Ken Ring predictions

Sam Kade

Poly wrote: »

This year I took note of Kens predictions when he was on Matt Cooper, (back in March, I think). From a layman’s point of view he has been accurate so far this year.

He must be giving different predictions then as the prediction I heard him give last March was totally wrong.

Kenring

Sam Kade wrote: »

Ken can you shed any light on the totally wrong prediction you gave Prendeville last spring?

Wow, a year ago, and you're still sore at a prediction that didn't suit you?? Move on man!
Anyway, can't recall predicting specifically for Prendeville, no. What street?
Sam and Villain - are you one person?

Kenring

WolfeIRE wrote: »

I must admit I like this thread.

I do value Ken's different opinion and his courage to put his neck on the line. He gets it wrong sometimes and other times has it spot on like all other weather forecasters.

If someone wishes to subscribe to his service they should do so knowing they are subscribing to another's opinion and not a 'get your money back if he is wrong' service.

The reaction to Ken's predictions is quite strong here which is not a bad thing. However, he doesn't have to come on a public forum to answer customers in such a public fashion. He deserves credit for doing so.

The fact that those knowledgable of all things meteorlogical here are asking the questions makes this thread very interesting indeed so keep it up!

ps...I guess if the thread is called ken ring predictions - there should be no issue with his website being shown.

Thanks WolfIRE. Yes, those met folk here, mostly hiding behind false names, seem to think I'm threatening their jobs or something. I'm not attacking them, but they take running tackles at my knees on this thread that makes me wish I was still playing rugby
There also seems to be a bit of meteorological theory in dispute. Some say cirrus gets there from below, I don't, I say it is cirrus that descends and becomes middle-height cloud and then cumulonimbus.
I'd like more of that type of discussion rather than the endless nyah-nyah-na-nah-nah, got-it-wrong-once, Ken's-a-bad bad person rubbish.

Sam Kade

Kenring wrote: »

Wow, a year ago, and you're still sore at a prediction that didn't suit you?? Move on man!
Anyway, can't recall predicting specifically for Prendeville, no. What street?
Sam and Villain - are you one person?

Ken a year consists of 12 months last March was 3 months back. The prediction didn't suit me what are you on about? I was just wondering how you got it so wrong, in reality I couldn't care less that you got it wrong as the weather we are getting now suits me better than what you predicted. The show was on Corks 96FM Neil Prendeveille he contacts you by phone a few times a year. Villain and I the one person Ken you would make a worse detective than a weather forecaster. Are you the real Ken Ring or just some keyboard warrior?

jamesoc

Hi again Ken , this is an interesting thread thanks , still like to know though did you foresee the wicked winter that we just got , and do you think we'd get another one this year , hope you say yes .

Kenring

Sam Kade wrote: »

Ken a year consists of 12 months last March was 3 months back. The prediction didn't suit me what are you on about? I was just wondering how you got it so wrong, in reality I couldn't care less that you got it wrong as the weather we are getting now suits me better than what you predicted. The show was on Corks 96FM Neil Prendeveille he contacts you by phone a few times a year. Villain and I the one person Ken you would make a worse detective than a weather forecaster. Are you the real Ken Ring or just some keyboard warrior?

Oh, well NOW it's clearer. LAST spring means last year. What you've just had was THIS spring in my language. No one tells me the surnames of the hosts so how am I to know what you were talking about? You and Villain have the same get-Ken-and-drag-him-under attitude. Boring. Funny, there must be two Corks.
The Cork I was talking about I was successful for. Here's why. We're talking about March. I had rain predicted for the 7th-11th, based on subzero minimums that I thought would arrive at that time, which indeed did. They finished on the 12th. But Cork missed out just on those daus, however a little to the northeast they received it, well within the 80-100kms. The big Cork rain that month was new moon rain on 16th after a dry spell. You'll see that listed in my almanac exactly. The second half of the month was continually wet as I said it may be. The northern declination was on 23rd. Winds switched to come from north on 20th and temperatures went down to -1 on 23rd. It's all cause and effect - moon cause and weather effect. The barometer started plunging on the 23rd and a couple of days later reached 989. The previous time of northern declination was Feb 23rd, and that day the barometer plunged to 988, lowest for the month. Thanks for a perfect opportunity to show the moon in action:)

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

There also seems to be a bit of meteorological theory in dispute. Some say cirrus gets there from below, I don't, I say it is cirrus that descends and becomes middle-height cloud and then cumulonimbus.
I'd like more of that type of discussion rather than the endless nyah-nyah-na-nah-nah, got-it-wrong-once, Ken's-a-bad bad person rubbish.

Now just hang on there one minute Ken, you're talking about two different things - how cirrus forms, and how cumulonimbus form. In your video (at 3:55) you said "cirrus descend as they gather, to form "nimbocumulus, which are the rain clouds underneath you". That's totally incorrect, as I pointed out before. Cumulonimbus form from below, rise vertically, and ultimately form cirrus layers on their tops, but most cirrus have nothing to do with cumulonimbus, and are formed in windshear areas of the upper troposphere, usually near anticyclones.

Incidently, in that same video you show a complete lack of understanding about the argument that's put forward of how CO2 is supposed to cause warming. You think the the argument claims that it's the actual heat of combustion from car exhausts and chimnies that rises and heats the atmosphere. Nobody in their right mind thinks that, not even the IPCC! The process is actually through the absorbtion of outgoing longwave radiation emitted from the earth's surface. All triatomic or higher molecules absorb IR radiation, hence you have CO2, CH4 (methane), etc being classed as greenhouse gasses due to their "radiative forcings". Now many people (including I) don't agree with the whole idea of anthropogenic global warming through this process, but at least they understand the theory being putting across!

You also say there's no CO2 in the upper troposphere, which is also incorrect. With the exception of water vapour and some pollutants, the composition of the atmosphere is the same at the top as it is at the bottom of the troposphere with respect to the main gases (nitrogen, oxygen, CO2, argon). CO2 concentration drops by about 5ppm in the stratosphere, but below that its at the same concentration. It gets there despite its heavier atomic mass due to tropospheric mixing, etc.

Now before you ask then why do we run out of oxygen at high levels, that's due to the lower number of molecules taken in with each breath. We may take in only 30% of the number of air molecules that we breath in at sea level, but if you look at the composition of these molecules, they will still be 78% N2, 21% O2, and 0.038% CO2.

If you want to go on record and discuss these things, no problem, but you really should make sure you have your facts right, because the more you argue the "wronger" you get.

EDIT: You also say that what comes out of a chimney is water and unburnt fuel, and doesn't contain CO2. All organic substances, including oil, petrol, wood, people, etc. produce CO2 + H20 when burned...that's another fact you ignored. So if it's only unburnt fuel coming out, that's one hell of an inefficient system, and explain where the heat comes from then?

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Now just hang on there one minute Ken, you're talking about two different things - how cirrus forms, and how cumulonimbus form. In your video (at 3:55) you said "cirrus descend as they gather, to form "nimbocumulus, which are the rain clouds underneath you". That's totally incorrect, as I pointed out before. Cumulonimbus form from below, rise vertically, and ultimately form cirrus layers on their tops, but most cirrus have nothing to do with cumulonimbus, and are formed in windshear areas of the upper troposphere, usually near anticyclones.

Well, we differ. And not just me.
I think three references are enough..
1. "cirrus clouds will develop into cirrocumulus or altostratus, seem to gradually descend into the denser stratus and nimbostratus and a steady rain will follow.
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-201clouds.html

2. "The cirrus crystals fall DOWNSTREAM from their source, or location of condensation initiation.
Wendell Bechtold, meteorologist
National Weather Service Forecast Office
St. Louis,
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00173.htm

3. If you want a book, see "Essential Meteorology" p91 "cirrostratus become rain clouds within 24 hours.."(rain clouds are middle clouds).

Su Campu wrote: »

You also say that what comes out of a chimney is water and unburnt fuel, and doesn't contain CO2.

No, I never said that, nor believe it.

Su Campu wrote: »

All organic substances, including oil, petrol, wood, people, etc. produce CO2 + H20 when burned...that's another fact you ignored.

Of course, I'm not that silly.

ch750536

It is quite possible that you are both right you know.

Sam Kade

Kenring wrote: »

Oh, well NOW it's clearer. LAST spring means last year. What you've just had was THIS spring in my language.

Ok Ken I'll leave it at that. Just one thing Ken spring just gone is in the past hence last spring, "this" is the present tense.

Su Campu

What do you take us for Ken? :rolleyes:

Kenring wrote: »

Well, we differ. And not just me.
I think three references are enough..
1. "cirrus clouds will develop into cirrocumulus or altostratus, seem to gradually descend into the denser stratus and nimbostratus and a steady rain will follow.
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-201clouds.html

Nice try Ken, you cleverly took that line out of context. The writer is actually describing what happens as a storm system approaches, and by saying cirrus descends he is referring to what a stationary observer sees as the storm approaches, ie. first cirrus, then as it passes, lower clouds replace it. The cirrus stays as it was but merely moves downstream. That's in Meteorology for Dummies, Chapter 1, Paragrpah 1.

2. "The cirrus crystals fall DOWNSTREAM from their source, or location of condensation initiation.
Wendell Bechtold, meteorologist
National Weather Service Forecast Office
St. Louis,
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00173.htm

Again, go and read each of the replies on that page. They are referring to virga or fallstreaks. DOWNSTREAM means blown with the wind, not downwards vertically.

3. If you want a book, see "Essential Meteorology" p91 "cirrostratus become rain clouds within 24 hours.."(rain clouds are middle clouds).

I have more than enough books, thank you. And each and every one of them say the same thing. Even the one you quoted, they are referring to the stationary observer. When you see cirrostratus you can expect them to be replaced by rain later. the cirrostratus move on and the rainclouds move in. The cirrostratus don't change, they just move.

No, I never said that, nor believe it. Of course, I'm not that silly.

Oh yes you did, go watch the video again.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

What do you take us for Ken? :rolleyes:

Nincompoops, if the cap fits..but I didn't start this. Steam rises and rain falls. All that happens between is how meteorologists earn their living, arguing over what to call stuff. They write names no one can say. The small boy said but the guy's got no clothes on, but no one paid him any attention, they were too busy listening to their elected "experts". Get back to basics.

Su Campu wrote: »

Nice try Ken, you cleverly took that line out of context. The writer is actually describing what happens as a storm system approaches, and by saying cirrus descends he is referring to what a stationary observer sees as the storm approaches, ie. first cirrus, then as it passes, lower clouds replace it. The cirrus stays as it was but merely moves downstream. They are referring to virga or fallstreaks. DOWNSTREAM means blown with the wind, not downwards vertically.

Clouds don't pass. They disintegrate where they are and reform downwind.

Su Campu wrote: »

I have more than enough books, thank you. And each and every one of them say the same thing. Even the one you quoted, they are referring to the stationary observer. When you see cirrostratus you can expect them to be replaced by rain later. the cirrostratus move on and the rainclouds move in. The cirrostratus don't change, they just move.

You can have too many books. There's your problem right there. Too much reading black shapes on white paper and not enough looking outside. I think there's a word quibble here, in an attempt to discredit my video. Firstly. clouds are not something real, they are an illusion. There is nothing substantial in a cloud that is not in the surrounding of that cloud (water vapour covers the whole sky). All that a cloud indicates is an area of relatively colder air, which condenses-out the vapour in that part of the sky. Even a blue sky can rain.. Cirrus is the altitude of the coldest water vapour. How it got there was because water vapour ascends, of course - the water can't come down from space - the seas from where it emanates are down on earth. We've all seen steam rising. Once the cloud is visible it shows the observer where the colder air is. Colder air falls. Colder air falls. Colder air falls.. End of story.

www.predictweather.com

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

Clouds don't pass. They disintegrate where they are and reform downwind.

www.predictweather.com

That is actually true in the main. It's a continuous process of form and decay which can appear as movement. However, this process may be over-ridden by winds at cloud level. A stonger wind will mean that even small clouds will move independantly of their own development and disintegration.

I am not sure though that cirrus does actually lower to form mid level rain clouds though. Ok, I have witnessed many times cirrocumulus actually transforming into altocumulus in an evening sky, but again, this may appear as more illusion than an actual due to the independence of cloud development.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

Hey, if the cap fits..but I didn't start this

Clouds don't pass. They disintegrate where they are and reform downwind.


I think there's word quibble here, in an attempt to discredit my video. Firstly. clouds are not something real, they are an illusion. There is nothing substantial in a cloud that is not in the surrounding of that cloud (water vapour covers the whole sky). All that a cloud indicates is an area of relatively colder air, which condenses-out the vapour in that part of the sky. Even a blue sky can rain.. Cirrus is the altitude of the coldest water vapour. How it got there was because water vapour ascends, of course - it can't come down from space. We've all seen steam rising. Once the cloud is visible it shows the observer where the colder air is. Colder air falls. End of story.

www.predictweather.com

Actually Ken, clouds are very real, not an illusion, maybe you should live here for a while! I've no idea why you say they're not

And clouds are not colder than their environment. If they were colder, then they would be negatively buoyant, would descend and warm adiabatically, causing the relative humidity to drop, the liquid water to evaporate and the cloud dissipate, and would not grow downwards and form rain. They formed because a body of air rose, cooled adiabatically until the water vapour in it condensed, and the cloud only stopped rising when it became the same temperature as its environment. So clouds show where the most moisture is, not where the coldest air is, even with cirrus.

Actually, why am I bothering continuing this when you obviously have your head so high in the clouds (pun intended) that you'll write any drivel in an attempt to prove yourself correct. I suggest you go and read up on as much material as possible, because you know astronomy inside out, but you don't know the basics of how our atmosphere works. Of course you say anyone pointing this out to you is "discrediting" you - no need, you do that well enough yourself!

I'm done with this thread.

jamesoc

Hi Ken , sorry to say but i think you have an attitude problem , only reason i joined boards ie was because i have an interest in this subject for study purposes but it is unlikely i would benefit from here , your attitude to other peoples points of view is appalling honestly .

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Actually Ken, clouds are very real, not an illusion, maybe you should live here for a while! I've no idea why you say they're not

Clouds are a trick on the eye, which cannot see small movements easily. When you watch TV you do not see the layering of impluses that create a picture; you see the picture. When you watch a movie, you do not see individual stills - due to the flickering response/threshold again you "see" a moving picture. In the same way, individiual neon lights or coloured bulbs around a sign, like Dancing Girls, that seem to describe a circle, appear to circulate. They are staying still, only the current moves. Yet we see it as movement. Clouds are like that sign.

Su Campu wrote: »

And clouds are not colder than their environment. If they were colder, then they would be negatively buoyant,

Towering cumulous is a funnel of colder air. Clouds are positively buoyant because the heat from the ground is still rising. That is why they(clouds) can be closer to the ground in the morning(mist and fog)before the sun has warmed the ground. At night the moisture can return to the ground again, as dew. But they are negatively buoyant when they fall as rain. Whether or not it will rain depends on what is currently stronger, heat-buoyancy from the ground or gravity. When weight overcomes gravity we call it rain. In Australia there is so much heat from the ground clouds have a hard time falling, which is why some farmers resort to cloud seeding, which uses cooling chemicals and dust, in an effort to quick-cool clouds and increase the gravity. It doesn't work because the weather systems are too massive, and the cloud-seeding ray-guns are only pathetic toys in comparison.

Su Campu wrote: »

(if clouds were colder they..)would descend and warm adiabatically, causing the relative humidity to drop, the liquid water to evaporate and the cloud dissipate, and would not grow downwards and form rain. They formed because a body of air rose, cooled adiabatically until the water vapour in it condensed, and the cloud only stopped rising when it became the same temperature as its environment. So clouds show where the most moisture is, not where the coldest air is, even with cirrus.

Disagree. In the air there is water vapour everywhere. If you are underwater there is water everywhere. If you are a water molecule underwater you cannot and do not move, because there is another in front, at back and on each side of you. It is the same in the air, although steam does change density when it changes state. Ask yourself why a cloud will hang around a snow-covered mountain. It is because the air is cooler there than the surrounding countryside. Why does a cloud come out when a freezer door is opened? Cooler air, not where the most moist air is. How does a demister work? Applies warmth.

Su Campu wrote: »

I'm done with this thread.

Someone only interested in ridiculing me and not debating about the science will give up when the discussion brings up alternative and arguable points.

Kenring

jamesoc wrote: »

Hi Ken , sorry to say but i think you have an attitude problem , only reason i joined boards ie was because i have an interest in this subject for study purposes but it is unlikely i would benefit from here , your attitude to other peoples points of view is appalling honestly .

I see, so attitude is only my side of the fence.
let's see, I've been called, by others, crap, snide - Villain , Ken's Ring - Clermon , defensive - Popoutman, totally wrong- Sam Kade
Of course I mustn't respond.
Cure your problem. Simply don't read.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

Clouds are a trick on the eye, which cannot see small movements easily. When you watch TV you do not see the layering of impluses that create a picture; you see the picture. When you watch a movie, you do not see individual stills - due to the flickering response/threshold again you "see" a moving picture. In the same way, individiual neon lights or coloured bulbs around a sign, like Dancing Girls, that seem to describe a circle, appear to circulate. They are staying still, only the current moves. Yet we see it as movement. Clouds are like that sign.

Towering cumulous is a funnel of colder air. Clouds are positively buoyant because the heat from the ground is still rising. That is why they(clouds) can be closer to the ground in the morning(mist and fog)before the sun has warmed the ground. At night the moisture can return to the ground again, as dew. But they are negatively buoyant when they fall as rain. Whether or not it will rain depends on what is currently stronger, heat-buoyancy from the ground or gravity. When weight overcomes gravity we call it rain. In Australia there is so much heat from the ground clouds have a hard time falling, which is why some farmers resort to cloud seeding, which uses cooling chemicals and dust, in an effort to quick-cool clouds and increase the gravity. It doesn't work because the weather systems are too massive, and the cloud-seeding ray-guns are only pathetic toys in comparison.

Disagree. In the air there is water vapour everywhere. If you are underwater there is water everywhere. If you are a water molecule underwater you cannot and do not move, because there is another in front, at back and on each side of you. It is the same in the air, although steam does change density when it changes state. Ask yourself why a cloud will hang around a snow-covered mountain. It is because the air is cooler there than the surrounding countryside. Why does a cloud come out when a freezer door is opened? Cooler air, not where the most moist air is. How does a demister work? Applies warmth.


Someone only interested in ridiculing me and not debating about the science will give up when the discussion brings up alternative and arguable points.

I really think this guy is just trying to wind us up, and I'm not wasting any more time explaining how wrong his "facts" above are. Towering Cu are funnels of cold air - I mean, c'mon!

Deep Easterly

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

I see, so attitude is only my side of the fence.
let's see, I've been called, by others, crap, snide - Villain , Ken's Ring - Clermon , defensive - Popoutman, totally wrong- Sam Kade

You really want to know what I think of you! I had respect for you before, but now I've lost it all.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

I really think this guy is just trying to wind us up, and I'm not wasting any more time explaining how wrong his "facts" above are. Towering Cu are funnels of cold air - I mean, c'mon!

ref:
"Cold-air funnel clouds
Cold-air (or cold-core) funnel clouds are ..generally associated with partly cloudy skies in the wake of cold fronts, where atmospheric instability and moisture is sufficient to support towering cumulus clouds.." http://www.reference.com/browse/funnel+cloud

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

You really want to know what I think of you! I had respect for you before, but now I've lost it all.

Su Campu, Villain, etc, why are you on here? Are you masochists? You never cease expressing your disgust. Or are you just meteorologists found wanting in terms of your theory, and with no cross-counter resources to back yourselves, think that spitting dummies is going to save you from having to debate properly?

jamesoc

Kenring wrote: »

Cure your problem. Simply don't read.

Hi Ken ,my a polite chap indeed , the thread is being followed by many others and for one who uses every opportunity to plug your service you are doing a great job of turning potential customers against you .

Villain

Lol go back and answer all the questions you ignored, you don't want to debate you just want to blindly plug your poor forecasts and use every excuse possible to excuse them.

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

Lol go back and answer all the questions you ignored, you don't want to debate you just want to blindly plug your poor forecasts and use every excuse possible to excuse them.

But I did. I, too am calling for debate. I only reply in kind to those who start the insults, the meteorologists here. Let the ones with the attitudes cast the first stone..

for those who REALLY want debate..

Villain wrote: »

Towering Cu are funnels of cold air - I mean, c'mon! .

My reference, again
"Cold-air funnel clouds
Cold-air (or cold-core) funnel clouds are ..generally associated with partly cloudy skies in the wake of cold fronts, where atmospheric instability and moisture is sufficient to support towering cumulus clouds.." http://www.reference.com/browse/funnel+cloud

I am not going to debate my predictions, because meteorologists here don't understand longrange and wish only to compare what I do to mainstream meteorology. Once made, mine are set in concrete, there is no need to change or review any. The predictions are available from my website by anyone for all of Ireland up till 2019, so I am not going to discuss them - there is no point. But there's nothing to stop anyone else having an opinion on longrange, I'm always interested in the ideas of others, like MTC.
But I will debate the science willingly.

www.predictweather.com

Villain

I am not going to debate my predictions

Yep that's it run and hide, you won't debate because your forecasts fail - simple

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

But I did. I, too am calling for debate. I only reply in kind to those who start the insults, the meteorologists here. Let the ones with the attitudes cast the first stone..

for those who REALLY want debate..

My reference, again
"Cold-air funnel clouds
Cold-air (or cold-core) funnel clouds are ..generally associated with partly cloudy skies in the wake of cold fronts, where atmospheric instability and moisture is sufficient to support towering cumulus clouds.." http://www.reference.com/browse/funnel+cloud

I am not going to debate my predictions, because meteorologists here don't understand longrange and wish only to compare what I do to mainstream meteorology. Once made, mine are set in concrete, there is no need to change or review any. The predictions are available from my website by anyone for all of Ireland up till 2019, so I am not going to discuss them - there is no point. But there's nothing to stop anyone else having an opinion on longrange, I'm always interested in the ideas of others, like MTC.
But I will debate the science willingly.

www.predictweather.com

Ok Ken, you wanted a debate, and you got a debate. I am not debating your longrange forecasts because I admit I don't know much about lunar cycles, etc., unlike you, fair enough. But I have debated what I do know, how the atmopshere works. How clouds form. I have repeatedly tried to explain where your understanding is wrong in this respect, not for the sake of trying to tarnish the name Ken Ring, but because your ideas are fundamentally flawed, and as many users use this forum to learn more, it's important they're given correct information. My explanations are not my theories, they're solid scientific fact. Don't take my word for it, they are in all the books and online articles you can find, INCLUDING the ones you referenced, even though you believe they say the opposite.

It is patently obvious that either

1)You have never read any material on meteorology, or
2) You have read it but you misunderstand white to mean black, or
3)You cannot read

To take the article you posted on cold air funnel clouds. You have again misread it and taken it to mean the opposite. They are funnel clouds that form in the cold air behind cold fronts, not clouds containing cold air! They occur in cumuluform clouds, which are only there because warm air rises. You were talking about towering cumulus clouds earlier, that they contain cold air. The inverse is true, They are warmer than their environment, which is why they they continue to rise and rise. As the water vapour condenses out, it releases its latent heat, which keeps it warmer than its environment. When all the water vapour has condensed out, then there's no more latent heat release, then eventually the rising parcel will become the same temperature as its surroundings, and will stop rising further. That's fact, and you can't deny it.

That's the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. I really don't have time to be correcting your errors every time you make a post. Do everyone a favour and stop posting your theories on something that you don't understand. Or at least if you do, be open to correction if someone finds fault with them. I would never claim to know the lunar stuff you know and therefore would never do what you do, posting all sorts of crazy theories I formed in my head and then blasting anyone who dared question them.

Now this time, I definitely am done with this thread. Someone else take over

thetonynator

Kenring wrote: »

I am not going to debate my predictions, because meteorologists here don't understand longrange and wish only to compare what I do to mainstream meteorology. Once made, mine are set in concrete, there is no need to change or review any. The predictions are available from my website by anyone for all of Ireland up till 2019, so I am not going to discuss them - there is no point. But there's nothing to stop anyone else having an opinion on longrange, I'm always interested in the ideas of others, like MTC.
But I will debate the science willingly.

But if, one week or 3 days in advance it is plain to see from ''mainstream meteorology'' that it will not rain at all on a certain date, and your forecasts from 2 years in advance say it will, why not alter it, why have it set in concrete?

Or else there will be ''haze'' which in your book counts as rainfall.

octo

Kenring wrote: »

Once made, mine are set in concrete, there is no need to change or review any.

This is not true. I documented on a very long thread last year how you altered a very specific forecast you had given for Snow in November. You changed your snow forecast after it didn't snow as you had predicted.

This is how you justified it: "Well I do reserve the right to edit my website from time to time to make things more succinct. I have not changed anything ssential. I shall continue to edit and change paragraphs to freshen them for previous readers."

Now what kind of concrete is that, exactly?

I won't risk censure by the moderators for saying what I really think of you Ken.

Villain

octo wrote: »

This is not true. I documented on a very long thread last year how you altered a very specific forecast you had given for Snow in November. You changed your snow forecast after it didn't snow as you had predicted.

This is how you justified it: "Well I do reserve the right to edit my website from time to time to make things more succinct. I have not changed anything ssential. I shall continue to edit and change paragraphs to freshen them for previous readers."

Now what kind of concrete is that, exactly?

I won't risk censure by the moderators for saying what I really think of you Ken.

Lol Gene Derm, imagine not using your real name!

Octo you might as well beat your head off a brick wall, Ken often changes his forecast.