Ken Ring on the radio.

Kenring

Tornando9 wrote: »

You started the joke by coming on here in the first place i just added to it.

So..it's okay to flame someone by naming hum in a thread, then proceed to mercilessly diss his work, but it's not okay to respond in kind. Not a level playing field.

K_1

Kenring wrote: »

I think people have short memories. 2011 summer was cold at times, 2010 was average sometimes very wet but mostly okay June and July, 2009 was a wet one but not as much as 2010, 2008 was hot at start of June and end of July only, 2007 was very dry, and 2006 was a really amazingly good summer. So just like every other country there is quite a variation if you want to look at all the years.

In comparison to average, yes they were as described. However in general, average in very poor summer weather! (except 06 obviously!)

Kenring

K_1 wrote: »

In comparison to average, yes they were as described. However in general, average in very poor summer weather! (except 06 obviously!)

1995 seems to have been okay, also 2003. It's a 9-10 yr turnaround, which is why I think next year's will be a nice hot summer.

gufnork

Kenring wrote: »

1995 seems to have been okay, also 2003. It's a 9-10 yr turnaround, which is why I think next year's will be a nice hot summer.

Damnit... I really hope not. I hate hot summers. The best weather I ever experienced was in the SE of England in Essex years ago when the sky literally turned black all over and forked lightening lit across the sky. It was amazing. Never seen weather like it before or since, more's the pity.

K_1

Kenring wrote: »

1995 seems to have been okay, also 2003. It's a 9-10 yr turnaround, which is why I think next year's will be a nice hot summer.

95-03 is 8 years.
03-06 is 3 years.
06-13 is 7 years.

Anyway, if weather was on a repeating cycle it wouldn't be hard to predict! The complete failure of long term forecasting in general as a 'science' shows that it is in fact hard to predict.

Danno

Kenring wrote: »

... We see the same claims with global warmers who say it is a fact that all scientists agree with them, it is a fact that sealevels are rising, all without any evidence presented. The only fact is that they are too lazy to do some real empirical legwork...

Well said re: Global Warmers!

Kenring

K_1 wrote: »

95-03 is 8 years.
03-06 is 3 years.
06-13 is 7 years.

Anyway, if weather was on a repeating cycle it wouldn't be hard to predict! The complete failure of long term forecasting in general as a 'science' shows that it is in fact hard to predict.

Yes it is hard to predict, which is why I never predict. I point to a pattern and ask the reader to accept or not that the pattern may be relevant. It's always all about potential, nothing more. Some take it to heart and make use of the information, and some think predictions are anti-Christian and look for someone to burn. I can't please everyone.

I see my job as longrange forecaster, so it is my job to warn. If I didn't, I'd also be blamed for staying quiet. I say it as I find it. I am only speaking to those who wish to hear my views. If I made predictions I would use the word "will happen". You will not find that in my work, although one may slip in by accident. I do not ever and would not ever set myself up as God. I say "may", "might", "is likely", "is possible" etc.

Particular weather trends, to be strictly correct, are not on the repeating cycle, but the potential for it is. It is the same with the tides. There are conditions that always bring about a certain potential, like the current northern declination moon happening today usually brings a cold snap. A full moon at southern declination will cause a temperature rise.

I am certainly not claiming the method is 100% correct, but we shouldn't expect it. But that is not a reason to throw it all out. The point is, if some find it useful then it is worthwhile.

People differ on what 'science' means. No one can ram their definition down the throat of another. There is sports science, Christian science, food science, scientology and weird science. The term is very loose these days. The word just means study. Today's "scientists" as we witnessed in ClimateGate, are largely, due to the funding process, just servants of the political masters who pay their wages. Ever since the Industrial Revolution science has increasingly became product and profit oriented, and less about pure knowledge and truth.

There's nothing wrong with that because we live in a consumer world, but there is more money to be made in NOT having a good weather prediction method, not that they deliberately get things wrong. But no one is going to throw buckets of money at meteorologists who keep getting things right all the time. They only qualify for funding by making out a case for the need for newer flasher equipment, computer upgrades and more teams of staff in order to "improve" services. The arrival of more staff wedges the claimants into higher salaried supervisor roles. So why wouldn't you?

Su Campu

Ken, please, you say you don't predict, and yet your website is called predictweather.co.nz!!! But anyway, they are one and the same thing

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forecast

Forecast:
a : to calculate or predict (some future event or condition) usually as a result of study and analysis of available pertinent data; especially : to predict (weather conditions) on the basis of correlated meteorological observations
b : to indicate as likely to occur

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict

Predict:
to declare or indicate in advance; especially foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

It is through statements like that that you shoot yourself in the foot. I do agree though with a lot of what you said AFTER those first two paragraphs though....

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Ken, please, you say you don't predict, and yet your website is called predictweather.co.nz!!! But anyway, they are one and the same thing

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forecast



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predict



It is through statements like that that you shoot yourself in the foot. I do agree though with a lot of what you said AFTER those first two paragraphs though....

No one can say what predict means universally. Yes, my website is predictweather because I am suggesting weather prediction - by the reader! Words are not as efficient across the board as we would like them to be. For instance 'rain' can mean light drizzle, heavy downpours or as meteorologist say "the rain stayed away". That means it just meant potential.

I may say "I predict Labour will win". It doesn't mean anything beyond an opinion. It is not soothsaying, voodoo or snake oil. Millions do that before an election. They are not called Evil Con-men Satanists. So what if the weather man says I predict it will rain? Just opinion, nothing more.

No, I don't shoot myself in the foot, you do when you claim I say or mean something when I don't. Having decided on what I say, some then attack that, not realsing they are attacking what they have made up. It may be far and removed from what I said or meant.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

No one can say what predict means universally. Yes, my website is predictweather because I am suggesting weather prediction - by the reader! Words are not as efficient across the board as we would like them to be. For instance 'rain' can mean light drizzle, heavy downpours or as meteorologist say "the rain stayed away". That means it just meant potential.

I may say "I predict Labour will win". It doesn't mean anything beyond an opinion. It is not soothsaying, voodoo or snake oil. Millions do that before an election. They are not called Evil Con-men Satanists. So what if the weather man says I predict it will rain? Just opinion, nothing more.

No, I don't shoot myself in the foot, you do when you claim I say or mean something when I don't. Having decided on what I say, some then attack that, not realsing they are attacking what they have made up. It may be far and removed from what I said or meant.

So hang on - the READER is doing the forecasting now, not you??

If you keep on digging Ken you'll soon pop out of the ground here!!! Contradiction after contradiction. Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time on this thread.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

So hang on - the READER is doing the forecasting now, not you??

If you keep on digging Ken you'll soon pop out of the ground here!!! Contradiction after contradiction. Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time on this thread.

YES! You have got it. The first paragraph in any of my books says "from this method the reader can predict.."
We all predict from available information. That's why we seek information, and that's how we live our lives, predicting when to cross the road safely etc. It doesn't make every road-crosser a con man.

mickger844posts

Personally i think this thread should be locked up. We have been here before with Ken Ring and it always ends up the same way. Its a little bit tiresome now and doesn't serve any real purpose in the Weather Forum.

Kenring

mickger844posts wrote: »

Personally i think this thread should be locked up. We have been here before with Ken Ring and it always ends up the same way. Its a little bit tiresome now and doesn't serve any real purpose in the Weather Forum.

Well whose fault is that? Do you think it is only fair to have a slanging match at me, and when I start to reply the thread gets closed? What does that say about the members? How about discussion thread that keeps personalities out of it? Not shooting the messenger anymore. They did witch-hunting in the past in the belief it would purify the soul. Surely we have moved on from that.

Kenring

How about those who wish to stay and discuss weather, do so, and those who don't like swapping notes with me depart? Or do one or two rule for all here?

Rougies

Su Campu wrote: »

If you keep on digging Ken you'll soon pop out of the ground here!!!

mickger844posts wrote: »

Personally i think this thread should be locked up. We have been here before with Ken Ring and it always ends up the same way. Its a little bit tiresome now and doesn't serve any real purpose in the Weather Forum.

I disagree that this thread should be locked. I agree it's tiresome, but the more he is challenged by people, the more likely people will realise what he's about. He's pretty clever with words. Quite impressive really. Just a pity he's not using that talent for more positive things.

Anyway I'm done with this thread too. I've been over in the tabletennis forum waiting for a reply for two days and nothing

Beware the curveball folks!

Kenring

Rougies wrote: »

I disagree that this thread should be locked. I agree it's tiresome, but the more he is challenged by people, the more likely people will realise what he's about. He's pretty clever with words. Quite impressive really. Just a pity he's not using that talent for more positive things.

Anyway I'm done with this thread too. I've been over in the tabletennis forum waiting for a reply for two days and nothing

Beware the curveball folks!

I would have thought a forum is a place where people could express their viewpoints, ideas, theories, predictions without someone threatening to close it. Those who have none of the above usually end up attacking personalities. If there is no discussion the forum will of itself die anyway. I would say let the marketplace decide. Some forums stay open for years, with only occasional attendances.

Why do people announce they are leaving as if it is a threat because things have not gone as they would have liked, i.e. me not responding. Why not just stop participating and go and quietly do something else?

I will predict one thing though. Each person who says they are leaving will soon be back to comment again. Their statements portray that this to them is an itch they can't reach to scratch.

Deep Easterly

Kenring wrote: »

Today's "scientists" as we witnessed in ClimateGate, are largely, due to the funding process, just servants of the political masters who pay their wages. Ever since the Industrial Revolution science has increasingly became product and profit oriented, and less about pure knowledge and truth.

There's nothing wrong with that because we live in a consumer world

I think it would be very wrong if any body or group were being paid to spin a lie, or at least the truth, solely to profit from it, regardless of what political or social ideology it was done under.

Notwithstanding that, do you think Ken that the idea of climate change is purely a profit making exercise? I am as cynical as the next person about the proposed causes of the recent warming trend but outside of that, one thing that cannot be denied is that global temperatures are on the rise. The data is readily available out there for anybody who wishes to research this.

Kenring

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I think it would be very wrong if any body or group were being paid to spin a lie, or at least the truth, solely to profit from it, regardless of what political or social ideology it was done under.

Notwithstanding that, do you think Ken that the idea of climate change is purely a profit making exercise? I am as cynical as the next person about the proposed causes of the recent warming trend but outside of that, one thing that cannot be denied is that global temperatures are on the rise. The data is readily available out there for anybody who wishes to research this.

I can find no evidence that there are global temperatures when one half of the world are in winter, the other half in summer, one half in daytime the other half in darkness, and this changes by the second. If global temperatures do not exist therefore there can be no evidence that anything is on any rise.

It is like arguing over how many fairies can dance on the point of the needle. If there was funding available for that we would get as many answers as there are scientists. That's why there is no agreement now among scientists. The funded researchers say they have a figure and the unfunded say it is rubbish.

So please supply the data you say is available. I have found none, and I have been searching for 16 years. That is the length of time I have had my website going. It was the first in the country to deny the claims of the global warmers.

On the other hand there is plenty of data about the funding, and the way Maggie Thatcher made it available so that her "science" servants could come up with spurious figures about atmospheric warming/pollution to justify her smashing of the coal industry, so she could (1) deal a blow to unions and (2) bring nuclear power to Britain to pay off Dupont and Shell for their campaign donations in helping her to win the election.

Money, taxes and political advantage are behind all of global warming. If you want a balanced picture just google the opposites of what you have been told. Google sealevels dropping, glaciers advancing, Arctic ice expanding, globe heading for Ice Age, etc. Then you will be qualified to say you have a balanced viewpoint. But if you are employed by government then you will unavoidably have a bias.

Danno

Hi folks,

I have occasionally taken a peek at this and other similar threads and to be fair to Ken, he is getting a very nasty backlash and I feel it's unwarranted.

Personally, I have looked at his forecasts and it's fair to say they are rather inaccurate. I will not take issue with him personally over it. I will just vote with my wallet and not purchase again!

I think Ken should be applauded for his attempt to have a go at forecasting - it's by trying different methods that we stumble across new discoveries etc... on the flip-side Ken should though be humble enough to put his hands-up when he gets it wrong.

But I will agree with him re: Global Warming and the "debate" that surrounds that. Perhaps a different thread for that? "Ken Ring on Climate Change" could make a very interesting read.

Kenring

Danno wrote: »

Hi folks,

I have occasionally taken a peek at this and other similar threads and to be fair to Ken, he is getting a very nasty backlash and I feel it's unwarranted.

Personally, I have looked at his forecasts and it's fair to say they are rather inaccurate. I will not take issue with him personally over it. I will just vote with my wallet and not purchase again!

I think Ken should be applauded for his attempt to have a go at forecasting - it's by trying different methods that we stumble across new discoveries etc... on the flip-side Ken should though be humble enough to put his hands-up when he gets it wrong.

But I will agree with him re: Global Warming and the "debate" that surrounds that. Perhaps a different thread for that? "Ken Ring on Climate Change" could make a very interesting read.

Fair comment.
The work is 80-85% accurate, same as all metservices. All forecasting error is about 50 miles radius and 1-2 days grace either side. Some have unreal expectations and wish for exact weather for exact days, rather than allowing the leeway.
But exactness is never claimed by me, and I am not alone amongst the sciences. If you go to a doctor with a condition he may prescribe something, with the comment that 'it may clear up tomorrow or in a couple of days'. He may even add 'give it a week and if it hasn't cleared up by then come back and see me and we'll try something else'. But if I was to say those exact words people call it inaccurate and something of a con. It seems there is one rule for the doctor and another for me.
And yet longrange forecasting is about trends, not particular days, although points of focus are employed.
I do like to know when I am wrong because it helps to hone. It also allows for explanations of interpretation which may have been misunderstood. I also expect other metservices to be as accountable, to set a standard, and I expect those who complain about me to also write similar notes to Met Eirann when they err. After all, the taxpayer pays their wages and that's only fair.
As for a climate change thread, sure, let someone start it and I'll contribute. cheers

Trogdor

Kenring wrote: »

I can find no evidence that there are global temperatures when one half of the world are in winter, the other half in summer, one half in daytime the other half in darkness, and this changes by the second. If global temperatures do not exist therefore there can be no evidence that anything is on any rise.

Well obviously no one person is going to notice the differences on a day to day basis of a warming of say 0.2C over 20 years spread unevenly over the entire globe, that ties back in to the differences between weather and climate again.

Kenring wrote: »

It is like arguing over how many fairies can dance on the point of the needle. If there was finding available for the that we would get as many answers as there are scientists. That's why there is no agreement now among scientists. The funded researchers say they have a figure and the unfunded say it is rubbish.

I don't think the warming itself is disputed by many scientists any more, it is just the cause of the warming. I too would question just how much of the warming could be attributed to man-made effects.

Kenring wrote: »

So please supply the data you say is available. I have found none, and I have been searching for 16 years. That is the length of time I have had my website going. It was the first in the country to deny the claims of the global warmers.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for but there's a nice graph at the top of this page showing the warming trend from 4 of the big met/climate agencies.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48574

Trogdor

I'm going to leave this thread open until this evening for anyone who has anything left to add. I'm not closing it as part of a "witch-hunt" I just don't see the purpose of the thread while we already have a summer 2012 thread. Discussions have now moved onto climate change which does not relate to either of the threads. I would welcome you to post any of your forecasts in the future in any long-range forecast thread with the other forecasters (as long as there's no advertising etc., and i know you were good about removing it promptly last week).

I think that the reception that you've received has been a bit harsh Ken, based solely on what you have posted here. I think a lot of the hostility stems from the fact that you make money from your forecasts and distribute them to the public with no real verified (or even necessary) standard of accuracy. Just like you are skeptical about global warming, others too are skeptical about your forecasts and forecasting methodology. And again like the different theories in global warming it's not fair to dismiss any one unfairly. Your forecasts are just as valid as any other long range forecasts made here in my eyes, but long range forecasting is not an exact science at all and no one can be expected to get it right all the time (or even a significant amount of the time). I think what gets to some people is that you are selling forecasts which by their own nature will be wrong quite often. But if people still wish to pay for these type of forecasts then I'd be inclined to let them at it.

Anyway, I'll be leaving the thread open a few more hours and then locking it up.

Kenring

Trogdor wrote: »

I'm going to leave this thread open until this evening for anyone who has anything left to add. I'm not closing it as part of a "witch-hunt" I just don't see the purpose of the thread while we already have a summer 2012 thread. Discussions have now moved onto climate change which does not relate to either of the threads. I would welcome you to post any of your forecasts in the future in any long-range forecast thread with the other forecasters (as long as there's no advertising etc., and i know you were good about removing it promptly last week).

I think that the reception that you've received has been a bit harsh Ken, based solely on what you have posted here. I think a lot of the hostility stems from the fact that you make money from your forecasts and distribute them to the public with no real verified (or even necessary) standard of accuracy. Just like you are skeptical about global warming, others too are skeptical about your forecasts and forecasting methodology. And again like the different theories in global warming it's not fair to dismiss any one unfairly. Your forecasts are just as valid as any other long range forecasts made here in my eyes, but long range forecasting is not an exact science at all and no one can be expected to get it right all the time (or even a significant amount of the time). I think what gets to some people is that you are selling forecasts which by their own nature will be wrong quite often. But if people still wish to pay for these type of forecasts then I'd be inclined to let them at it.

Anyway, I'll be leaving the thread open a few more hours and then locking it up.

Well this was expected because it happened last time. Perhaps moderators might realise that hosting a thread with someone's name on it is bound to attract that person sooner or later to make their comment, especially if their name, reputation and ability to earn a living is under attack. Then when discussion ensues you step in to close it? Doesn't make sense, unless a sensitive nerve is touched. What is anyone afraid of? Genuine question. Can't people make up their own minds whether or not to participate here, without the threat of closure if any decide not to speak ill of me?

Kenring

Trogdor wrote: »

Well obviously no one person is going to notice the differences on a day to day basis of a warming of say 0.2C over 20 years spread unevenly over the entire globe, that ties back in to the differences between weather and climate again.

I don't think the warming itself is disputed by many scientists any more, it is just the cause of the warming. I too would question just how much of the warming could be attributed to man-made effects.

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for but there's a nice graph at the top of this page showing the warming trend from 4 of the big met/climate agencies.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=48574

You call 0.2C over 20 years a warming? Every DAY there is a variation of at least 10C and no one calls that anything except normality.

The warming is disputed by millions of scientists world wide. Ask ANY geologist if we are heading for an Ice Age or another Interglacial.

Your linked graph shows a less-than-one-degree warming in 130 years. It is about what is expected through natural variation over centuries. I'm asking for evidence, not a computerised invented graph. There is no verified weather temperature data from 130 years ago, sorry.

Trogdor

Kenring wrote: »

Well this was expected because it happened last time. Perhaps moderators might realise that hosting a thread with someone's name on it is bound to attract that person sooner or later to make their comment, especially if their name, reputation and ability to earn a living is under attack. Then when discussion ensues you step in to close it? Doesn't make sense, unless a sensitive nerve is touched. What is anyone afraid of? Genuine question. Can't people make up their own minds whether or not to participate here, without the threat of closure if any decide not to speak ill of me?

If calm and well presented arguments were being issued from both sides then i'd have no problem letting the thread continue. However, personal arguments and hostility between posters which has been seen from both sides is not what i want to foster on this forum and has no place here.

As i said I have no problem with you posting your forecasts here, and i would actually encourage it if you choose to stay. But the arguments about your forecasting are not going to be resolved in this thread and the hostile approach and sniping remarks being made in this thread have nothing to do with the weather and are not what this forum is about.

Kenring

Deep Easterly wrote: »

I think it would be very wrong if any body or group were being paid to spin a lie, or at least the truth, solely to profit from it, regardless of what political or social ideology it was done under.

Notwithstanding that, do you think Ken that the idea of climate change is purely a profit making exercise? I am as cynical as the next person about the proposed causes of the recent warming trend but outside of that, one thing that cannot be denied is that global temperatures are on the rise. The data is readily available out there for anybody who wishes to research this.

Goodness me, where have you been? Every politician tells lies, and every advertiser!! AND they all get paid for it, and they all profit from it. Banks lie to attract investment, airlines often lie about services offered, police lie and it is called entrapment.
Yes, climate change is purely a profit making exercise.

Trogdor

Kenring wrote: »

You call 0.2C over 20 years a warming? Every DAY there is a variation of at least 10C and no one calls that anything except normality.

Yes. Again you are talking about dynamic day to day weather changes while i am refering to long time climate observations. There is a big difference.

Kenring wrote: »

The warming is disputed by millions of scientists world wide. Ask ANY geologist if we are heading for an Ice Age or another Interglacial.

I am currently studying geology as part of my degree and I would completely agree that we are inevitably heading for another ice age, but this is not in the same timescale as what is being predicted (i'm not saying what they predict is correct now) by climate change models. These predictions are for much smaller and short range changes in global average temperatures.

Kenring wrote: »

Your linked graph shows a less-than-one-degree warming in 130 years. It is about what is expected through natural variation over centuries. I'm asking for evidence, not a computerised invented graph. There is no verified weather temperature data from 130 years ago, sorry.

I am not disputing whether the warming is due to natural variations or otherwise just that it is an evident warming trend.
I will conceed that I have no link for the raw data at present and that obviously records get less reliable as you go further back.

Kenring

Trogdor wrote: »

If calm and well presented arguments were being issued from both sides then i'd have no problem letting the thread continue. However, personal arguments and hostility between posters which has been seen from both sides is not what i want to foster on this forum and has no place here.

As i said I have no problem with you posting your forecasts here, and i would actually encourage it if you choose to stay. But the arguments about your forecasting are not going to be resolved in this thread and the hostile approach and sniping remarks being made in this thread have nothing to do with the weather and are not what this forum is about.

I agree, and ask what is this forum about. Because I cannot understand why the negative comments about me were allowed to go three pages until I came on. I think both sides have heard your ultimatum.
I do pledge not to answer anyone's personal snipes and apologise if any members think I have gotten personal. But as I don't know anyone's name because of non de plumes, yet they know mine, it is hard to see who I may have offended. Nevertheless I shall comply.
Therefore any decision to close the thread will not be because of my henceforth behaviour. I only ever wished to explore Irish weather because that is how I learn more. There are obviously members here with good information to share.

Kenring

Trogdor wrote: »

Yes. Again you are talking about dynamic day to day weather changes while i am refering to long time climate observations. There is a big difference.


I am currently studying geology as part of my degree and I would completely agree that we are inevitably heading for another ice age, but this is not in the same timescale as what is being predicted (i'm not saying what they predict is correct now) by climate change models. These predictions are for much smaller and short range changes in global average temperatures.


I am not disputing whether the warming is due to natural variations or otherwise just that it is an evident warming trend.
I will conceed that I have no link for the raw data at present and that obviously records get less reliable as you go further back.

I would like to respond because they are good points being made. But the moderator (you) has ruled climate change discussion off topic. Until that ruling is changed I suggest we comply.

Joe Public

mickger844posts wrote: »

Personally i think this thread should be locked up. We have been here before with Ken Ring and it always ends up the same way. Its a little bit tiresome now and doesn't serve any real purpose in the Weather Forum.

Maybe some of the posters should be locked up:)

I agree it does become a bit tiresome and has a bit of a deja vu situation about it.

As long as marketing of products is kept out of the posts and discussion I don't see why we don't have a normal chat and bounce the different climate/weather views back and forth.

If our famous postman came on here would he get the same mud slinging? He has a book out - "Tuar na hAimsire" "Traditional Weather Signs"