Ken Rings Predictions/Weather methods discussion fourm,MOD NOTE FIRST POST !

Kenring

BillG wrote: »

Look up Henrik Svensmark, he did it for me

Good one Bill. That is very authorative.

SamAK

Akrasia wrote: »

An educated guess is a guess where you have very limited knowledge but can use it to eliminate some of the choices.

My understanding is that farmers are trying their best to make an educated guess on what the weather is going to do, and if Mr Ring's Almanac helps them to make a decision and eliminate some choices, what's the problem? There's never ever going to be 100% certainty anyway, regardless of source. It's all educated guesses, predictions, models and trends.

We know we don't know a lot of things, but what we don't know is just how much we don't know we don't know.

Kenring

Akrasia wrote: »

hold on, magnetic fields do not extend indefinitely into space, they are contained around the body that generates them

Mars and Venus don't even have a planetary magnetic field anymore.

The boundary of the magnetic field is called the Magnetopause and there is no way that any of the other planets magnetic field can ever interact with earth in order to affect our weather.

If you say so..
:rolleyes:
I happen to disagree. And I suppose you imagine that nothing beyond earth is responsible for earthquakes, and that the surface plates rattle and cause disturbances 400kms down, to come up again and part the same plates?

ninebeanrows

BillG wrote: »

Look up Henrik Svensmark, he did it for me

Last post 7 years ago and you popped up for this thread! :eek:

Akrasia

SamAK wrote: »

My understanding is that farmers are trying their best to make an educated guess on what the weather is going to do, and if Mr Ring's Almanac helps them to make a decision and eliminate some choices, what's the problem? There's never ever going to be 100% certainty anyway, regardless of source. It's all educated guesses, predictions, models and trends.

We know we don't know a lot of things, but what we don't know is just how much we don't know we don't know.

Farmers can make educated guesses all by themselves.

Problems may arise if some farmers manage to get convinced that some expert has reliably predicted the weather a year in advance, and they neglect appropriate contingency planning because they trust the long range forecast.

BillG

Weathercheck wrote: »

Last post 7 years ago and you popped up for this thread! :eek:

I only post when I have something to say

Akrasia

Kenring wrote: »

If you say so..
:rolleyes:
I happen to disagree. And I suppose you imagine that nothing beyond earth is responsible for earthquakes, and that the surface plates rattle and cause disturbances 400kms down, to come up again and part the same plates?

I am open minded when it comes to these things (believe it or not). I just need to see a plausible mechanism that could cause an effect and then research and evidence to support the theory.

Earthquakes are not fully understood yet, we have no way of predicting when an earthquake will occor, however, with computer models and statistical analysis we are slowly getting better at it.

It is plausible that the sun and the moon can exert forces on the earths crust which can influence earthquakes, but think that plate tectonic movements are mostly driven by internal processes within the earths core.

BillG

Popoutman wrote: »

Are there any proper statistical results to base your hypothesis that the planets affect Earth conditions and to what sigma are they confident? I'm not aware of any.

Just thought you may find this helpful, this is the first article that got me reading more on Svensmark's work

http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/1/1.18.full

This is a summary back in 2007. Since then the CLOUD experiment at the LHC has confirmed his hypothesis about seeding clouds. It very clearly demonstrates how the surrounding cosmos and our position in the cosmos could effect our climate. Milancovitch also suggests a correlation back in the 1930s and is also well worth reading.

BillG

Akrasia wrote: »

Earthquakes are not fully understood yet, we have no way of predicting when an earthquake will occor, however, with computer models and statistical analysis we are slowly getting better at it.
.

Strangely enough both Piers Corbyn and Ken Ring (bear in mind Ken lives in one of the worlds most siesmically active countries) have drawn attention to the effect of the moon and other (planetary) bodies on the earths tectonic plates and how earthquakes tend to happen during high gravitational influence from same. Piers Corbyn and Ken both forecasted the earthquake clusters of recent years though predicting exactly when and where they will occur is, as you say, not currently possible.

ch750536

As a modeller part of my job is to find patterns & influences. It's often the small touch that makes the big change.
To reverse the issue, do many here who question Ken's methods believe that removing the other planets would have no effect on our weather?

I certainly don't.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

As an astronomer you must be aware that all bodies in space exert an influence on each other, which includes the sun on the moon, the moon on the earth, and the moon on everything on the earth which includes the air. You must also be aware that there is an atmospheric tide, because Appleby and Weeks described it back in 1939. let that be your atarting point. You may have to go to another discipline to explore the electromagnetism of the cosmos, and the effects of the planets on the sun, producing the solar disturbances. Look up the solar barycentre and that will tell you how the planets affect the solar cycle.

As an astronomer with an engineering background I've got a very very good idea of the magnitudes of the forces involved, and that's where my incredulity at the idea of planets affecting local weather conditions on Earth. I don't see a mechanism how this is possible - and there hasn't been an adequately described hypothesis to support that. It's not enough to say "there's an effect possible" - the magnitude has to be calculated and compared, and seen if it is in the ballpark to have any effect.

Note that in my response above I clearly suggest that there are atmospheric lunar tides. That's not in question. I was however questioning the picking and choosing of the various multiple of the Metonic cycle - why some are chosen and others rejected, and the picking and choosing of the various multiples of the southern hemisphere oscillation with the longest periods that are chosen. That question wasn't answered.

I'm also pretty well read on EM through the solar system - hence my questioning about other possible mechanisms that have been stated in the past that could affect us here. None of the outer planets can affect Earth as the solar wind pushes their magnetic fields away. The inner planets don't have magnetic fields that would appreciably show up at the Earth's distance. None of the orbiting observatories have seen any effect, very strongly suggesting that any effect is negligible and as such can be ignored completely.

And as I stated above - there hasn't been any periodicity noted in such things as solar diameter, sunspot numbers, bolometric output, or solar wind speeds that have any basis in planetary orbital periods. That's why I asked by what mechanism that is possible. The movement involved in the solar barycentre hasn't been shown to have measurable effects on the Sun -the 12 year Jovian orbital period and the ~28 day Solar rotation spread out that movement such as to have little or no effect. None has been measured. The rate of change just isn't there. I have seen nowhere, where the solar barycentre has any bearing on any measurable Solar characteristic. The planets haven't been shown to cause any difference in any solar characteristic let alone any disturbances.

The concept of upper atmosphere ionisation for cloud formation is quite interesting (and it's a realistic and testable mechanism), and is one of the hypotheses linking solar output changes to mid- to long-term climate change. Doesn't do anything for immediate weather though.

I have no problems with various people making suggestions as to weather patterns due to atmospheric tides. I do have problems with pseudoscience being used to supplement that. Stating without any basis that the planets have effects on Earth is what makes that pseudoscience - if there is a mechanism that is testable and explainable, then it would become science. Until that happens, it's pseudoscience. At least the others that are researching this atmospheric tide method of long-term weather pattern forecasting are willing to make known the uncertainties involved. Plus those others are a lot more willing to engage effectively instead of antagonistically.

So, to reiterate my as-yet unanswered questions:
Why skip Metonic cycle multiples?
Why ignore other patterns known to exist in association with the 93 and 186 year periods?
What mechanism exists that can have an appreciable effect on Earth due to the other planets?
What mechanism exists that has been shown to have appreciable effects on the Sun's characteristics due to the planets?

Popoutman

ch750536 wrote: »

As a modeller part of my job is to find patterns & influences. It's often the small touch that makes the big change.
To reverse the issue, do many here who question Ken's methods believe that removing the other planets would have no effect on our weather?

I certainly don't.

I certainly do. I just don't see the mechanisms there that could do it.
There's more difference due to Lunar orbit changes than any tidal effect. Add to that the rates of change involved due to planetary motion - they would be too slow to have any magnitude here on Earth.

I well understand that small changes can effect great changes in the end when it comes to modelling, but there's a point that comes when the resolution of the models just don't allow the useful calculation of these negligible inputs.

The greatest planetary tide induced on the Earth is from Venus, and I've not seen any suggestions of 584 day periodicity in anything I've seen. It's at least 5 orders of magnitudes smaller than the Lunar tidal forces, a bit over 4 orders of magnitudes smaller than the Solar tidal forces. Planetary tidal forces are a lot less than the difference in Solar tidal forces due to the Earth's orbital eccentricity.

SamAK

ch750536 wrote: »

To reverse the issue, do many here who question Ken's methods believe that removing the other planets would have no effect on our weather?

As far as I can work out, the ONLY reason that there is any life whatsoever on this planet is because it has been shaped exclusively by outside forces. Universal forces.

Angular momentum, gravity, the solar winds.....it all seems to come from 'out there'.

All 92 natural chemical elements are synthesized by stars, science has known this for over 50 years. We are literally made of star dust.

So, the argument that we are perfectly isolated from the space outside our atmosphere and are not influenced by it in any is not an argument I can agree with whatsoever. If the universe created us, then it also must have created the processes which drive weather on the surface of planets.

I still don't quite understand how though. Reading up on gravitational waves now, interesting stuff.

relaxed

According to RTE weather just now we are going to be hit by a cold polar front this weekend, in August!!!

A far cry from kens prediction of dry and summery, with the whole month staying in the 20's.

Popoutman

Yeah, we are all star dust, and most of the interesting elements can only be synthesised in a supernova; most of our water is thought to have come from comets. However (keeping on-thread), I'm genuinely interested in seeing plausible methods by which the weather is affected by the planets.

Nabber

Keep it up Ken.

I like reading your forecasts/predictions. I don't see the problem. I don't plan my life around them, no more so than I'd plan around the GFS, UKMO ect. at +96hrs

If you get it wrong so what, we all get things wrong.

Keep at it. I respect how you have handled yourself on here considering some of the abuse you get. It's the weather FFS, he is not Eddie Hobbs, you wont lose your investment because it rained when Ken said it would snow. We should like star gazers who have a great time during stellar events, we should be having weather BBQ in the middle of a storms, not nitpicking...

loveta

Just looked through this post and there seems to be a anti ken ring bias on here for what ever the reason??
I have followed for free and paid for some of his stuff," because weather dictates my work", i take his predictions as trends, eg good spring/bad spring ect ect and then use the met eireann or bbc closer to the time to fine tune my days work and it works fine but every body gets it wrong some times as the saying goes "show me a man that never made a mistake and i will show you a man who never made anything"

waterways

loveta wrote: »

Just looked through this post and there seems to be a anti ken ring bias on here for what ever the reason??

I cannot see here an anti Ken Ring bias. It was the New Zealand Minister for ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) Nick Smith who said about Ken's predictions 2011 "mumbo-jumbo nonsense". http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nick-smith-ken-ring-offensive-should-be-held-account-ck-88242?page=1

Ken claims to guess right about 80-85%. David Winter has given some interesting thoughts on hits and misses, methods and probabilities of his earthquake predictions here: http://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2011/03/01/ken-ring-cant-predict-earthquakes-either/

Euan Mason said once sarcastically "Did you know that over 70% of all earthquakes occurred on days whose English names contained the letters s, y, d and a? Also, over 70% of all earthquakes occurred on days whose French names contained the letters e, i, and d!" http://euanmason.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/open-letter-to-tvnz.html

Kenring wrote: »

I did not predict anything for 7 August. I said there was potential for warmth then, as for other dates in August.

Kenring wrote: »

As for August, here are some extracts from my 2013 Ireland almanac. ...
For temperatures, the whole month should stay in the 20s, with some very warm days around 7th, 21st and 29th-31st.

He don't want to discuss his methods to avoid scientific proof. We have to accept that.

Kenring wrote: »

Firstly, I have not agreed to come on here offering insight to my methods.

Ken Ring's method seems to be vaticinium ex eventu and he is claiming to be only 10-15% inaccurate.

Kenring

waterways wrote: »

a)It was the New Zealand Minister for ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) Nick Smith who said about Ken's predictions 2011 "mumbo-jumbo nonsense".
b)Ken claims to guess right about 80-85%. David Winter has given some interesting thoughts on hits and misses, methods and probabilities of his earthquake predictions here:
c)He don't want to discuss his methods to avoid scientific proof. We have to accept that.

a) The government department Smith resides over (Department of Conservation) have not only used my services but employed me to give three public talks at their premises. Smith is a typical politician always seizing publicity.
b) David Winter has a phD in snail behaviour, he has not studied earthquakes. Go figure.
c)But this whole thread is discussing my methods. Actually you can't prove or disprove an opinion. Weather is not an empirical science and cannot be repeated in a lab. Results are highly subjective. What a groundsman might call a wet day because of a few isolated showers might be 'mostly dry' to a holidaymaker, and if windy, a 'perfect day' for a housewife hanging out washing.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

I certainly do. I just don't see the mechanisms there that could do it.
.

I think you may benefit from studying the Land or Earth Tide, in which NZ rises and falls about 20cms per day, Australia about 50cms per day, and the equator about 55cms. I would imagine Ireland to be about the same as NZ. The Land Tide is induced by the Moon acting on the electromagnetic field of earth which disturbs the inner core, the pressure of which results in the vertical movement within the land. It is why larger earthquakes occur when the Moon is in perigee.
What we call the sea tide is just the water changing levels as the bays expand and contract. A low seatide is a high tide in the land. There is only an average of 2-3km depth of water, compared to a few thousands of kms depth of land.
The declination of the Moon due to earth's tilt ensures huge volumes of water transferred between hemispheres, and with that the changing of barometric pressures.
The Sun also contributes to disturbing earth's electromagnetic field, and planets make tidal changes in the Sun. See solar system barycentre for this mechanism.

waterways

Ken, as I understand is this thread not for discussing the integrety of persons or their academic education and profession.

So back to methods.
If you agree that science needs mathematics then please explain me your figures.

Kenring wrote: »

I never say I am right all the time, only maybe 80-85%, which means about 10-15% inaccurate.

a) 100% - 80-85% = 10-15% ???

b) On what scientific proof do you base your percentage?

Kenring

waterways wrote: »

Ken, as I understand is this thread not for discussing the integrety of persons or their academic education and profession.

So back to methods.
If you agree that science needs mathematics then please explain me your figures.
a) 100% - 80-85% = 10-15% ???
b) On what scientific proof do you base your percentage?

Some give me 80%, some 85%, some 90%. This summer it is running very high. analysis is subjective, see my last posts.

waterways

Who is "some"?
Are there any analyses which can be read? Do you have links/sources for me?

Kenring

waterways wrote: »

Who is "some"?
Are there any analyses which can be read? Do you have links/sources for me?

Obviously the many people in Ireland that are repeat customers. Plus the newspapers who seem to think I have something worthwhile. Don't they count?

Popoutman

Not the answers to my questions, but I'll respond anyway.

Kenring wrote: »

The Land Tide is induced by the Moon acting on the electromagnetic field of earth which disturbs the inner core, the pressure of which results in the vertical movement within the land. It is why larger earthquakes occur when the Moon is in perigee.

To put it simply, you are wrong here. The Land Tide is exclusively a gravitational effect - there's absolutely *nothing* electromagnetic about it (unless you've managed to successfully come up with the grand unified theory..)
I haven't seen any literature remotely suggesting that the Earth's core has any direct influence on earthquakes. Now, movement in the upper mantle would be a realistic possibility. Also - the Eath's inner core is generally regarded as being solid and won't have any effects on the crust, but that's not that relevant given there are no significant magnetic effects due to the moon. Nevermind that it's the outer core that is understood to generate our magnetic field..

Kenring wrote: »

What we call the sea tide is just the water changing levels as the bays expand and contract. A low seatide is a high tide in the land. There is only an average of 2-3km depth of water, compared to a few thousands of kms depth of land.

I fear you misunderstand how tides work. If what you say is correct, how can you explain the tidal pattern in Cook Straight, in your home of NZ? In the centre of the straight, pretty much no tidal range, and the north of the straight has 2 tidal movements per ~day, where the south has only one tidal movement per ~day.
Tidal mechanics are a wee bit more complex than you state. Land tides are sometimes out of step with the sea tide - but it's not due to gravity. It's more due to the harmonics that cause the tidal patterns in the first place. If it were due to gravity, the sea would match the land as it is experiencing the exact same gravitational and tidal forces.
The bays themselves do not expand and contract. Their overall heights change as a whole when seen at non-continental scales - otherwise we'd see large-scale cracking and deformation on the rocks at the beach, with cracks that open and close in a correlation with the tides. Given we don't see these opening and closing cracks I can safely discount that portion of what you said.

Kenring wrote: »

The declination of the Moon due to earth's tilt ensures huge volumes of water transferred between hemispheres, and with that the changing of barometric pressures.

Central ocean tides are mostly <1m in height, and that difference in barometric pressure isn't exactly a driving force in the lower atmosphere. At least it hasn't been seen in the literature that I've had access to. It amounts to about 0.00012 bar difference but in practice is much less as the atmosphere moves up and down with the ocean surface, experiencing very little pressure difference There is very little if any relative movement due to ocean tides. Also there are significant areas in the ocean that have little to no appreciable tides - it's not like the whole ocean is moving at one tide. The variation in pressure due to sunlight effects is much greater than any tidal difference.

Kenring wrote: »

The Sun also contributes to disturbing earth's electromagnetic field, and planets make tidal changes in the Sun. See solar system barycentre for this mechanism.

You've named a mechanism, that I've already shown doesn't have the capability to have the effects you've stated. In all of the solar observing, there has *not* been any physical characteristic that has been measured, that corresponds to *any* planetary periodicity. The planets orbiting the Sun do not have any measurable effect on the Sun. Please explain what measured effects the planets have on the sun. If there's nothing to measure, then it's pretty certain that there's no significant effect.


All of this is still a bit of handwaving - my original questions still haven't been answered.

I'll repeat them here again for clarity:

1. Why skip Metonic cycle multiples?
2. Why ignore other patterns known to exist in association with the 93 and 186 year periods?
3. What mechanism exists that can have an appreciable effect on Earth due to the other planets?
4. What mechanism exists that has been shown to have appreciable effects on the Sun's characteristics due to the planets? ("Solar Barycentre" isn't the answer here as I've shown above)

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Obviously the many people in Ireland that are repeat customers.

People will also be repeat customers of psychics and astrologers - doesn't make those any more scientific.

Kenring wrote: »

Plus the newspapers who seem to think I have something worthwhile. Don't they count?

Amm... No

The Daily Star et.al. are not recognised peer-reviewed journals.
Published articles in a few of those peer-reviewed journal would certainly count.. Nature, the Journal of the American Meteorological Society - now analyses published there of all of the methods used by Ken would count.

(The atmospheric tides are not in question by me. My questions stand as above)

Akrasia

Kenring wrote: »

Obviously the many people in Ireland that are repeat customers. Plus the newspapers who seem to think I have something worthwhile. Don't they count?

Is that the best you've got?

relaxed

Kenring wrote: »

Plus the newspapers who seem to think I have something worthwhile. Don't they count?

Definitely not!

A newspaper will never refuse ink, and if an article about summer weather published in January fills column inches and sells copy then they will publish anything that sells.

The fact you seem to rely on newspaper articles and interviews with matt cooper as some sort of proof tells a lot.

Newspapers publish fortune tellers stories as well, does this mean we should all believe these too?

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

a)The Land Tide is exclusively a gravitational effect - there's absolutely *nothing* electromagnetic about it..
b)I haven't seen any literature remotely suggesting that the Earth's core has any direct influence on earthquakes.
c)I fear you misunderstand how tides work.
d)Land tides are sometimes out of step with the sea tide - but it's not due to gravity. It's more due to the harmonics that cause the tidal patterns in the first place. If it were due to gravity, the sea would match the land as it is experiencing the exact same gravitational and tidal forces.
e)The bays themselves do not expand and contract.
f)Central ocean tides are mostly <1m in height, and that difference in barometric pressure isn't exactly a driving force in the lower atmosphere. At least it hasn't been seen in the literature that I've had access to.
g)You've named a mechanism, that I've already shown doesn't have the capability to have the effects you've stated.
h)The planets orbiting the Sun do not have any measurable effect on the Sun. Please explain what measured effects the planets have on the sun. If there's nothing to measure, then it's pretty certain that there's no significant effect.

I honestly think you need to have more of an open mind. I successfully predicted all the next-largest shakes in Christchurch in 2011 which is what the huge fuss was about over here.

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/23856729753

(7 Sept. 2010 warning, re 22 Feb. shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/36763786807345152

(14 Feb 2011, re 22 Feb. shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/40745600471412736

(25 Feb. 2011, re 20 March shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/82445427944849408

(re 13 June shake)
So you have to ask, how did I manage that?
a) it sounds like you may not studied much about the electromagnetism of extraterrestrial bodies. I wouldn't deny something just because it was new to me.
b) Exactly. The literature is out there in droves.
c) Well, it forms the basis of my work, and my work seems to be successful.
d) the sea tide is monitored by coastal contour, but varies as a function of land mass. Mountain ranges move vertically more than plains. Speak to a surveyor and he will tell you how bridges allow for daily land tide tilt if a bridge spans from a rise to an estuary.
g) You haven't shown anything except your own bias.
h) I say there is measurable effect. So does astronomy. Think about what you are saying. You claim no body has an effect on another? How about the Sun and the Earth? Or is it that only some bodies have mutual effects on each other and not others? So who gets to decide which ones have effects on which others? You? Or are you tied to only that which technology can detect? Are you not aware that there are forces operating that we have not built instruments yet to detect?
I think this is a learning curve for many. I also think it was known much better by ancient peoples, and sites like the stone circles of Cork and Kerry, Drombeg, Knowth Maughanaclea, Reanasscreena, Stonehenge, New Grange etc were calculators operated by priest-astronomers thousands of years ago. I have surveyed many. They all align to the Moon. They all can be used today to work out longrange weather. Some years ago I wrote an instructional book about it for NZ schoolchildren.

Kenring

Akrasia wrote: »

Is that the best you've got?

I don't write for you, I write for my customers and those who find my work of use to their lives and livelihoods. My peers are farmers, not academics who sit in offices all day behind double glazing, whose idea of weather is usually that it is not something to go out in.

Kenring

relaxed wrote: »

Newspapers publish fortune tellers stories as well, does this mean we should all believe these too?

Interesting - so you think I am telling you what to believe? I would never dream of being so arrogant. Is it not that you are trying to suggest to other posters what not to believe?

MrDerp

Kenring wrote: »

I honestly think you need to have more of an open mind. I successfully predicted all the next-largest shakes in Christchurch in 2011 which is what the huge fuss was about over here.

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/23856729753

(7 Sept. 2010 warning, re 22 Feb. shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/36763786807345152

(14 Feb 2011, re 22 Feb. shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/40745600471412736

(25 Feb. 2011, re 20 March shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/82445427944849408

(re 13 June shake)
So you have to ask, how did I manage that?
a) it sounds like you may not studied much about the electromagnetism of extraterrestrial bodies. I wouldn't deny something just because it was new to me.
b) Exactly. The literature is out there in droves.
c) Well, it forms the basis of my work, and my work seems to be successful.
d) the sea tide is monitored by coastal contour, but varies as a function of land mass. Mountain ranges move vertically more than plains. Speak to a surveyor and he will tell you how bridges allow for daily land tide tilt if a bridge spans from a rise to an estuary.
g) You haven't shown anything except your own bias.
h) I say there is measurable effect. So does astronomy. Think about what you are saying. You claim no body has an effect on another? How about the Sun and the Earth? Or is it that only some bodies have mutual effects on each other and not others? So who gets to decide which ones have effects on which others? You? Or are you tied to only that which technology can detect? Are you not aware that there are forces operating that we have not built instruments yet to detect?
I think this is a learning curve for many. I also think it was known much better by ancient peoples, and sites like the stone circles of Cork and Kerry, Drombeg, Knowth Maughanaclea, Reanasscreena, Stonehenge, New Grange etc were calculators operated by priest-astronomers thousands of years ago. I have surveyed many. They all align to the Moon. They all can be used today to work out longrange weather. Some years ago I wrote an instructional book about it for NZ schoolchildren.

I hate to chime in on an active discussion, particularly one where I'm not up to speed with the technical content.

I am, however, schooled in programming (non-weather, non-earthquake) stochastic models. In this guise I would like to say, generally, that accurate predictions do not actually prove your hypothesis. You propose a number of factors effecting an outcome, but without seeing your relative weightings, and your experiments to balance those weightings, then we cannot see that you have truly measured the relative effects of each component in your model.

You say, for example, that the magnetic field of other planets is indirectly affecting the Earth. A quick google tells me that the largest planet, Jupiter has a magnetosphere which almost touches Saturn's orbit. Hmmm. But I am open minded, so I'll give you a pass.

So lets say for argument's sake make up an equation, and remember I'm coming from the method angle, not a knowledge of any advance science, and I'm assuming independent variables just to make a point:

P(Earthquake on Earth) = A(land tide) + B(solar energy) + C(intra-solarsystem magentic field interference/amplitude whatever)

If I came up with values for weighting constants A, B and C which gave me 4 accurate predictions on earth quakes, that doesn't prove that intra-solar magnetic field interference is a contributor to the probability of an earthquake on earth.

I would have to go and model/prove, through experimentation and resulting feedback, that the value of constant C is not, in fact 0. I can do this over time by experimenting for different values of the constants.

Now, all things considered, one can assume that there is a finite amount of historically accurate earthquake records, along with astronomical almanacs which can referenced, and indeed be computed as far back as you wish with a degree of confidence. Can one assume you base your hypothesis on these? Why not publish your workings for review by your peers? How did you come up with the value for C above? Can you be sure that confirmation bias for your theories hasn't clouded your judgement around correlation and causation?

Putting it simply, you may well be onto something, but you may have over/under-estimated how certain criteria affect your predictions.

I'm as open minded as the next guy, and for the record I think you're getting a rough ride here, as many predictors do. But I will ask you this, if you are so committed to helping humanity in predicting earthquake clusters, and helping farmers in planning their cycles, why don't you publish your data for scientific peer review?

Surely you could start a movement, others would cite you and take your work further? Mankind would benefit and be better prepared for what Nature throws. That is how science has progressed to the benefit of our society.

If Alexander Fleming lived in today's world, would he refer vaguely to the benefits of penicillin and put his results behind a paywall?

Kenring

MrDerp wrote: »

You propose a number of factors effecting an outcome, but without seeing your relative weightings, and your experiments to balance those weightings, then we cannot see that you have truly measured the relative effects of each component in your model.

Yes you are correct, I have come up with weighting systems, both for weather and earthquakes which I am honing all the time.
The variables for weather are lunar cycles, solar cycles, tides and planets as I have already described.
The variables for larger earthquakes are the same but with the addition of projected barometric pressures and weightings of particular planetary aspects e.g. for NZ, Earth-Merc-Sun.
Naturally I am not prepared to spill all my beans, particularly on a hostile forum such as this that has the threat of my being banned a continual reality, as it happened this year for 6 months and it is still hanging over me as threatened by mods barely a week ago.
I do recommend that this forum needs to decide what it wants, information or control, respect for ideas or encouragement of criticism of the messenger, and then we will all know where we stand.

MrDerp

Kenring wrote: »

Yes you are correct, I have come up with weighting systems, both for weather and earthquakes which I am honing all the time.
The variables for weather are lunar cycles, solar cycles, tides and planets as I have already described.
The variables for larger earthquakes are the same but with the addition of projected barometric pressures and weightings of particular planetary aspects e.g. for NZ, Earth-Merc-Sun.
Naturally I am not prepared to spill all my beans, particularly on a hostile forum such as this that has the threat of my being banned a continual reality, as it happened this year for 6 months and it is still hanging over me as threatened by mods barely a week ago.
I do recommend that this forum needs to decide what it wants, information or control, respect for ideas or encouragement of criticism of the messenger, and then we will all know where we stand.

To be fair, I don't think anyone expects you to explain all of your data on every forum you might post on - it hardly constitutes peer review.

I think what some do ask, however, is if you have any plans to ever publish your theory, experimental methods and results in the academic community?

Kenring

MrDerp wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think anyone expects you to explain all of your data on every forum you might post on - it hardly constitutes peer review.

I think what some do ask, however, is if you have any plans to ever publish your theory, experimental methods and results in the academic community?

The western academic community is a waste of time. It is not scientific enough anymore, but controlled by politicians, a function of the funding regime. There is therefore no peer review process in my field of study. Science has left the building and may not return in my lifetime. The focus is suppression because of taxation opportunities and climate change absurdity. I am working on a publication but when ready I shall probably approach eastern countries which are already researching in this field. I have already had expressions of interest.

kfk

Kenring wrote: »

I don't write for you, I write for my customers and those who find my work of use to their lives and livelihoods. My peers are farmers, not academics who sit in offices all day behind double glazing, whose idea of weather is usually that it is not something to go out in.

After having a quick search on the farming forum, it would appear that the majority of farmers are not so gullible. What makes you think that you are so popular among the farmers?

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

I honestly think you need to have more of an open mind. I successfully predicted all the next-largest shakes in Christchurch in 2011 which is what the huge fuss was about over here.

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/23856729753

(7 Sept. 2010 warning, re 22 Feb. shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/36763786807345152

(14 Feb 2011, re 22 Feb. shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/40745600471412736

(25 Feb. 2011, re 20 March shake)

https://twitter.com/kenringweather/status/82445427944849408

(re 13 June shake)
So you have to ask, how did I manage that?
a) it sounds like you may not studied much about the electromagnetism of extraterrestrial bodies. I wouldn't deny something just because it was new to me.
b) Exactly. The literature is out there in droves.
c) Well, it forms the basis of my work, and my work seems to be successful.
d) the sea tide is monitored by coastal contour, but varies as a function of land mass. Mountain ranges move vertically more than plains. Speak to a surveyor and he will tell you how bridges allow for daily land tide tilt if a bridge spans from a rise to an estuary.
g) You haven't shown anything except your own bias.
h) I say there is measurable effect. So does astronomy. Think about what you are saying. You claim no body has an effect on another? How about the Sun and the Earth? Or is it that only some bodies have mutual effects on each other and not others? So who gets to decide which ones have effects on which others? You? Or are you tied to only that which technology can detect? Are you not aware that there are forces operating that we have not built instruments yet to detect?
I think this is a learning curve for many. I also think it was known much better by ancient peoples, and sites like the stone circles of Cork and Kerry, Drombeg, Knowth Maughanaclea, Reanasscreena, Stonehenge, New Grange etc were calculators operated by priest-astronomers thousands of years ago. I have surveyed many. They all align to the Moon. They all can be used today to work out longrange weather. Some years ago I wrote an instructional book about it for NZ schoolchildren.

I'm not the one with the closed mind here it appears.

I asked for answers to 4 specific questions, and instead I get handwaved at with earthquake stuff - which is well off-thread and irrelevant. None of my points are being directly addressed.

Your questioning of my level of knowledge being questioned is unnecessary here - it's not my methodology being examined. I have shown that I have an understanding past the point where I can recognise deficiencies in your hypotheses or at least points that deserve further explanation. My points are valid and have not yet been addressed satisfactorily.

With the answers I'm reading here, there appears to be a deep either lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of the processes being looked at here by yourself Ken, and the future responses will be an opportunity to dispel that appearance. I'd like to see you show that you have proper understanding of the processes that you have stated have an effect on our weather, and unfortunately it hasn't happened yet.

Again I'll await direct responses to my short questions 1 through 4.
I'm not even sure where a) through h) are in my post. Care to clarify what you are responding to here?

In response to your post quoted above, I could write a long set of questions, but I think that these are the relevant ones:

5. I state that there is no measurable effect on the sun's physical characteristics due to the planets. Simply put the periods that would be expected if your hypotheses were true, are not being seen . You say there are measurable effects due to planetary motion - I'd like to see the data supporting your hypothesis here.

6. There's no question that land tides exist. Easily measurable through GPS, or long-baseline interferometry radio astronomy. The mechanics are well known and understood. You state however that it's the land tide that drives the ocean tides - please state how you support this hypothesis.

I look forwards to a response to my questions 1 through 6. Please don't handwave or divert off my point. The questions are simple and direct questions on your methodology and understandings of the processes involved in using that methodology.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

The western academic community is a waste of time. It is not scientific enough anymore, but controlled by politicians, a function of the funding regime. There is therefore no peer review process in my field of study. Science has left the building and may not return in my lifetime. The focus is suppression because of taxation opportunities and climate change absurdity. I am working on a publication but when ready I shall probably approach eastern countries which are already researching in this field. I have already had expressions of interest.

There are plenty of peer reviewed publications that you could submit papers on your methods and hypotheses to, such as Nature or the journals of Meteorology. Got any papers up on arXiv.org? Why not?

The trouble is that doing so - the peer-review process - requires application of the Scientific Method. There are already plenty of examples to show a lack of accuracy in previous forecasts - suggesting deficiencies in the hypotheses used. This would show that these hypotheses need to be refined for accuracy.

relaxed

Kenring wrote: »

Interesting - so you think I am telling you what to believe?

What I am saying is a newspaper will publish all sorts of drivel to fill column inches.

I wouldn't be pointed to newspaper articles to add some credibility to any sort of point I was trying to argue.

Kenring

kfk wrote: »

After having a quick search on the farming forum, it would appear that the majority of farmers are not so gullible. What makes you think that you are so popular among the farmers?

I am assuming interest going by book and forecast package sales, and private emails. It is mostly the farming communities of three countries that keep me in business and to them I am most grateful.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

I'd like to see you show that you have proper understanding..
5. I state that there is no measurable effect on the sun's physical characteristics due to the planets. I'd like to see the data supporting your hypothesis here.

6. There's no question that land tides exist. Easily measurable through GPS, or long-baseline interferometry radio astronomy. The mechanics are well known and understood. You state however that it's the land tide that drives the ocean tides - please state how you support this hypothesis.
.

Re the first point, it must be obvious I appear to be getting forecasts correct, hence all the public interest and the subsequent disquiet about that amongst manistream earth scientists, who get even the next few days wrong, e.g. Met Eireann's way out forecast for Bank Holiday weekend. So perhaps whilst I do have a "proper understanding" (your words) of my own work, it could be others who are falling behind in understanding the science of weather.
Re 5., Jupiter and Saturn oppositions and conjunctions regulate the sunspot cycles. Also look up the 60-year periodicity of volcanoes and what planets are involved.
Re 6., if you accept that land tides exist then why can't you accept they cause the ocean tide? Do you really think independent forces cause each tide? Imagine 2000kms of land going up and down a foot each day. On top sits 2 kms of water. Care to explain how, as you appear to think, the water rises and falls independently? It is like saying the rubber skin of a party balloon has nothing to do with the volume of air it is in contact with.

Popoutman

Still didn't adequately respond to the questions. Still, a response may be warranted, if only to clarify what appears to be some pretty major misunderstandings or lack of comprehension by Ken here.

Kenring wrote: »

Re the first point, it must be obvious I appear to be getting forecasts correct

Not by what I've seen so far. Seems to be about the same as random guesses, with a sprinkling of x years ago. You still haven't given any analysis that supports your accuracy claims. Please feel free to enlighten us with data. There have been a few threads both here and on other sites that do a pretty good job of debunking the claimed accuracy of predictions, but that's not the point of this thread. I'm not going to start that as it would only divert from my questions on your methodology. Maybe there could be another thread to track the claims and results. Could be enlightening.

Kenring wrote: »

hence all the public interest and the subsequent disquiet about that amongst manistream earth scientists, who get even the next few days wrong, e.g. Met Eireann's way out forecast for Bank Holiday weekend.

This thread is about your methods - not Met Eireann's. Please keep on-point. If there is any disquiet, (and I think there is nothing more than a bored dismissal due to a lack of sound science in the methodology) it is because of the pseudoscience that appears to be used here, in a field that is actually pretty full of real science, as there is good (non-pseudoscience) research that can be validated, going.
It appears so far that the additional components of your methodology are not scientific in any way. If there was real science behind it, you would have described it here, and would have been able to back it up with real numbers . As it is, it appears to be little more than poorly-applied astrology combined with "electric universe" pseudoscience whackery. None of which stands up to scrutiny.
I'm not discounting atmospheric tides as I've stated above (it was never part of my questions about the methodology) - it's the added stuff that appears to have no basis in reality. I've asked you to support your claims, but you've not done a good job of that so far. Please do continue to try to support your claims.

Kenring wrote: »

So perhaps whilst I do have a "proper understanding" (your words) of my own work, it could be others who are falling behind in understanding the science of weather.

You fail to be able to describe your understanding of your methodology, while basing some of your basic premises on faulty and misunderstood premises. No harm in our questioning it, but there is certainly harm in your passing yourself off as someone that claims accuracy in weather prediction, when you can't support your accuracy claims with any confidence (statistical confidence - i.e sigma levels...). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing as we can see here. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but the evidence simply isn't there.

Kenring wrote: »

Re 5., Jupiter and Saturn oppositions and conjunctions regulate the sunspot cycles.

Please state the mechanism by which this is achieved? Please state in the data what cycle is being regulated, and show the values that show it is being regulated. You still haven't managed to do this.
Simply stating something (as you have done here) is not a proof nor support of hypotheses. It is nothing more than a reiteration of a hypothesis with nothing to support it. The data simply fails to support your statements. Please feel free to show us data that points to support for your hypotheses.

Kenring wrote: »

Also look up the 60-year periodicity of volcanoes and what planets are involved.

Look it up where? What data supports your statement of 60 years? Anyway - this thread is about your weather methodology - not anything to do with vulcanology.
And what 60-year planetary period is present? What out there has a 60 year period? Answer: nothing. There's nothing in the solar system.

Kenring wrote: »

Re 6., if you accept that land tides exist then why can't you accept they cause the ocean tide? Do you really think independent forces cause each tide? Imagine 2000kms of land going up and down a foot each day. On top sits 2 kms of water. Care to explain how, as you appear to think, the water rises and falls independently? It is like saying the rubber skin of a party balloon has nothing to do with the volume of air it is in contact with.

To put it simply Ken, you appear to fail in your depiction of your understanding. It may be that you simply don't have the education or training to understand what's going on, or there may be a deeper problem here. Firstly you state that the expansion and contraction of the bays causes the tides - but that's simply not borne out by basic physics involved.
There's little to no transverse movement with land tides, whereas there's a large transverse component of the ocean tides - after all it's a liquid and can flow. After millennia of gentle pushes in fairly regular periods, there are harmonics set up. These harmonics are what drive the major tidal movements, and are the reason why the whole area of tidal mechanics was a non-trivial area until the math tools were thought out that could perform the calculations.
Gravity is what causes the tides, not the push of the land on the sea. There's a bit of a difference there. There's no independence of forces, but there is independence of movement. If the ocean couldn't flow, the tides would match perfectly as there is the same set of forces applying here. Show me why you would disagree with me - and please use something realistic to support your assertions.


But yet again, you've failed to adequately give answers to my questions.

Care to try again?

Or can we simply face the pretty obvious facts that there is no apparent scientific basis in any hypothesis of yours, that planetary motions have any significant or measurable effects on our climate or weather?

We still haven't seen any answers to the discarding of some lunar periods...

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Still didn't adequately respond to the questions. You still haven't given any analysis that supports your accuracy claims. There have been a few threads both here and on other sites that do a pretty good job of debunking the claimed accuracy of predictions. This thread is about your methods. Please keep on-point. If there is any disquiet, (and I think there is nothing more than a bored dismissal due to a lack of sound science in the methodology) it is because of the pseudoscience that appears to be used here, in a field that is actually pretty full of real science, as there is good (non-pseudoscience) research that can be validated, going.
It appears so far that the additional components of your methodology are not scientific in any way. If there was real science behind it, you would have described it here, and would have been able to back it up with real numbers. I've asked you to support your claims, but you've not done a good job of that so far. Please do continue to try to support your claims.
You fail to be able to describe your understanding of your methodology, while basing some of your basic premises on faulty and misunderstood premises. Please state the mechanism by which this is achieved? Please state in the data what cycle is being regulated, and show the values that show it is being regulated. You still haven't managed to do this.
To put it simply Ken, you appear to fail in your depiction of your understanding. It may be that you simply don't have the education or training to understand what's going on, or there may be a deeper problem here.
But yet again, you've failed to adequately give answers to my questions.
Care to try again?
Or can we simply face the pretty obvious facts that there is no apparent scientific basis in any hypothesis of yours, that planetary motions have any significant or measurable effects on our climate or weather?
.

This is actually hilarious. You appear to be getting somewhat carried away by your own sense of propriety.
As far as I am aware this is not a court of law, nor an inquistion, I have done nothing wrong and did not even start this thread.- I even asked for the thread to not go ahead!
But now you are imagining I am determined to convince everyone of something. Sorry, you have the wrong guy. I am supremely happy in my work and there are enough others who seem happy with it too, that I see no reason to even discuss it analytically, let alone pull it apart screw by screw so that people with an obvious bias can pass ill-informed judgement. And to think that these are the same folk that think the regular forecasters who cannot get it right a day ahead are to be admired and followed. Duh!
What is also interesting is how this word “science” is something that people default to to win discussion points. It appears, because it is spelt the same, to be the same “science” that says "global warming", when there has been no thermometer invented to measure the temperature of the whole globe at one moment nor a century ahead, the same “science” that says "climate change" when climate itself means change, the same “science” that declares that there is no air tide when it is plain to anyone at the beach that the air and sea are joined, the same “science” that says earthquakes have nothing to do with extraterrestrial bodies when the very Earth itself was formed in space by the shaking of these same bodies, and the earth is still being shaped by them, because rivers and valleys and mountain ranges and volcanic atolls and lakes and plains are still geologically changing shape.
But you are correct, I would say that given the above, I am not doing "science" because the current practitioners - who say they have the franchise on the "science word", have been exposed as frauds, e.g, ClimateGate. So in not aligning myself to people of that shoddy ilk I do not need to adhere to what you may call "science". To me it is pseudoscience and I am perhaps one of the few who, along with fellow skeptics of alarmism, like David Bellamy, are interested in returning to Real science some day.
So those who use this word "science" need to qualify it. I already know of shoe science, rugby science, toy science, fabric science, religious science, music science, food science and a zillion others, including waterskiing science. I would refer to what I do as Moon Science. Every part of it is covered by other disciplines in most universities - mathematics, astronomy, seismic studies, volcanology, solar physics, cosmology, quantum physics, oceanography, archaeology and surveying.
So best to drop that "science" word if indeed your call to me is to be more precise and if you think I belong to your club.
I don't..

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Gravity is what causes the tides, not the push of the land on the sea. ..

Try this experiment. Place a football on the ground. Bring foot up at velocity, such that front toe connects with side of stationary ball. Observe subsequent flight of ball. Now explain, in the absence of sudden winds, or flying mechanism inside or outside the bladder, how foot impact and ball flight are scientifically independent of each other.

Akrasia

Kenring wrote: »

The western academic community is a waste of time. It is not scientific enough anymore, but controlled by politicians, a function of the funding regime. There is therefore no peer review process in my field of study. Science has left the building and may not return in my lifetime. The focus is suppression because of taxation opportunities and climate change absurdity. I am working on a publication but when ready I shall probably approach eastern countries which are already researching in this field. I have already had expressions of interest.

Here we go. The conspiracy.

You haven't received support from the scientific community therefore, the scientific community are all corrupt and the peer review system is deliberately suppressing your research in order to maintain high taxes

When you do finally release some kind of research, you're going to release it to some half baked journal with poor standards that will not ask any of the relevant peer review questions.

You are saying that you have support for 2 reasons.
1. you have customers who believe you, and
2, the newspapers print your press releases

You are no different to a faith healer who creates an illusion that he is curing illness as part of a theatrical performance. If anyone recovers from an illness following a visit to the faith healer, he will declare it a miracle. For all the people who never recover, they are never mentioned

You have admitted on this thread that you see nothing wrong claiming credit for successful predictions but you never contrast these against all the incorrect predictions

It's perfectly obvious that you're either deluding yourself into thinking you have a skill that you do not, or you're deliberately misleading others for your own gain.

fryup

he was on clare fm this week, and predicted that this coming week would be a scorcher with temp in high 20s

relaxed

fryup wrote: »

he was on clare fm this week, and predicted that this coming week would be a scorcher with temp in high 20s

But in his August forecast its around the 7th and 21st that should be very warm.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Try this experiment. Place a football on the ground. Bring foot up at velocity, such that front toe connects with side of stationary ball. Observe subsequent flight of ball. Now explain, in the absence of sudden winds, or flying mechanism inside or outside the bladder, how foot impact and ball flight are scientifically independent of each other.

Handwaving and easily demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the processes involved, as well as being a poor attempt to be patronising. There's absolutely no connection with your thought experiment and the reality of tidal mechanics. Please pick a better example to demonstrate what you are trying to say.


Try this experiment. Scale up a football to planetary size. Place football in a close orbit around another large mass. Note stresses on football skin through deformation. Add a layer of a liquid to the football surface. Note again the deformations, but note also that the liquid moves along the surface.

Here's a little pic (as pictures sometimes help those that don't understand to undersand better):


Note the directions of the vectors. These vectors aren't always vertical on the surface, and there's a significant sideways component, hence the sideways flow of a fluid.

Many little nudges add up over time to give big displacements (see "resonance" in any dictionary), which is why we have differing tide times for locations that are reasonably physically close together. For example, Limerick low tide times are 90 minutes ahead compared to Galway, less than 75 km away. Galway and Dublin have tides 6 hours apart, yet are less than 200km apart. If what you said above was true about the land tides driving the sea tides, then there wouldn't be this discrepancy. One simple fact with tides around an island like Ireland or England, it's possible to find locations where the land and sea tides match in-step, and other locations where the tides are out of step.

The land tides simply do not drive the sea tides. Both tide types are caused by the same forces, but because the land isn't able to move sideways in any significant way but the oceans can, that easily explains why there are differences in the land and sea tides.

Bringing this on-thread: We know that the atmospheric tides exist and are probably a component in our weather. We do need more research into the area, but that research must be properly documented and peer-reviewed - otherwise it's not seen as science. Without a proper understanding of the processes involved, it's dangerous to use the outputs from these processes in any meaningful way. Without a proper understanding (as it appears to be the shown in the responses to my questions) it becomes nothing more than guesswork and should carry a warning as such.

Care to come up with a better example that supports your hypotheses?

Kenring

Akrasia wrote: »

It's perfectly obvious that you're either deluding yourself into thinking you have a skill that you do not, or you're deliberately misleading others for your own gain.

You are throwing your toys out of your cot because I have said I will not waste my time revealing my formulae to haters and baiters. But if you think of me in that light then why your presence on this thread? You sound like anything that reminds you of faith healing gains your interest. Otherwise what is to stop you going away?
No, it is as I warned. This post is personally insulting, inviting me to defend in kind, for which if I do I will be banned. The whole thread is an abuse aimed at me and a vehicle for personal attack. It is a cause for outright shame for those who think they operate in science.
When I did science at two universities in NZ I learned that science is about discussion and debate, never taking sides, never requiring consensus and never setting frames of reference or specific parameters outside of which new ideas could not be investigated. The null hypothesis ruled.
That was science, the absence of which was pseudoscience.
Well, I don't choose to speak with pseudoscientists, sorry.

Red Pepper

Vectors eh...