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

relaxed

Kenring wrote: »

Not everywhere gets the same weather. I deal in trends. The only "problem" with predictions is what you make them into. Predictions are only predictions, not certainties. They are some idea of what's coming. You can easily remove the problem by looking away.
I predicted fine weather for the first half of July. We all know now that came about.
It is easy to say after the fact, "any of us could make similar predictions", but how come I was the only one who did back in January?

Like I said good for you on getting July right, but you also predicted very warm weather around 7th August but there is no sign of it.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

If I predict, off the top of my head, 6 dates over June, July and August 2014, around which there will be "very warm spells" my luck would be in at least a couple of times and I could be sitting here this time next year claiming How great I was to predict it.

Kenring

Akrasia wrote: »

a) Because most people in the business of predicting weather wouldn't dare to make such a prediction 7 months in advance. They know that there is no way of predicting when a blocking system of High pressure will get settled over Ireland.

b)Just because you made a prediction, doesn't mean you had any insight.

c)In weather, the conditions are variable minute to minute. predicting them a year in advance is witchcraft

d)And you can't claim the 'hits' when the weather matches your prediction, and then make excuses for the misses. That's selection bias

a) Most people in the weather business do not do longrange because they do not understand lunar/solar cycles.
b)If I make a series of successful predictions it does mean I have a successful method, according to the rules of science.
c) woo-hoo, your religious bias showing here perhaps? So all predictions a year ahead is witchcraft? How about predicting the outcome of an election?
d)Sorry, I can claim hits when the weather matches my prediction.

Kenring

relaxed wrote: »

Like I said good for you on getting July right, but you also predicted very warm weather around 7th August but there is no sign of it.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

If I predict, off the top of my head, 6 dates over June, July and August 2014, around which there will be "very warm spells" my luck would be in at least a couple of times and I could be sitting here this time next year claiming How great I was to predict it.

I have never said how great I am. I have only said I think I have a successful method for longrange 80-85% of the time.
I did not predict anything for 7 August. I said there was potential for warmth then, as for other dates in August.

Kenring

SamAK wrote: »

Hmm, as far as I know, a prediction and a guess are the same thing.

Exactly. So how can someone's guess become someone else's problem? Lots of folk make educated guesses: accountants, stockbrokers, doctors, psychologists, economists, consultancies, lawyers, etc etc. No one seems to be taking them to task for that. Yet their products are opinion-based. Longrange weather is no different.

Kenring

tomcosgrave wrote: »

You can't even give me a basic overview - aside from plugging your free book? You seem to spend a lot of time defending yourself on these forums when you have staff to pay and a family to spend time with. Come on Ken, you can do better than fob me off, surely? What is the theory behind the prediction of your trends? Surely there is a simple explanation you can furnish me with? So I will ask again -

How do planets that are millions of miles away have an in fluence on the meterology of this planet, using the categories for each planet that you referred to?
How does the Moon in the 4th house influence the weather here on Earth?

I am not fobbing you off but I am not at your beck and call.
Planets have an influence on earth not by gravitation but by electromagnetism. They all have magnetic fields, as does the sun, as do we. We all influence each other just as the members of one family affect each other.
The moon in 4th House? The answer is too long, which is why I directed you to my free book. It is to do with the tides in the air. 4th House is called the IC position, when the air-tide is right "out"

tomcosgrave

No Ken, you are not at my beck and call, but I find it hard to accept you'd spend all the time you spend on this forum and not give a decent scientific explanation, and claim demands on your time as a reason why.

Come back to me when you can give an explanation based on fact with theories, experiments, control groups and statistics etc.

Kenring

tomcosgrave wrote: »

No Ken, you are not at my beck and call, but I find it hard to accept you'd spend all the time you spend on this forum and not give a decent scientific explanation, and claim demands on your time as a reason why.

Come back to me when you can give an explanation based on fact with theories, experiments, control groups and statistics etc.

But I did not set this forum up. It is with reluctance I am even answering your queries. You sound like a petulant child who is not getting its own way.

tomcosgrave

Kenring wrote: »

But I did not set this forum up. It is with reluctance I am even answering your queries. You sound like a petulant child who is not getting its own way.

I am merely frustrated as I cannot understand the science behind your theories Ken, and frustrated that you won't engage with people on them. To be frank, if you focussed on the educational and less on the martyrdom, you'd be much better received. Just my 2 cent and I will leave it at that.

Kenring

tomcosgrave wrote: »

I am merely frustrated as I cannot understand the science behind your theories Ken, and frustrated that you won't engage with people on them. To be frank, if you focussed on the educational and less on the martyrdom, you'd be much better received. Just my 2 cent and I will leave it at that.

I am not shying away from engaging, and have answered all posts. This is a big subject and you want it laid out in a sentence. It has taken me 38 years.
I have pointed your nose in the direction of resources, which is why I wrote my book, so that others would not have to self-discover the long way.
I respectfully suggest that it is up to you to do the legwork, and not up to you to blame me for your unwillingness to do so.

tomcosgrave

I have never Ken, and this is being honest, been told by someone advocating a particular theory to bugger off and learn themselves, without first getting a basic overview of how their theory actually works.

You can't / won't even write a couple of basic paragraphs with an overview. It is not a big ask and as someone who is obviously interested in this stuff and interested in showing people it works, I am frankly amazed you aren't more open to advocacy. It speaks volumes of your attitude to others, and quite frankly, it speaks volumes about how seriously you take your theories - not very.

I have actually done a bit of looking around, and I have to be honest - one particular site is, shall we say, less than complimentary of yourself, your theories, you also talk about the prediction of earthquakes, you make comments on this article, but are unable to refute any of what they say. All I have found is condemnation of your theories - not once, nowhere did I find someone showing that you are correct.

And that speaks for itself.

Akrasia

SamAK wrote: »

Hmm, as far as I know, a prediction and a guess are the same thing.

A Prediction implies that there is knowledge that a set of specific circumstances will lead to a specified outcome.
A guess implies a lack of knowledge
An educated guess is a guess where you have very limited knowledge but can use it to eliminate some of the choices.

BillG

Hi Ken et al,

Ken isn't the only person who forecasts weather using the methods he does. Piers Corbyn at weatheraction also basis his forecasts on similiar methods. The methods used are tried and tested and do result in accurate trends forecasting from a long way out. If you have any doubt ask William Hill why they have ceased taking bets from Piers Corbyn.

Unlike Piers, Ken specifically targets Ireland for which I am grateful for if I know the trend for this coming winter means many days of snow and ice (or not as the case may be) I can plan my business. I do not need to know that the morning of, say, February 10th 2014 is going to be cold and snowy but do like to know that the first half of February may not be ideal for some activities then I can plan accordingly.

Please remember that the methods used generate trends not predictions. Ken's forecasts also explicitly say to allow 24 hours leeway and 100km distance when comparing actual weather with forecasts.

In terms of why these methods work then I suggest you read about the weather-influencing cycles both on earth and the surrounding cosmos. Read up on how tides are influenced by the moon, of how La Nina's and El Nino's are influenced by the Pacific Decadel Oscillations and how these in turn effect weather across the world (or pick any of the dozen or so other weather oscillations) or why the ionisation of the atmosphere results in cloud formation and this ionisation is greatest during periods of low sun activity (See Henrik Svensmark and his experiments at the LHC in Cern). Svensmark also makes a good case of how the position of our solar system in our galaxy can radically effect the temperature on earth. Also read up on the Milankovitch cycles and how they correlate to Inter-glacial periods. After you have read all of these you can readily appreciate how Ken Ring and Piers Corbyn can use their methods of forecasting to great effect.

The natural cycles both on earth and the surrounding cosmos are often forgotten in modern metreology but are well worth reading up on.

Kenring

tomcosgrave wrote: »

I have never Ken, and this is being honest, been told by someone advocating a particular theory to bugger off and learn themselves, without first getting a basic overview of how their theory actually works.

You can't / won't even write a couple of basic paragraphs with an overview. It is not a big ask and as someone who is obviously interested in this stuff and interested in showing people it works, I am frankly amazed you aren't more open to advocacy. It speaks volumes of your attitude to others, and quite frankly, it speaks volumes about how seriously you take your theories - not very.

I have actually done a bit of looking around, and I have to be honest - one particular site is, shall we say, less than complimentary of yourself, your theories, you also talk about the prediction of earthquakes, you make comments on this article, but are unable to refute any of what they say. All I have found is condemnation of your theories - not once, nowhere did I find someone showing that you are correct.

And that speaks for itself.

You have probably been reading what my competitors, like silly beliefs (who sell forecasts to corporates) and the Skeptics, say. Well good luck on that one. Read any Irish newspaper that has reported me. They seem supportive. Ask any farmer. My books are being purchased by quite a few. Are they all misquided then?
No, I am not here to teach. Why can't you accept that? I have written a book, it is free and available where I said. Why don't you read it? I have instructional articles on the theory on my w*bs*te. Why can't you go there?
The theory is, as I have said, that the moon creates a daily tide in the atmosphere. This is measurable therefore predictable, just like any other tide.

tomcosgrave

Thanks for that Bill.

See Ken? It's not that hard.

Akrasia

Kenring wrote: »

a) Most people in the weather business do not do longrange because they do not understand lunar/solar cycles.

I think it's more to do with them not thinking that complex weather can be predicted using solar or lunar cycles.
Climate on the other hand can be correlated to solar cycles and tides can be precisely predicted using lunar cycles, and meterologists do understand these relationships.

b)If I make a series of successful predictions it does mean I have a successful method, according to the rules of science.

Only if you follow the scientific method and if your results are rigorously analysed to determine exactly how accurate your predictions have been.
You claim 85% accuracy, but when i compared your predictions as reported in the Independent in January, out of 4 predictions, only 1 of them came true.
Admittedly, the reporting in the paper was vague and did not give details of what the exact weather conditions you were predicting for April, May and June, so I can not say for certain. perhaps, your official prediction was specific in what weather would affect specific areas at specified times, but based on the information available to hand, those predictions were inaccurate.

c) woo-hoo, your religious bias showing here perhaps? So all predictions a year ahead is witchcraft? How about predicting the outcome of an election?

I don't believe in witchcraft, and I don't believe in Astrometeorology. There is no prior plausibility that Venus could have any effect that influences 'light rain' or that Neptune can cause or eliminate fog.
The only influence they have on the earth is gravitational, and the amount of gravitational force exerted by any of the planets on earth is negligable.

d)Sorry, I can claim hits when the weather matches my prediction.

Ok, I hereby predict that every day this year, the max temperature will be equal to or greater than the annual average daily max temperature for 2013

I have just made 182 stunningly accurate predictions.
lets just not mention the 182 times when I was wrong.

BillG

tomcosgrave wrote: »

I have never Ken, and this is being honest, been told by someone advocating a particular theory to bugger off and learn themselves, without first getting a basic overview of how their theory actually works..

To be fair to Ken he has written a 270 page booklet explaining how he does it and it is readily available from his website and is free and can be found in less than 30 seconds from the home page. He has already said it is there so what, may I ask, is stopping you reading that material and why do you expect him to regurgitate it at your behest?

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Lunar cycles to consider: 18.613yr, 19yr, 38yr, 56-57 yr, 93yr, 133yr, 186yr.
Solar/planet cycles: 11-12yr, 23-26yr, 35-6yr, 60yr.
Inner planets: Mercury aspects for wind, Mars for heat, Venus for gentle rain, Neptune for fog, Saturn for cloud, Jupiter for dry.
Moon in 4th House can determine up to 80% of weather.
Old wives' tales have some relevance, but not all. Things often pass into folklore that work, like "the full moon eats clouds" - old mariners' saying.

So, to correctly label them:
18.613: lunar nodal tidal constituent
19 years: 1x Metonic cycle - coincidence of: 19 solar years, 235 lunar phases , 254 lunar orbits (sidereal) and 255 lunar node passes.
38 years: 2x of the Metonic cycle.
56-57 year: 3x Metonic is 57, so why 56? This appears to be an anomolous number.
133: 7x Metonic cycles
93: Resonance of southern hemisphere long term high average movements.
186: Resonance of southern hemisphere long term high average movements.

Issues with the choice of cycles:
Multiples of Metonic cycles missing - why would 4x 5x and 6x Metonic cycles be ignored?
Apparently there are actually 31/62/93/186 year periodicities listed as relevant for these cycles , so why are the 31 and 62 year cycles not listed?


I have to say as an astronomer, the concept of planet timings affecting either long term climatic trends or day to day weather on Earth is one that I have a hard time reconciling. What mechanism is present that allows this? I'm not aware of any mechanism that would work. The only ways that I can think of that planets could possibly affect Earth in any way would be
a) tidal and far too small to have *any* measurable effect. Jupiter's tide on Earth would have a 100,000 times smaller effect than the Sun+Moon and Venus has 10,000 times smaller effect.
b) electromagnetic variation of the solar wind (and we're too close to the sun for Mars, Jupiter or Saturn to have any effect on us, and Mercury's magnetic field is negligible and Venus' magnetic field is negligible. The solar wind variation is many many times larger than any possible inner planetary effects.

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.

BillG

Popoutman wrote: »

I have to say as an astronomer, the concept of planet timings affecting either long term climatic trends or day to day weather on Earth is one that I have a hard time reconciling. What mechanism is present that allows this? I'm not aware of any mechanism that would work. The only ways that I can think of that planets could possibly affect Earth in any way would be .

Look up Henrik Svensmark, he did it for me

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

So, to correctly label them:
18.613: lunar nodal tidal constituent
19 years: 1x Metonic cycle - coincidence of: 19 solar years, 235 lunar phases , 254 lunar orbits (sidereal) and 255 lunar node passes.
38 years: 2x of the Metonic cycle.
56-57 year: 3x Metonic is 57, so why 56? This appears to be an anomolous number.
133: 7x Metonic cycles
93: Resonance of southern hemisphere long term high average movements.
186: Resonance of southern hemisphere long term high average movements.

Issues with the choice of cycles:
Multiples of Metonic cycles missing - why would 4x 5x and 6x Metonic cycles be ignored?
Apparently there are actually 31/62/93/186 year periodicities listed as relevant for these cycles , so why are the 31 and 62 year cycles not listed?


I have to say as an astronomer, the concept of planet timings affecting either long term climatic trends or day to day weather on Earth is one that I have a hard time reconciling. What mechanism is present that allows this? I'm not aware of any mechanism that would work. The only ways that I can think of that planets could possibly affect Earth in any way would be
a) tidal and far too small to have *any* measurable effect. Jupiter's tide on Earth would have a 100,000 times smaller effect than the Sun+Moon and Venus has 10,000 times smaller effect.
b) electromagnetic variation of the solar wind (and we're too close to the sun for Mars, Jupiter or Saturn to have any effect on us, and Mercury's magnetic field is negligible and Venus' magnetic field is negligible. The solar wind variation is many many times larger than any possible inner planetary effects.

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.

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.

Akrasia

Kenring wrote: »

I am not fobbing you off but I am not at your beck and call.
Planets have an influence on earth not by gravitation but by electromagnetism. They all have magnetic fields, as does the sun, as do we. We all influence each other just as the members of one family affect each other.
The moon in 4th House? The answer is too long, which is why I directed you to my free book. It is to do with the tides in the air. 4th House is called the IC position, when the air-tide is right "out"

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.

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.