NZ guy who predicts weather

doleman2010

Kenring wrote: »

But I did forecast the cold beginning to winter. I also said the whole season could be milder than winter last year. The averages are already coming up.
This thread has become a complete and unkind witchhunt. I ask the moderators to close it before damage is done.

I am sorry Ken but from you website:
re Nov

flurries from the 23rd to 25th

Absolutely no mention of cold after that
So that suggested 3 days of cool weather then mild after that. Obviously what you posted above is not what was in your winter forecast at all.

Did you have another forecast you mentioned the cold for the las week of November or did you just make that up?

Kenring

Dave! wrote: »

I can't say I know much about gravitational physics, so will let that point rest, but what about astrology? There's several quotes from you on the link I posted earlier -- assuming they're correct, how do you justify integrating such a silly belief system into your work? It seems very unscientific

Astrology was the initial science. Newton was an astrologer. All science evolved from astrology, even medicine and astronomy. Astrology was about measurement, basically employing the moon, which is so clockwork it loses just 10 seconds per year. What is called astrology these days is only the leftovers of what astrology was. It was not a belief system but a measuring system. Christianity is a belief system, and the modern religion of global warming/climate change.

Kenring

doleman2010 wrote: »

I am sorry Ken but from you website:
re Nov


Absolutely no mention of cold after that
So that suggested 3 days of cool weather then mild after that. Obviously what you posted above is not what was in your winter forecast at all.

Did you have another forecast you mentioned the cold for the las week of November or did you just make that up?

Well, here's one example, there are others too
17 October from my website
"What we have in the last days of November is the Northern declination of 23rd combining with a full moon, and speeding up as perigee approaches ..as soon as the perigee is over,..and the moon crosses over to the south, if the theory is correct then conditions should become less severe...these and a third interval in mid-March 2011 should be the coldest periods of winter."

doleman2010

Kenring wrote: »

Well, here's one example, there are others too
17 October from my website
"What we have in the last days of November is the Northern declination of 23rd combining with a full moon, and speeding up as perigee approaches ..as soon as the perigee is over,..and the moon crosses over to the south, if the theory is correct then conditions should become less severe...these and a third interval in mid-March 2011 should be the coldest periods of winter."

So you put out several different forecasts to have a greater chance of being right?

if the theory is correct then conditions should become less severe

Well it didnt get less severe so does that mean you have just admitted the 'theory' is not correct?

Dave!

Kenring wrote: »

Astrology was the initial science. Newton was an astrologer. All science evolved from astrology, even medicine and astronomy. Astrology was about measurement, basically employing the moon, which is so clockwork it loses just 10 seconds per year. What is called astrology these days is only the leftovers of what astrology was. It was not a belief system but a measuring system. Christianity is a belief system, and the modern religion of global warming/climate change.

Phrenology was ahead of modern neuroscience, but we no longer feel the bumps on a person's head to determine psychological attributes -- we've moved past that. Doesn't matter that Newton was an astrologer (that's disputed anyway), he was an alchemist too, you think that's a legitimate pursuit also? Name dropping is meaningless, it's the science that matters.

Kenring

doleman2010 wrote: »

So you put out several different forecasts to have a greater chance of being right?
Well it didnt get less severe so does that mean you have just admitted the 'theory' is not correct?

It doesn't matter what I post, people do not read what I wrote, preferring to make up their own versions. I can repeat till the cows come home, to no avail. Claiming I put out different forecasts is an example, how ridiculous.
It has become less severe or it hasn't. You are saying it didn't get less severe. But I said January would stay cold, which it has done, so you agree. I said it would get milder around Xmas, which it did.

Su Campu

Yet again the man finds himself out of his depth and now looks for the moderators to tag him by closing the thread. He is now the very self-proclaimed censor he accused me of being.

Any two objects, regardless of their mass, will exert a gravitational force between one another, WHETHER THEY ARE MOVING OR NOT. It's simple physics.

Force = G[Mm]/R²

G=Gravitational Constant.
M = Mass of largeer object
m = Mass of smaller body
R = distance between the two centress of gravity.

It applies to melons, Mondeos, apples on a tree, hats on a head......

Kenring

Dave! wrote: »

Phrenology was ahead of modern neuroscience, but we no longer feel the bumps on a person's head to determine psychological attributes -- we've moved past that. Doesn't matter that Newton was an astrologer (that's disputed anyway), he was an alchemist too, you think that's a legitimate pursuit also? Name dropping is meaningless, it's the science that matters.

So I suppose chemistry is not a science because it evolved from alchemy, which you consider wasn't a science. Tell us all then, what was a non-astrological science 300 years ago?, because all pursuits invoked astrology at some level. The word science merely means study.
I don't hold phrenology to be of value, but some might. I wouldn't scorn them, I just wouldn't go to a parctitioner. I don't think in a free society anyone has the right to self-elect themsleves to the moral highground.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Yet again the man finds himself out of his depth and now looks for the moderators to tag him by closing the thread. He is now the very self-proclaimed censor he accused me of being.

Any two objects, regardless of their mass, will exert a gravitational force between one another, WHETHER THEY ARE MOVING OR NOT. It's simple physics.

Force = G[Mm]/R²

G=Gravitational Constant.
M = Mass of largeer object
m = Mass of smaller body
R = distance between the two centress of gravity.

It applies to melons, Mondeos, apples on a tree, hats on a head......

It also then applies to the moon and the earth, and the moon and everything on the earth, which includes the atmosphere, a body of fluid weighing 5 million billion tons, with 10x the amount of water in it than all the world's rivers.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

It also then applies to the moon and the earth, and the moon and everything on the earth, which includes the atmosphere, a body of fluid weighing 5 million billion tons, with 10x the amount of water in it than all the world's rivers.

Correct.

But you still didn't forecast the record December cold.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Yet again the man finds himself out of his depth and now looks for the moderators to tag him by closing the thread. He is now the very self-proclaimed censor he accused me of being.
......

Yes, this is a witchhunt. It is serving no useful purpose except to bring discredit to boards.ie. No matter what I say, the bullies want to put the boot in.
I notice even a moderator has now joined in, the last straw. Moderators please close this thread.

doleman2010

Ah here, this is going nowhere, close the thread. 15 pages and nobodies question has been answered in a straight forward way yet.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Correct.

But you still didn't forecast the record December cold.

I never claimed that I did.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

Yes, this is a witchhunt. It is serving no useful purpose except to bring discredit to boards.ie. No matter what I say, the bullies want to put the boot in.
I notice even a moderator has now joined in, the last straw. Moderators please close this thread.

Not bullies, just people who are stating fact, and you don't like it.

Kenring

doleman2010 wrote: »

Ah here, this is going nowhere, close the thread. 15 pages and nobodies question has been answered in a straight forward way yet.

I agree. It is purely vindictive. Please close it.

Scubadevils

Kenring wrote: »

Yes, this is a witchhunt. It is serving no useful purpose except to bring discredit to boards.ie. No matter what I say, the bullies want to put the boot in.
I notice even a moderator has now joined in, the last straw. Moderators please close this thread.

I certainly don't see any bullying and a moderator has as much right to debate a subject like any other member.

thetonynator

Su Campu wrote: »

Yet again the man finds himself out of his depth and now looks for the moderators to tag him by closing the thread. He is now the very self-proclaimed censor he accused me of being.

Any two objects, regardless of their mass, will exert a gravitational force between one another, WHETHER THEY ARE MOVING OR NOT. It's simple physics.

Force = G[Mm]/R²

G=Gravitational Constant.
M = Mass of largeer object
m = Mass of smaller body
R = distance between the two centress of gravity.

It applies to melons, Mondeos, apples on a tree, hats on a head......

And here was me wondering why the garden furniture was in orbit around the house . . . .:P
:cool:

steveLFC24

I've read every post in this thread, no bullying going on here. Just people giving their opinions on somebodies work and idea's, as well as asking for explanations and facts on this. Pretty valid if you ask me, but I'm not involved in this argument and have already posted my thoughts a few pages back so I will leave it at that.

jamesoc

Kenring wrote: »

Yes, this is a witchhunt. It is serving no useful purpose except to bring discredit to boards.ie. No matter what I say, the bullies want to put the boot in.
I notice even a moderator has now joined in, the last straw. Moderators please close this thread.

Us bullies , now that makes a change .
Settle all this now , discuss The carlow forecast , stop skulking behind copyright

jamesoc

Kenring wrote: »

I agree. It is purely vindictive. Please close it.

LOL , a first class lesson in twisting the obvious id say here

I will be issuing my weather prediction for 2011 in a few hours time , so tune in later , of course if it is hopelessly wrong i can and will claim ''intellectual copyright'' , lol .

Came across this one recently , have a look http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/kiwi-weatherman-offers-ray-of-summer-sunshine-2043447.html

Deep Easterly

Ah, ya godda laugh... :pac:

doleman2010

From the independant article:

He claims that surveys on his weather predictions are showing an overall accuracy of more than 85pc.

I tought Ken made no claims of accuarcy?

jamesoc

No seriously lads , i have just consulted a steaming pile of bull droppings and i will put on my silly felt hat later at moonrise and issue the weather for all of this year :eek: , and you sops can take it or leave it , anything less than 84.9% inaccuracy and i will claim this thingy ''diplomatic immunity'' oh sorry i meant ''intellectual copyright'' .

doleman2010

jamesoc wrote: »

No seriously lads , i have just consulted a steaming pile of bull droppings and i will put on my silly felt hat later at moonrise and issue the weather for all of this year :eek: , and you sops can take it or leave it , anything less than 84.9% inaccuracy and i will claim this thingy ''diplomatic immunity'' oh sorry i meant ''intellectual copyright'' .

You might want lay off on the personal stuff, if we keep it to facts only the debate will be more constructive.

annieire

Mmmh sure he can...when pigs can fly

I like the fact that its not a negative story but c'mon!

jamesoc

doleman2010 wrote: »

You might want lay off on the personal stuff, if we keep it to facts only the debate will be more constructive.

Excuse me , where did i mention this 'personal stuff' ?, did i mention someone's name ?, who am i attacking iyo ? how do you know i didnt do as i said ? , its a free country .

If you want constructive debate persuade Ring to join it , lets debate his carlow forecast for 2010 for starters

OfficeStuff

jamesoc wrote: »

Excuse me , where did i mention this 'personal stuff' ?, did i mention someone's name ?, who am i attacking iyo ? how do you know i didnt do as i said ? , its a free country .

Mods - FFS - can we please not have this thread closed? We're interested in the weather, not in this sort of slanging match that has already taken up pages and pages in a similar thread...

jamesoc

Another humorous debate on his methods/forecasts from netweather

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/33985-ken-rings-winter-forecast/

Theres loads of this sort of record on the net , negative and positive , the positive ones are scarce though .

jamesoc

OfficeStuff wrote: »

Mods - FFS - can we please not have this thread closed? We're interested in the weather, not in this sort of slanging match that has already taken up pages and pages in a similar thread...

A debate about weather indeed , so whats your point ?.

jamesoc

Another opinion here .http://theatavism.blogspot.com/2010/11/ken-ring-can-predict-weather.html

and here http://ballyhaunis.blogs.ie/2010/12/01/ken-ring-winter-2010-2011-prediction/