P).
February: the month doesn't see much precipitation, perhaps 3-4 significant rain days and the sun breaking through on about 6-7 days, which may be mostly between the last week of February and first week of March (FM+P+LE).
March: a miserable month, mainly cloudy and wet, however apart from the first few days few if any frost-prone minimums likely (LE interrupting FM and NMs).

You completely missed the very cold snap , your next prediction is rain to stop in a few days with a crisp with frost at night run from 19-31 Jan with frosts petering out 27-31 Jan. Lets see

Gene Derm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This is what you said on the 21st November my emphasis in Bold and Italic



You completely missed the very cold snap , your next prediction is rain to stop in a few days with a crisp with frost at night run from 19-31 Jan with frosts petering out 27-31 Jan. Lets see

I've already explained that I make no claim to be able to pinpoint temperatures, except as a trend, upwards or downwards, because temperatures are not controlled by the Moon, only their 'events' rising or falling. I keep saying this but the critics keep coming back to temperatures. You will notice from your own bolding that I said rain but it really means snow or rain, because you don't get snow out of dry air. If you substitute snow for rain you will get your snow dumps pretty much when they fell.
Ken

M.T. Cranium

Based on all of this discussion including the investigation I reported on, and then taking into consideration my own LRF (which as I mentioned can be seen posted on 7 Nov in the forecast thread), I really feel that further debate or argument here is pointless for the following reasons:

(a) Ken seems to be demonstrating improvement over random chance in timing precipitation. I would need to see more to assess intensity, but to some extent, timing influences intensity (certainly if few events are predicted, the intensity is likely to be low).

(b) I assume that (a) is true because Ken has identified the same general energy process at work in the atmosphere as in my research; there may be some differences and we should discuss them once I figure out exactly what is different, some concepts he uses are the same.

(c) As he asserts that temperature is not such a strong point in his method, I feel that criticism of temperature within this paradigm of forecasting should shift over to my forecasts where I do claim some success in that element. There's no point in criticizing a research project at an incomplete stage of its development for some element that hasn't been addressed completely.

(d) Ken's definition of astrology is clearly not the astrology of modern culture but the extension of the state of astronomy in ancient cultures, to the point of saying that it is an effort to return to whatever knowledge was contained in it and perhaps to find new forms of knowledge that extend it. So calling him an astrologer or the methodology astrology is really off-target because if the ancients were on the right path with their concepts, then perhaps meteorology has failed to exploit a resource that it should.


I just want to say, as somebody who forecasts on all time scales and uses conventional methods certainly in the short range (but still relies a little on research findings about energy levels), I would expect my method to give a better result at any time after about day 7 on the models, by statistical chance, and certainly anything past day 10 -- the random noise on the GFS model past day 10 is of course legendary.

I would also acknowledge that my research is far from complete, and I have to wonder at this stage in my life (being sixty and change) how much further I could get with it, before either losing interest and/or losing ability to pursue it. So it depresses me to some extent to see that many years into the process, we are still essentially at square one, the orthodox weather community being very skeptical of the whole approach, and those of us who make alternate forecasts being increasingly confident that we are on the right track.

There may be discoveries possible about physical process, equations that narrow down errors to something that nobody could dispute, etc etc, that would resolve this, but to be honest, I think an intermediate stage where the community says, okay this looks non-random but you guys need more workers and funding to get it to another level, is the only possible way forward.

Now, the international met community is probably on a track where they hope one of two things will happen. One, the models will just keep getting better and better until day 10-15 is like day 2-3 now, and some sort of magic ramp into infinity opens up. This is, I gather, the sort of hope of the CFS modelling approach. I would have to say based on 10-15 years of observation of weather models in modern form and my recollections of how they performed in the 1970s, that we have seen improvements only in the day 2 to 5 time range, and perhaps a little bit 6-10, but really, the pace of improvement is so incremental that it would be 2500 AD before day 10 is like day 5 now. That's very little improvement for so much effort and spending (presumably). The reason? Mainly this -- the energy cycles in the atmosphere are partly external in origin and so how can any computer program take today's observations (on any kind of grid) and find these that far in advance, before they even initiate? It would be like predicting which side road along a highway might produce a sudden appearance of a turning vehicle. Unless you can observe that a vehicle is on that side road in advance, how could you do that?

The second thing that the experts may be hoping to see would be infallible methods of tracking pattern change through their current favourite approaches or ones like them. These hold centre stage on large weather forums partly because there is no recognition of any alternative. The fact that these routinely fade in and out of reliable service doesn't faze their proponents, who, to their credit I suppose, have the same faith and optimism about them that we have about astronomical influences. I am less pessimistic about these approaches because I suspect that buried in some of them would be astronomical paradigms unrecognized at this time. The MJO index for example looks suspiciously like a plot of Mercury's orbital declination as seen from a constant frame of reference; I am working on identifying what frame of reference that is, although I am equally trying to figure out if the MJO index is actually that useful in predicting anything (its proponents are very bullish on it).

So anyway, sorry for another long rambling post, but I am pretty sure that anyone reading this thread is very interested in the subject in one way or another. I'm 99% sure that there is a reality basis to this alternate approach, and I'm going to defend Ken's integrity at the same time because we've obviously had some similar experiences and fought some similar battles along the way. If you think about it, a real charlatan out to defraud people would probably concoct a much more lucrative scheme than selling long-range weather forecasts. The news is full of such schemes, but there are very few instances where a person once taken in by a scheme will return and submit to it again, which is where resubscription tends to disprove the idea in this case.

Gene Derm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

. The MJO index for example looks suspiciously like a plot of Mercury's orbital declination as seen from a constant frame of reference; I am working on identifying what frame of reference that is, although I am equally trying to figure out if the MJO index is actually that useful in predicting anything (its proponents are very bullish on it).
.

I have found Mercury's declination is a good indicator of temperature swings, according to season. The Solar System Barycentre is the point of focus for the planets, the orbital fluctuation of which produces the solar cycle, the timing of which involves the Moon (which behaves like a planet) as it also orbits the Sun (despite the Earth keeping getting in the Moon's way). All the planets contribute, via the SSB to the timing of the solar wind tide, particularly the big gas giants Jupiter and Saturn, particularly conjuncting or opposing the Sun. It can therefore be said that the planets influence life on earth, albeit indirectly through the Sun. This is the essence of the old idea of astrology in daily action, and why the Christian West does not want to go there.
I fascinated by what you say about this MJO Index and will pursue this further, because the "Mercury factor" of temp swings has been included in all my almanacs over the past 5 years, following my initial discovery of what I thought to be its relevance and following this for the 2 years prior. You may be interested in a 2-yr old article I did on the subject
http://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=44
I submit that exactly the same Mercury factor was, and is still, probably in effect this winter, between 12-29 December (particularly just prior to Xmas), and January 11-25, particularly 17-20.
regards
Ken Ring

kerry1960

Lol , still the same old mumbo jumbo Mr Ring , Mercury this Saturn that , you even managed to squeeze Jupiter in there, but where's Pluto :pac: , well back to plain language again all i want is to know how come your 'predictions' for this Winter are so wrong , the point of a long range forecasts is to pinpoint trends or extremes , (and funnily enough for most people that would include temperatures) ,all i see in your predictions Ken is averages , nothing more , purely based on averages most people here on the Boards could submit forecast for the year with a good deal of success , but then nobody here would have foreseen the exceptional floods and the very severe freeze we have just experienced , and you sure as hell didn't did you :rolleyes:, yet you can submit a reply as below on 21/12/09 that claims to forecast cloud cover for a specific day over specific counties 6 months in advance, amazing :eek: .

Gene Derm wrote: »

Hi Tucker1971
I have mostly dry for the whole country between 1-9 July, except for rain in north and SW on 5 July, and starting to cloud over with drizzle patches across the north and Sligo to Louth on 8th and 9th. If you give me your latitude and longitude I can supply an astrological analysis.
cheers
Ken

I would also like to publicly apologise to you Ken for calling you a 'quack' , i looked up the term in the dictionary and it has nothing at all to do with Meteorology .

Gene Derm

kerry1960 wrote: »

I would also like to publicly apologise to you Ken for calling you a 'quack' .

Apology accepted
Ken

snow ghost

Gene Derm wrote: »

Well, that New moon snow has arrived as expected. Cold air temperatures means low evaporation. Low evaporation means no moisture to make snow. The best snow does not come from the north. It comes when warm moist air from the south mixes with cold air from the north. That's what has been developing over the last few days so one wonders why the big surprise on the part of weather services. They must be aware that winter snow falls on rising temperatures because it is textbook stuff that a snowflake is an iceflake that expands.
Get ready soon for that run of dry days.
Ken Ring

Ken,

It snowed on Tuesday 12th Jan in parts of the country - predomonantely in the daytime - the New Moon was on Friday 15th Jan. So objectively on that occassion I have to say your forecast wasn't very accurate.

“This month coming up I am saying there should be overnight snow around this month's New Moon then precipitation will dwindle to almost nothing, with a dry spell beginning on or near the 19th, although still staying cold.


Even giving due consideration to the fact you said 'on or around' the new moon, on the day that it last really snowed the moon was in the waning crescent faze.

Gene Derm

snow ghost wrote: »

Ken,

It snowed on Tuesday 12th Jan in parts of the country - predomonantely in the daytime - the New Moon was on Friday 15th Jan. So objectively on that occassion I have to say your forecast wasn't very accurate.

“This month coming up I am saying there should be overnight snow around this month's New Moon then precipitation will dwindle to almost nothing, with a dry spell beginning on or near the 19th, although still staying cold.

Well, it was as accurate as Met Eirann, so are you writing to them also? The Met Eireann forecast was for snow in Ulster on the 13th, and hail and sleet in the west and north on 15th (sleet is a mix of rain, snow and hail). Would you like copies of their forecast as proof? I would call the "new moon period" from the 13th-17th. I said "around" the new moon, and in any longrange, not just me, it's always a 3-day window of applicability. So I'd say a fairly correct prediction, seeing I did it about a year ago on readiness for pre-winter radio interviews.
And that dry period is starting to show signs of arriving.
regards
Ken Ring

Gene Derm

snow ghost wrote: »

Ken,
on the day that it last really snowed the moon was in the waning crescent faze.

Actually phase alone is not strong factorally. But when it bunches up with the apsidal line or the lunar equinox or lunar solstice, then events are triggered more.

snow ghost

Gene Derm wrote: »

Well, it was as accurate as Met Eirann, so are you writing to them also? The Met Eireann forecast was for snow in Ulster on the 13th, and hail and sleet in the west and north on 15th (sleet is a mix of rain, snow and hail). Would you like copies of their forecast as proof? I would call the "new moon period" from the 13th-17th. I said "around" the new moon, and in any longrange, not just me, it's always a 3-day window of applicability. So I'd say a fairly correct prediction, seeing I did it about a year ago on readiness for pre-winter radio interviews.
And that dry period is starting to show signs of arriving.
regards
Ken Ring

Ken,

I'm just giving what I consider ot be a fair and objective analysis of your forecast, and it wasn't accurate.

If you had said it will be wet, windy and turn milder around the new moon you would have been correct.

As I said part of me would like you to be right, regretably on this occassion you were way off the mark.

kerry1960

Quoting from you here Ken ...
''Looking forward he said: "The autumn will be wet apart from a dry and cool first week in November. December will be dry between the 10th and 24th, and Christmas (will be) wet but not white. Chances of snow do come around on January 20 and February 20, and in the first week of March."

The Autumn will be ''wet'', brilliant ..... this is the Met Eireann summery for November ...(mods if there copyright issues my mistake , feel free to delete this post)
Wettest November on record brings widespread flooding; mild and windy
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/nov09.pdf

December...
Coldest December for almost 30 years; wet in east and south but sunnier than normal everywhere
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/dec09.pdf

The cold spell ....
13 January 2010

The December 2009 to January 2010 cold spell has been compared with previous notable cold spells in 1981-82, 1979, 1962-63 and 1947. The attached graphs for the long-term station at the Phoenix Park in Dublin provide a visual presentation of periods when the mean daily temperature was below normal for the time of year.
http://www.met.ie/metadmin/useruploads/file/Dec-Jan%20Cold%20Spell.pdf.

snow ghost

Interesting Kerry... I note one of Ken's qoutes you posted is from the Irish Independent farming section:

"The autumn will be wet apart from a dry and cool first week in November. December will be dry between the 10th and 24th, and Christmas (will be) wet but not white. Chances of snow do come around on January 20 and February 20, and in the first week of March."

http://www.independent.ie/farming/kiwi-weather-expert-forecasts--a-watery-end-to-dreadful-2009-1886289.html

Yet Ken has also been forecasting that there will be a dry spell starting around the 19th???

“This month coming up I am saying there should be overnight snow around this month's New Moon then precipitation will dwindle to almost nothing, with a dry spell beginning on or near the 19th,"

Ken,

Your forecast for around the 19th, 20th of January are totally in contrast to each other, could you kindly explain why this is so?

Either a dry spell is going to start around the 19th or it is going to snow around the 20th... it can't be both and I don't understand why your forecasts are for both?

Btw, I had white Christmas this year in Ireland, and I wasn't alone.