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

Kenring

relaxed wrote: »

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

Wrong. Read it again. I never said the 7th should be very warm for Co. Clare.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

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.

Well, that took a while. Now you can see that I am doing this work, because no one else will. No, it's not seen as science because scientists find that it's in the too-hard basket. But there is nothing about Moon, Sun, orbits, planet positions, gravitation dynamics and observations that translate to cycles that is not ROCK SOLID science.
Peer review? Who? At least you have a sense of humour:D:D:D

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

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!

It's not that surprising that you don't like any examination of your methodology as it doesn't appear to stand up to any rigorous examination. If someone like me can show large and valid issues with your methodology on an internet forum that you don't appear to be able to address, imagine what could happen in a court with experts in the field?
You claim to make money from what you do. Over here, we have consumer protection laws that aim to help our citizens from being taken advantage of by criminals and those that wish to sell shoddy products.
In this case with the long-term weather forecasting, the examination of the methodology is important to see if the goods are fit for purpose. So far, the goods do not appear fit for purpose given that we've seen so far. Even so far this month the accuracy of the prediction has been rather poor, but we'll wait to the end of the month before examining the claims and comparing to the observed..

Kenring wrote: »

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.

You are here responding (however poorly) to my comments, suggesting that you are in fact trying to convince someone of something. I'm trying to be convinced by you that your methods are any bit valid and can in fact carry any weight for longer-term weather forecasting
I'm not the ill-informed one here it appears. Nor am I biased in *any* way. All I am doing is asking simple questions based on what you have stated your methodology is based on. As you have come up with some rather unorthodox claims, I've asked you to explain the hypotheses behind those, and to explain how the conflicts between those hypotheses and the real, accepted state of the art are resolved - and you've never been able to explain away the conflicts. I don't think that the bias here is on my side - as I'm perfectly willing to accept when I am wrong, once I've seen why I'm wrong.
Please go ahead and educate and explain so that there can be a better understanding.

Kenring wrote: »

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!

The regular forecasters use science instead of apparent guesswork to make their predictions, and it's turned out that those predictions have been more accurate than yours - this suggests that their methods have some validity whereas you appear to be unable to do the same. That's the difference. You call yourself a weather forecaster, yet some of your hypotheses that you use to base those forecasts on do not stand up to any form of scientific scrutiny.

Kenring wrote: »

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.

Try reading up on the scientific method - you may do well to apply it to your methodology. After all it's the only proven way that things have improved since the Middle Ages. Without it and the benefits it brought your ancestors likely wouldn't have made it to NZ!
As for global thermometers, there are satellites that can quite easily measure the ground temperature of the globe at any point, but you already know that. The science is in the interpretation of the results and getting the signals from the noise in a rigorous manner.
Please have a chat with the real scientists at any NZ university that have an understanding of geology - they aren't likely to entertain any suggestions that the Earth formed from the shaking of other planetary bodies, nor entertain any notions that there is any mechanism present that allows those bodies to have effects on Earth at their current distances - discounting direct impact of course!

Kenring wrote: »

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.

To return to real science, now that we have an admission that you currently don't consider what you do as scientific in any way, you can only do that through peer review. Don't forget, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

Kenring wrote: »

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.

Again you show a misunderstanding. Science describes the methodology. Something can be described as a science when the methodology of the scientific method can be applied. It becomes a science when the various hypotheses get tested and either fail or don't fail, allowing the hypotheses to be revised to the point where they are seen as a theory. Theories get accepted when they theoretically describe accurately something that can be observed and verified.
What you practice isn't a science and doesn't deserve the label of a science. That's why it's pseudoscience. It's not real. If it were a science, you would be able to back up your claims with evidence and supporting data, that would allow others to duplicate what you have done. That hasn't been shown.

Kenring wrote: »

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..

On other words you cannot claim to be taken seriously, as your methodology fails to stand up to any rigorous scrutiny. My call to you is to explain your methodology, and why that methodology appears to directly conflict with the current state of knowledge.

You've still failed to answer any of the six of my questions from above. Care to address them at some point?
The continuous avoidance of any answers to my simple questions strongly suggests that there is something to hide here. If not hiding something, then maybe it's trying to divert attention away from the fact that there's nothing to a lot of the methodology used.

If that's the case then we can pretty much ignore the "results" of that methodology until the methodology is improved to where it can be considered useful.

Please Ken, show me how I'm wrong.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

But there is nothing about Moon, Sun, orbits, planet positions, gravitation dynamics and observations that translate to cycles that is not ROCK SOLID science.

Well, you've failed to show what cycles are present, or how those cycles may have any basis in reality. I've already asked you to show some specifics, and you've either refused or been shown to be unable to.

What about the rest of my post? You asked above for me to explain how land and sea tides may be out of step. Do you think I have done that? If not why not? Could you better explain your understanding of the processes?

I'm neither hater nor baiter here on this forum - I'm genuinely interested in gaining an understanding of the processes involved, but I will strongly question things that don't match up with what I know. If there's an adequate explanation then fair enough. I have not seen any explanations to my questions about the discrepancies.

Is there a reason for the non-thread-relevant responses by yourself Ken? Is there a reason for all the diversionary tactics here and the lack of addressing my questions?

relaxed

Kenring wrote: »

Wrong. Read it again. I never said the 7th should be very warm for Co. Clare.

Below is what you said exactly, as regards Ireland, I didn't realise Clare was excluded.

Pity nowhere else in ireland saw very warm days around the 7th either.


For temperatures, the whole month should stay in the 20s, with some very warm days around 7th, 21st and 29th-31st.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Well, you've failed to show what cycles are present, or how those cycles may have any basis in reality. I've already asked you to show some specifics, and you've either refused or been shown to be unable to.

Press the back button. I have already quoted the methodology I use. I have directed you to my free 230-page book on my website. I have told you there are explanatory articles on my website. In my almanacs there are also explanatory notes.
That you do not avail yourself of these is not my affair. Where do you get my refusal to proffer this information? I have merely stated that given the tone of this thread I choose not to cast what I consider pearls before what are appearing to be swine.

SamAK

Popoutman wrote: »

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.

I googled "Jupiter, Saturn, Sunspots" and found plenty of discussion on the matter from many different sources. Lends credibility to the idea, at least, seeing as it has been of interest to some scientists since the 1950's ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1945PA.....53...49L)

I don't pretend to understand it all, perhaps I would if it was written in laymens terms. But i'm trying to keep up!

We could at least remind ourselves from time to time of the fact that Ken is NOT the only person in the world that believes or at is researching the effects small bodies can have on larger ones.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

You asked above for me to explain how land and sea tides may be out of step. Do you think I have done that? If not why not? Could you better explain your understanding of the processes?

No. You have not explained how land tides are independent of sea tides. We are talking about vertical movement in bays, not way out at sea where there is no land. Yes there is lateral movement of the sea in mid ocean, that is driven by undersea currents that drive surface winds.

Popoutman

SamAK wrote: »

I googled "Jupiter, Saturn, Sunspots" and found plenty of discussion on the matter from many different sources. Lends credibility to the idea, at least, seeing as it has been of interest to some scientists since the 1950's ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1945PA.....53...49L)

I don't pretend to understand it all, perhaps I would if it was written in laymens terms. But i'm trying to keep up!

We could at least remind ourselves from time to time of the fact that Ken is NOT the only person in the world that believes or at is researching the effects small bodies can have on larger ones.

I'd be interested to see that article re-done with better statistical methodology. Certainly makes for an interesting read. I do see some issues with it, but that's a discussion for outside this thread. It's worth noting though that Popular Astronomy, while being a good magazine for what it was in the 1940s, it wasn't a peer-reviewed journal.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

No. You have not explained how land tides are independent of sea tides. We are talking about vertical movement in bays, not way out at sea where there is no land. Yes there is lateral movement of the sea in mid ocean, that is driven by undersea currents that drive surface winds.

Are we reading the same thing? How do you propose that the tide comes in and out of a bay, if as you suggest there is only vertical movement? Where does the water go? The hint is in "in and out"..

Kenring

SamAK wrote: »

I googled "Jupiter, Saturn, Sunspots" and found plenty of discussion on the matter from many different sources. Lends credibility to the idea, at least, seeing as it has been of interest to some scientists since the 1950's ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1945PA.....53...49L)

I don't pretend to understand it all, perhaps I would if it was written in laymens terms. But i'm trying to keep up!

We could at least remind ourselves from time to time of the fact that Ken is NOT the only person in the world that believes or at is researching the effects small bodies can have on larger ones.

At last! Thanks SamAK, you're a champion. Someone who is prepared to at least do some legwork.
Other things to Google: Moon and earthquakes, Moon and weather, El Nino(lunar declination) and weather, Moon and tidal forcing, lunar phase and weather change, full moon and earthquakes etc.
It is a fact that what people do not understand causes fear which is commonly expressed as anger.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Press the back button. I have already quoted the methodology I use. I have directed you to my free 230-page book on my website. I have told you there are explanatory articles on my website. In my almanacs there are also explanatory notes.

None of those sufficiently address my questions - hence why I am asking you directly here. You've again avoided my questions. Why?

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Are we reading the same thing? How do you propose that the tide comes in and out of a bay, if as you suggest there is only vertical movement? Where does the water go? The hint is in "in and out"..

Imagine a spa pool filled shaped like an icecream cone, holding a fixed quantity of water. Measure the water level. Now conically increase the diameter and height of the pool by some mechanism and measure the water level again. The water doesn't go anywhere. It appears reduced.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

None of those sufficiently address my questions - hence why I am asking you directly here. You've again avoided my questions. Why?

You are wasting my time now. I have led the horse to water. It is up to the horse to drink it. It is not for the horse to ask what he is supposed to do at the side of the pool, unless that horse is a tiny juvenile.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

At last! Thanks SamAK, you're a champion. Someone who is prepared to at least do some legwork.

Still doesn't address my questions. One non-peer-reviewed article makes for interesting reading but it's telling that there hasn't been much in the way of followup when more rigorous statistical methods are applied

Kenring wrote: »

It is a fact that what people do not understand causes fear which is commonly expressed as anger.

Only amongst the uneducated. Scientists generally have a drive for understanding, and are always open to that which explains observed phenomena better than the current state of the art.

Any anger may be from frustration involved with dealing with the people that are not themselves open to corrections to problems with the proposed hypotheses. There's no fear to be had from improving our greater understanding of how things work.

Though, if one were trying to make a living from weather guesswork, then fear may be realistic once better methodology by others that's actually grounded in real science eventually puts them out of a job...

SamAK

Let's take a breather here.....and keep it civil.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

I'd be interested to see that article re-done with better statistical methodology. Certainly makes for an interesting read. I do see some issues with it, but that's a discussion for outside this thread. It's worth noting though that Popular Astronomy, while being a good magazine for what it was in the 1940s, it wasn't a peer-reviewed journal.

Oh Jeez.. not this again. Please remind us all what peer review Sir Isaac Newton and Copernicus had. Er..there was none? It means therefore that they could not have been valid researchers then, by this definition. And if so, seeing Newton is the father of modern physics, why, all of modern physics must be wrong.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

You are wasting my time now. I have led the horse to water. It is up to the horse to drink it. It is not for the horse to ask what he is supposed to do at the side of the pool, unless that horse is a tiny juvenile.

If you think that those explanations addressed my questions, then it would be a very simple copy and paste to your response, and everyone would have been happy. I did look, and I didn't see proper answers. Hence it was the best way to get an understanding of the methodology, by asking you here.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

If you think that those explanations addressed my questions, then it would be a very simple copy and paste to your response, and everyone would have been happy. I did look, and I didn't see proper answers. Hence it was the best way to get an understanding of the methodology, by asking you here.

No, no answer satisfies you. Please do some reading then come back here. I am not your teacher. I am not under any obligation to re-paste my book here when it is freely available. use Google. You have already been told what to look up.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Oh Jeez.. not this again. Please remind us all what peer review Sir Isaac Newton and Copernicus had. Er..there was none? It means therefore that they could not have been valid researchers then, by this definition. And if so, seeing Newton is the father of modern physics, why, all of modern physics must be wrong.

Isaac Newton had the Royal Society, as well as peers within the Universities of the time.

Copernicus came up with a hypothesis that fitted the observations at the time, and further work by the likes of Kepler showed that the hypothesis was more valid than the Ptolemaic system. Kepler did refine it to better fit the observations by using ellipses instead of circles - in a fantastic implementation of the scientific method.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

No, no answer satisfies you. Please do some reading then come back here. I am not your teacher. I am not under any obligation to re-paste my book here when it is freely available. use Google. You have already been told what to look up.

Answers that make sense within what is currently accepted as proper science would easily satisfy me.
Stating that Jupiter and Saturn control the sunspot cycle doesn't make sense.
Saying that the planets have tangible effects on Earth doesn't make sense, given what we currently know.

Stating that the Moon can affect weather patterns on Earth - makes sense as there's a perfectly good mechanism for that (tides). The effect of that mechanism may not yet be well understood, but it does make sense.

Stating that the land tide drives the sea tide doesn't make any sense at all, given what is known about tidal mechanics. Given that the description of how tides work as given above does not make sense, it's a good idea to get an explanation as to where those answers came from.

Please suggest some reading that would aid my understanding. After all there are a lot of quacks and idiots out there on the Net, who don't understand much about science - it wouldn't do to get incorrect or incomplete ideas.
Examples would include "Electric Universe" "Chemtrails" "UFO Abductions". There are a few of those type of things out there for longer term weather forecasting as well, and I don't want to be much distracted by those. You claim to be an expert in the area - so it's perfectly fine to ask you.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Isaac Newton had the Royal Society, as well as peers within the Universities of the time.
.

Wrong. Newton did not publish because he knew he would receive criticism from people who did not understand his work. He was heavily criticised for not publishing. The Royal Society elected him a member after he gave them a telescope in 1672.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Please suggest some reading that would aid my understanding. After all there are a lot of quacks and idiots out there on the Net, who don't understand much about science - it wouldn't do to get incorrect or incomplete ideas.
Examples would include "Electric Universe" "Chemtrails" "UFO Abductions". There are a few of those type of things out there for longer term weather forecasting as well, and I don't want to be much distracted by those. You claim to be an expert in the area - so it's perfectly fine to ask you.

At the rear of my free book predicting Weather By The Moon I have listed some 30 research papers that I used as resource material. I don't know how many are still available on the internet.
But I have also given you subjects to google and others seem to be able find them okay.
Please stop blaming me for your reluctance to investigate on your own. I have other obligations to fulfill. Just because I do not supply what you want when you want it does not justify your unwarranted attitude toward me and my work.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Wrong. Newton did not publish because he knew he would receive criticism from people who did not understand his work. He was heavily criticised for not publishing. The Royal Society elected him a member after he gave them a telescope in 1672.

Quote from http://saburchill.com/HOS/astronomy/018.html
"It was the publication of three papers on calculus in 1666 that made Newton a name for himself with the academic community."
"Newton and Hooke were bitter rivals. It was probably because he feared Hooke’s criticism that Newton did not publish the Principia while Hooke was alive."
Once Hooke had died, that work was published. Newton did have a significant body of published work outside of the Principia.

Care to clarify your answer above?

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

At the rear of my free book predicting Weather By The Moon I have listed some 30 research papers that I used as resource material. I don't know how many are still available on the internet.
But I have also given you subjects to google and others seem to be able find them okay.

Google can be a poor research medium, as it's unfiltered and all the crackpots get their platform. It makes for a poor signal to noise ratio.

Kenring wrote: »

Please stop blaming me for your reluctance to investigate on your own. I have other obligations to fulfill. Just because I do not supply what you want when you want it does not justify your unwarranted attitude toward me and my work.

What attitude is that? I'm asking simple questions based on exactly what you yourself have stated. If I find a discrepancy in that, I'm perfectly entitled to ask, and if the answers don't make sense it's correct to get clarification in case that I get the wrong understanding about the processes involved.

In your 230 page booklet, there are no references in it There's a bibliography in the back, but no references in the text. No way to see what is relevant from the list in the back. So it's pretty useless to use as a further guide - as I would have to perform a full Lit Review to get that information. As you have presumably already done the due diligence, it was only fair to ask.

There's no point in being short with me for my asking, as you didn't provide the right information as to what references were used in the first place.

SamAK

"The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically."

Does that mean that it's up to us to disprove Ken's theories, rather than have him prove them?

BillG

Seems to me that people here are losing sight of some fundamentals.

Mr Ring makes some money providing a service of long-range weather forecasting. The benchmark for whether he provides a good service or not should be gauged by how much repeat custom he has. If he has a great deal of repeat custom that would imply a certain level of satisfaction, and by extrapolation we can assume a certain level of accuracey. At the end of the day, however, the question of the worth of his service is between him and his clients.

As to the detail of his methods. I see no obligation on his part to teach anyone how he performs this service. He has been good enough to provide explanations within his website if anyone has a desire to learn a bit more about it. I am sure he would be amiable to answer questions put forward to him in, at the very least, an open-minded and polite manner.

With that in mind I do not think anyone, whatever their views, would read this thread and think that Mr Ring has been treated in a polite, open-minded fashion. A few of you are openly antagonistic and condescending so is it surprising that Mr Ring has little to offer in return? I can honestly say that should anyone have approached me in the same way about how I perform my profession I would have been much less restrained than Mr Ring.

However, I can only assume that the more acerbic of the threads contributers are somewhat youthful and may yet outlive the tendency to think they know everything there is to know. It took me a fair number of years so I have hope.

Personally, I wouldn't have minded having a chat with Mr Ring about some of his methods. They resonate with me as I have read some about Henrik Svensmark's work and about the Malonkovitch cycles and I wouldn't have minded finding out how his work might suggest other connections between the cosmos and the earth cycles.

I was also interested to hear about his measurements at places such as Stonehenge and his interpretations about the use of such places in ancient times.

I am personally uncomfortable with the present hypothesis that the place was "Ceremonial". It seems to be a great deal of trouble to go to just for something "ceremonial" so I am at least open-minded to explore other possible uses.

I would not necessarily subscribe entirely to Mr Ring's methods as I do not know enough to arrive at a definitive answer but I have bought his forecasts and have found them accurate enough so far. That is not to say that if Mr Ring says that on April 24th 2014 it will rain in the morning and be fine in the afternoon that that is what I would then expect but his trend and overall monthly outlook has, so far, been spot on.

I planned my holiday based on Mr Ring's January forecast for July and was glad I did. I couldn't help noticing a chap from Met Eireann lambasted Mr Ring at the time essentially calling him deluded for even thinking he could call the weather that far out but it seemed to work so who is the more deluded, those that called it impossible or those that listen with an open mind?

As I have mentioned before Mr Ring is not the only person to make a living using these methods, Piers Corbyn does something similiar at weatheraction. He is also heavily criticised but it doesn't explain why he is still able to produce long-range weather forecasts with a higher degree of accuracy when the larger boys, for all their super-computers and large staff numbers, fail to do so.

On another point, the chap who set this thread up did so regardless of Mr Ring's wishes. A certain level of debate was had as to the differences between Met Eireann and Mr Ring. I would like to add my tuppennyworth.

The difference between Mr Ring and Met Eireann as I see it is that the livelihood of the folks from Met Eireann are hardly likely to be effected to the same degree as Mr Ring if the debate is highly antagonistic. Met Eireann is dependent on State funding, Mr Ring on commercial concerns such as public perception.

You said in the thread that Mr Ring had to suffer this debate as you could visit Met Eireanns website for free and not his website. Hmm, may be you do not pay tax, in which case ask your parents how much they pay for Met Eireann.

All Mr Ring asked for when you created this thread was a level playing field. It appears to me that you didn't give him that but rather set him up on a pedestal so that people could throw stones and threaten him with banishment should he fail to live up to some pretty arbitrary rules.

As to science and peer review. Well, I know little about the process of peer review within scientific establishments but I know something about people and Climategate didn't surprise me one little bit particularly as so many people are dependent on the largess of State funding.

Consider this, a niche area of science suddenly is awash with money as result of a rather frightening hypothesis being aired. The inhabitants of that small branch of science are in demand, their hour has come! Then, on the horizon some naughty boys shed some doubt on the coming apocalypse that, if widely accepted in Governemnt circles, would seem to suggest that the only cataclysmic event likely to happen is to the funding of said cliche of scientists. I may be cynical but it doesn't seem to me that you have to be, dare I say it, a scientist to work out what happens next!

It may not be a conspiracy in the true sense of the word, but if one person of that small group of scientists happens to suggest in a document a certain set of results, that may be slightly dubious, that demonstrate the continuing crisis then the reviewers of that document whose liveliehoods sort of depend on that crisis may allow the results because it keeps alive the funding to investigate what they know to be true in their hearts. Sounds reasonable?

It is an unfortunate fact that people behave as people even those employed as scientists.

Popoutman

SamAK wrote: »

"The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically."

Does that mean that it's up to us to disprove Ken's theories, rather than have him prove them?

True for currently accepted theories. However, it's not yet apparent that Ken's hypotheses are good enough to be known as theories.

For hypotheses, the basis for the hypotheses should be fairly clear, and are subject to review. If there are flaws seen in the hypotheses then it's perfectly correct to point those out so that the submitter of the hypotheses can change those to allow for the flaws noted. Once the hypotheses reflect the observations, then it's a matter of experimentation to improve them.

Given the statements about planetary movements resulting in heat and fog on Earth, and the lack of an observed mechanism where this could have tangible effects on Earth, there's nothing wrong in pointing out this as a flaw in the hypothesis.

For the scientific method, nothing can be proven as such, only strongly suggested given the observations. If the observations aren't matching, it's time to improve the hypothesis until the observations are matched.

Bejubby

Ffs can we just get some forecasts.

Nobody knows everthing and never will.

The universe will never be understood.
Picture yourself from the Iss,then zoom out of our galaxy to another and so on.we are mere pieces of dust on a planet .
We can never understand what goes on but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

This is nearly a week of bitching and getting duller by the day,pardon the pun.

MiNdGaM3

Popoutman, you have the patience of a saint! Keep up the good questions.

Popoutman

I've absolutely not got a problem with new ideas that have the promise of improving our overall well-being on this planet. I've got quite an open mind on new ideas - but I will always research them before taking them on. I've been around the academic system too long (nearly 20 years now) to to take things blindly on faith. I will always question that which I do not understand, and I will always try to help those that show that they do not understand something that I have found that I have a good understanding of. If I'm wrong I'll always recognise that fact, and I would apologise if it were appropriate in the situation. My academic ego is missing!

I do however have issue with ideas that directly contradict well-established, experimentally sound, and generally accepted scientific theories without adequate explanation of why the conflict arises and why the new idea is better. These types of situations always deserve examination, as for the new ideas to be valid they must show why the old ideas are not valid for that situation. This resolution of why the new ideas are better and the current ideas are not valid has not yet been demonstrated by Ken in this thread.

It's hard, when it can be seen that someone flat-out refuses to take on board the possibility that their ideas may be flawed (note that this is a valid generalisation and very much not not aimed at Ken). It may show something in that person's character, that isn't that pleasant. It's perfectly human though and understandable for that.

Fair enough if there's a refusal by Ken to acknowledge possible flaws in his use of planetary bodies to describe patterns on Earth. I have my thoughts on it, backed up by some good science. I'll be happy enough to leave that one as it currently stands as I don't see Ken satisfactorily answering my questions anytime soon on that particular subject. I think I've said most of what needs to be said on the matter there.


I don't think that Ken was put on a pedestal here with the thread being started. It's an open forum, and Ken didn't have to start replying in-thread at all. I'm glad that he did as the exposition of his methodology so far has been, to be frank, quite enlightening. It has even been somewhat entertaining. I do think that Ken left himself exposed when he showed that some of the basic premises behind his ideas can be trivially shown to have no basis whatsoever in reality. I also don't think that Ken did himself any favours by diverting from questions asked. Add that to the showing a lack of understanding of how tides work, given that it appears to be a core tenet of his forecasting, and it becomes more interesting. I don't think that Ken does himself any favour either by resorting to ad hominem attacks and possibly being insulting in the thread, when his refutations fail to have the desired or expected effect. Other forecasters appear to use similar forecasting methodology, but they aren't afraid to answer questions with "I don't know" or "possibly" and those forecasters appear to be more aware of the vagueness involved at this stage in the prediction generation game, and are willing to advertise that vagueness and the reasoning behind that vagueness.


I'll ask some other questions that aren't related to the planetary periodicity portion of the methodology, questions that would give a greater understanding of the core methodology used for the long term forecasting:

1) Is the Lunar Cycle portion of the methodology based on an analysis of Atmospheric Tides, or is it just looking at repeating patterns "on the ground" that may repeat over the periods described?
2) Is there any accounting for the expansion of the upper atmosphere due to differences during the Solar Cycle (i.e between max and min sunspot numbers)?
3) Is there any accounting for the differences in upper atmosphere expansion due to differences between successive solar maxima?
4) If there is any accounting for changes in the Solar cycle in the predictions, how does a delayed Solar Maximum (such as what we are currently experiencing) affect the predictions - would a prediction be revised dependent on new data coming in?
5) Why are some periods from the lunar cycles skipped in favour of others?
6) If Solar cycles are used in the predictions, maybe we could see some predictions of solar activity for the next few solar cycles? I'd like to see if it's worth my investing in another h-alpha scope

Please note that I'm not trying to attack Ken personally at any stage in this thread, and it shouldn't be read as such. I'm trying to see what the methodologies are that are in use, and trying to understand those.

Popoutman

Bejubby wrote: »

Ffs can we just get some forecasts.

I think you are in the wrong thread for that - this is a weather theory thread

Bejubby wrote: »

Nobody knows everthing and never will.

But we can try to understand as much as we can. The better educated we are about our surroundings the better off we are. I aim to try to continually improve my own education as long as I have a functioning brain.

Bejubby wrote: »

The universe will never be understood.
Picture yourself from the Iss,then zoom out of our galaxy to another and so on.we are mere pieces of dust on a planet .
We can never understand what goes on but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Rather a defeatist attitude? I'd like to think that we have a pretty good understanding of our universe. Most of the things that were not explainable to our Renaissance-living ancestors have now got adequate theories supported by experimentation. Having a lack of understanding shouldn't be a reason to refuse to want to understand - it should be an impetus to understand as far as I can see. We are entitled to our own opinions, but opinions are not to be weighted evenly. My opinions on e.g. botany wouldn't be as useful as the opinion of a post-doc botanist, as they are a recognised and proven expert in that field (pun unintended..).

Bejubby wrote: »

This is nearly a week of bitching and getting duller by the day,pardon the pun.

You can easily ignore the thread - nobody's forcing you to read or interact here! Personally I've found it interesting and a little educational, so it's been far from a waste of my own time.

Sparks

BillG wrote: »

Mr Ring makes some money providing a service of long-range weather forecasting. The benchmark for whether he provides a good service or not should be gauged by how much repeat custom he has.

No, that's a measure of his clients, not the accuracy of his predictions.
I mean, just because people were able to sell shares in Anglo didn't mean they were worth buying...

MiNdGaM3

Ken, if you wouldn't mind answering a question or two for me.

Do you take into account things going on here on Earth, such as the state of the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, goings on in the stratosphere, northern hemisphere snow cover, the Madden Julian Oscillation, Global Wind Oscillations, etc?

If so, how do you incorporate them into your forecasts? In not, why not, and how do you overcome the issue of ignoring these factors that strongly influence our weather?

relaxed

Bejubby wrote: »

Ffs can we just get some
Forescasts

The august thread is the place for that. You know the one Ken Ring started, where there was some very warm days due around 7th August, but they never materialised in county Clare, but that was probably because the lunar shield pulled it, and intensified it, to all the other counties except Clare.

But ken won't share his methods so we will never understand the Stonehenge mirror Parabolic and it's effects on keeping the warm weather away from Clare.

Of course the very warm days around 7th august that ken forecast missed the rest of Ireland too but I am sure ken, or maybe the Irish daily mail, has an explanation for that.

Bejubby

Popoutman wrote: »

I think you are in the wrong thread for that - this is a weather theory thread


But we can try to understand as much as we can. The better educated we are about our surroundings the better off we are. I aim to try to continually improve my own education as long as I have a functioning brain.


Rather a defeatist attitude? I'd like to think that we have a pretty good understanding of our universe. Most of the things that were not explainable to our Renaissance-living ancestors have now got adequate theories supported by experimentation. Having a lack of understanding shouldn't be a reason to refuse to want to understand - it should be an impetus to understand as far as I can see. We are entitled to our own opinions, but opinions are not to be weighted evenly. My opinions on e.g. botany wouldn't be as useful as the opinion of a post-doc botanist, as they are a recognised and proven expert in that field (pun unintended..).


You can easily ignore the thread - nobody's forcing you to read or interact here! Personally I've found it interesting and a little educational, so it's been far from a waste of my own time.

Ive found it interesting aswell and also my view of the universe is a realistic rather than defeatist.

We can see many light years away but a human will never come to live that amount of time.

BillG

Sparks wrote: »

No, that's a measure of his clients, not the accuracy of his predictions.
I mean, just because people were able to sell shares in Anglo didn't mean they were worth buying...

Argh, I guess that since I have already mentioned that I have used Mr Ring's services that you represent one of those troglodyte beasties called, in the modern parlance, trolls.

However, I perhaps do you an injustice so I will assume that you are an ex-client of Mr Ring and can provide us with some insight into why you consider his services not to be worth the money. Have you some comparison as to the accuracy of the forecast to observed or other such material. If so please share that with us.

Otherwise, thank you for giving us an example of the sort of mindset that my post was all about

keno-daytrader

Not sure why all the abuse at Mr Ring. Met Eireann is just about anything but reliable, they cover themselves on every single forecast. Here is the outlook for next week.

"The further outlook out to next weekend is for continued unsettled conditions but remaining rather benign."

I mean what does that mean? Benign would seem to imply calm not much going on, unsettled would seem to indicate the opposite.

Goto the met.ie weather image and you will see, a cloud,sun,rain, all in the same area. 80% of the time. Even during the hot spell in July they had those drops of rain on the map.

Anyway, just sayin ease up on Ken, because what we have here in met.ie aint any better.

BillG

Popoutman wrote: »

True for currently accepted theories. However, it's not yet apparent that Ken's hypotheses are good enough to be known as theories.
.

I think this is a bit of a strawman post. I have just reviewed the thread and I cannot see anywhere Mr Ring advancing a hypothesis. He has said fairly consistently that he offers a long-range weather forecasting service. You keep asking him to "prove" his methods but as I have iterated in a previous post that is hardly the point.

He offers a commercial service that either people find useful or people do not. In simple commercial terms he either makes money or does not. If his wares are valuable then people will continue to pay for them if not they wont. This is unlike, for example, Met Eireann that is funded through taxation.

Personally, I am finding his day-to-day forecasting okay but his real worth is when you take the forecast and use it to give you an idea of trend. For instance his July forecast last January. I currently have his forecast up till mid next year and it makes for interesting reading. I am keeping track of observed versus actual and so far it has been robust. Not entirely accurate on a daily basis but when you look week -by-week its very useful.

I use it for budgeting on fuel and planning work in advance and for that it is really good. Met Eireann cannot give me anything as they have said it is impossible to do but the overall accuracy of Mr Ring's product would suggest otherwise.

If I had a suggestion to Ken I would package up the forecast in more of a trend and probabilty analysis rather than the daily forecast he uses but that is a minor quibble.

Sparks

BillG wrote: »

Argh, I guess that since I have already mentioned that I have used Mr Ring's services that you represent one of those troglodyte beasties called, in the modern parlance, trolls.

No, I'm just someone who understands that if your service is prediction, then sales figures are not the primary metric of accuracy.

I mean, astrologers have great sales figures, but I wouldn't want to bet money based on their predictions.

Have I used Ken's services? No, why would I need to do that? That's like saying that I have to be a race driver to know that cornering speed is a better metric of how good a race car is than how many of that model are sold per year...

BillG

Sparks wrote: »

No, I'm just someone who understands that if your service is prediction, then sales figures are not the primary metric of accuracy.

I mean, astrologers have great sales figures, but I wouldn't want to bet money based on their predictions.

I wholeheartedly agree, but Mr Ring's business is not selling predictions.

Have I used Ken's services? No, why would I need to do that? That's like saying that I have to be a race driver to know that cornering speed is a better metric of how good a race car is than how many of that model are sold per year...

Why would you need to do that? Perhaps to avoid the mistake of saying Mr Ring peddled predictions?

Popoutman

BillG wrote: »

I think this is a bit of a strawman post. I have just reviewed the thread and I cannot see anywhere Mr Ring advancing a hypothesis. He has said fairly consistently that he offers a long-range weather forecasting service. You keep asking him to "prove" his methods but as I have iterated in a previous post that is hardly the point.
He offers a commercial service that either people find useful or people do not. In simple commercial terms he either makes money or does not. If his wares are valuable then people will continue to pay for them if not they wont. This is unlike, for example, Met Eireann that is funded through taxation.

I wouldn't agree that my position raises a strawman. This thread is about Ken's methodology. A portion of his methodology has no apparent basis in reality. I asked Ken to clarify how those portions of his methodology are sourced and used, and he wasn't able to answer.
I haven't asked Ken to prove his methods - I would like Ken to clarify various issues that are present in his stated methods. His inability to do so is something that I find of interest, as I would expect that someone in his situation with a supposedly good understanding of the methodology, would be well able to clarify.

I don't particularly want to get into discussions on the commercial aspect of Ken's work, as he isn't allowed to discuss it here and it is both outside of the thread brief and it's not fair to him. I'd love to but I wouldn't be like that.

After watching this forum for a good while, with MTC et.al and comparing those short-term forecasts to Met Eireann's forecasts, as well as doing my own watching of the model outputs, I can see that Met Eireann don't do a bad job, and I for one am happy that my tax euros are not being wasted there. At least I have a reasonable understanding of the process behind the ME forecast, and it's based on sound science.

BillG wrote: »

Personally, I am finding his day-to-day forecasting okay but his real worth is when you take the forecast and use it to give you an idea of trend. For instance his July forecast last January. I currently have his forecast up till mid next year and it makes for interesting reading. I am keeping track of observed versus actual and so far it has been robust. Not entirely accurate on a daily basis but when you look week -by-week its very useful.
I use it for budgeting on fuel and planning work in advance and for that it is really good. Met Eireann cannot give me anything as they have said it is impossible to do but the overall accuracy of Mr Ring's product would suggest otherwise.
If I had a suggestion to Ken I would package up the forecast in more of a trend and probabilty analysis rather than the daily forecast he uses but that is a minor quibble.

If Ken's work is being advertised as having the precision that it does, it should be able to stand up to scrutiny. If numbers are stated in a prediction and are missed in reality then that's a failure on the part of the methodology.

If it were sold as generic trends, then I think there would be a lot less interest in them, as similar trends that are as or more accurate than Ken's are being given away for free by the other long-term forecasters. I would agree, that Ken's forecasts would be more useful as a trend and probability analysis but I'm not sure if Ken could or would do that, for whatever reason.

Such characters as our Postman, well their predictions are useful in their own way, but their methodology isn't claiming to be of a particularly scientific nature. Ken's methodology apparently is trying to be something scientific, and when I can see glaring contradictions in that methodology I will ask the questions. If e.g. MTC claimed the same "unorthodox" methods that Ken has stated earlier, I would ask the same questions of him. I'd probably get realistic answers from him though..

sam34

train wreck thread closed til local mods review

pistolpetes11

Ive been away for a few days , and I come back to this ???

Firstly KEN ,

There is an ignore button and you can ignore posters and wont see there posts, if you feel folks are baiting you , dont bite , report the post and ignore them

Secondly Folks,

Some of you should know better , you back someone into a corner and they will come out fighting , its not in the spirit of the weather forum community

Thirdly Ken ,

People obviously want to engage with you , if you dont wish to engage with them then maybe this is not the place to be , if you do then it could be enjoyable for all involved once things are kept civil , everyone is entitled to there own opinions and views, If you feel people are being derogatory towards you please report the post and dont get involved in the tit for tat exchanges of the last few days

Im going to leave it at that for now but will be operating a zero tolerance policy from here on in

Popoutman

Pistolpetes11 - understood and taken on board.

Simple non-fighting non-antagonistic non-derogatory question on the methodology:


Ken, are there any non-astrologically-derived components to the methodology?

Popoutman

Another methodology-related question:

What original weather record sources are used to copy the previous weather conditions from (based on the cycle periods into the past) in order to form the future weather opinions as used e.g. in the August Weather thread?

omicron

Hi Ken,

Quick question if you don't mind. Are your methods for long range forecasting entirely based on the moon and astronomy or do you take into account other factors? e.g. Sea surface temperatures, snow cover, arctic ice levels, El nino etc.

Thanks.

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Pistolpetes11 - understood and taken on board.

Simple non-fighting non-antagonistic non-derogatory question on the methodology:


Ken, are there any non-astrologically-derived components to the methodology?

Is there any branch of modern science that is not derived from astrology?

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Another methodology-related question:

What original weather record sources are used to copy the previous weather conditions from (based on the cycle periods into the past) in order to form the future weather opinions as used e.g. in the August Weather thread?

All that I can get hold of for the cycles I have already listed and have already been discussed in earlier posts.

Sparks

Kenring wrote: »

Is there any branch of modern science that is not derived from astrology?

All of them.