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

Kenring

omicron wrote: »

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.

Best to get my free 230-page book from my website. All that you have quoted here are lunar factors in my opinion. e.g. El Nino is a direct function of lunar declination.

Kenring

Sparks wrote: »

All of them.

Disagree. Newton thought of himself as an astrologer. Without that ancient astrology of thousands of years through many cultures there would be no computers of today.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

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

Okay - I'll rephrase for clarity. The patterns that are used to form the opinions, are they based from astrological origins, or based on the actual observed astronomical patterns? There is a difference.

Oh, and Newton wasn't an astrologer by any meaning of the word: He was a physicist, as well as an alchemist and a devout religious heretic, but he wasn't an astrologer, paying it little attention.

Sparks

Kenring wrote: »

Disagree. Newton thought of himself as an astrologer. Without that ancient astrology of thousands of years through many cultures there would be no computers of today.

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. Modern science is not derived from astrology; modern science replaced astrology when modern science was shown to work and astrology was shown to not work.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

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

E.g. for weather opinions on Ireland would Met Eireann's records be used? UK Met Office?
I haven't seen the original sources listed, my apologies if I had missed them. If you had listed them, which post was it?

Popoutman

Sparks wrote: »

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. Modern science is not derived from astrology; modern science replaced astrology when modern science was shown to work and astrology was shown to not work.

That would have been a classic example of a real-world example of how the scientific method is used?

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Okay - I'll rephrase for clarity. The patterns that are used to form the opinions, are they based from astrological origins, or based on the actual observed astronomical patterns? There is a difference.

Oh, and Newton wasn't an astrologer by any meaning of the word: He was a physicist, as well as an alchemist and a devout religious heretic, but he wasn't an astrologer, paying it little attention.

I regard your posts as objectionable because I have repeatedly said I am not an astrologer. Newton was, because all scientists of his time were. If you cannot drop your insistence on me being something I am not I will simply block posts because I can't honestly be bothered repeating myself all the time. My methodology is laid out in my free book..

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

E.g. for weather opinions on Ireland would Met Eireann's records be used? UK Met Office?
I haven't seen the original sources listed, my apologies if I had missed them. If you had listed them, which post was it?

Whatever I can get. Why is it important?

MiNdGaM3

omicron wrote: »

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.

His book says El Nino/La Nina is caused by the moon, without any explanation.
It also says the poles aren't melting, which in incorrect.
It doesn't mention sea surface temperatures.
It doesn't mention the effects of snow cover (but makes some bizarre claims about Antarctic having no snow in 6,000BC!?)

Kenring

Sparks wrote: »

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. Modern science is not derived from astrology; modern science replaced astrology when modern science was shown to work and astrology was shown to not work.

Disagree. What you call astrology is not what astrologers call it. Ask one what it entails in terms of orbital mathematics and see if it differs at all from astronomy. Remember if you want to know about orhopaedic medicine you wouldn't ask a bricklayer.

Sparks

Kenring wrote: »

Newton was, because all scientists of his time were.

No, they weren't, and no, he wasn't. Newton's history is relatively well-known for obvious reasons. If you're going to cite aspects of his history and make claims that don't match accepted history, you need to provide evidence to back up those claims, and as Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sparks

Kenring wrote: »

Disagree. What you call astrology is not what astrologers call it. Ask one what it entails in terms of orbital mathematics and see if it differs at all from astronomy.

I don't need to repeat that experience.
Suffice to say, the difference between astrology and astronomy is that in astronomy, the math works.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

I regard your posts as objectionable because I have repeatedly said I am not an astrologer. Newton was, because all scientists of his time were.

Not many scientists of Newton's era were considered astrologers. Most of the scientists were performing experiments and evaluating the work of others, as opposed to dabbling in such silliness. Why would you think that all scientists of that era were astrologers? What would you base such an opinion on?

Kenring wrote: »

If you cannot drop your insistence on me being something I am not I will simply block posts because I can't honestly be bothered repeating myself all the time. My methodology is laid out in my free book..

I haven't stated that you are or are not an astrologer at any stage, and I'm quite unsure how you come to that conclusion.

I've only asked you about your methods, as stating that you are or are not something could have been misconstrued as a personal attack, which I've studiously avoided within this thread.

Given that you have stated stuff previously and in other threads as well as a significant portion of the free booklet that appears to be purely astrological in origin, it was something that was worth asking, to better understand the actual methodology in use.

The methodology in the free book isn't a description of a methodology, as it doesn't give enough information to allow someone else to come up with the same opinions. It reads more as an extended abstract than a real methodology. To put it in simpler more layman-friendly terms, the methodology is the recipe for a cake. The book lists the ingredients, but neglects to go through the cooking procedure to get the cake and all those that are reading the book can get is a bit of sweet unleavened dough.

Kenring wrote: »

Whatever I can get. Why is it important?

Which sources? It would allow other to verify your ideas a little bit, which would do you no harm at all.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

Disagree. What you call astrology is not what astrologers call it. Ask one what it entails in terms of orbital mathematics and see if it differs at all from astronomy. Remember if you want to know about orhopaedic medicine you wouldn't ask a bricklayer.

Astrologers don't work with orbital mechanics. They generally work from pre-generate tables, as far as I can gather. Using certain values for cycles to generate views on the future, and we can all see the similarity in the method there and the methodology we are asking about here.

Most astrological literature that I have read fails to take precession into account, so all of the astrological tables are out by something like 30-40 degrees on the sky compared to when the tables were written up. Not to mention having gross errors in the planetary positions, which doesn't help the credibility of those methods.

The constellations have already marched along the ecliptic a significant distance from when astrology was considered mainstream, hence why the first point of Aries is actually in Pisces, and the point of Capricorn is now not far off passing into the constellation of Ophiuchus.

The thread-relevance is: if the astrological tables are used for weather opinion generating, is there any account taken of such as precession, nutation or relativistic aberration - otherwise the weather patterns would be a few hundred miles farther along the surface of the earth from where the opinion would suggest they should be.

Popoutman

Or even a few weeks late in happening - as the astrological planetary positions would mismatch the astronomical reality and would be behind or ahead of the astrological locations.

Kenring

I think posters need to sort out what ancient astrology is, rather than what they think it is.
Here is a list of what it is not:
Sunday magazine tabloids about your love life and chances of receiving an inheritance.
That practised by people with scarves over their head and crystal balls in front of them.
Little known in the west.
A study divorced from all other disciplines and sciences.

What it is:
The study of repeating cycles that give rise to predictions.
The ancestor of modern mathematics.
A way of accurately viewing current astronomy (sidereal astrology)
A way of working out the energy balance between the earth, moon, sun etc (tropical astrology).
The springboard used by Newton for his gravitation laws.

The most helpful to all would be to forget astrology if you are not willing to accept its place in history. 300 years ago one could not be a dictor without also being a qualified astrologer. In China, India, Japan, many indigenous cultures etc, the science of this is still valid and helpful to many. It is not for one culture to pass critical judgement on the practices of any other.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

I think posters need to sort out what ancient astrology is, rather than what they think it is.

Wikipedia quotes on astrology:
"Astrology comprises several systems of divination[1] based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world."
Which would apparently cover my question above. I've made no distinction between an ancient or modern astrology, as there's isn't any modern astrology. If there is can you point to some resources that show this?

"At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined"
This implies that there is no modern astrology. Even those that call themselves astrologers agree with this.

"Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology found no evidence to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong.[5]:424 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics"
This is about the time that Newton was around, which goes against the statements that Newton's contemporaries were all astrologers, or that proficiency in astrology was needed for medical practices.

Kenring wrote: »

What it is:
The study of repeating cycles that give rise to predictions.
The ancestor of modern mathematics.

But Ken, is it not true that it was the development of mathematics (as devised by e.g the Greek philosophers, if that fulfils what you mean by "ancient") that led to the ability of others to put some tabulation into the art of astrology? It would be a lot more accurate to say that ancient mathematics led to the development and refinement of astrology, and once science was able to show how astrology had no basis in reality it was eventually dropped as a scientific endeavour in favour of real stuff.

Kenring wrote: »

A way of accurately viewing current astronomy (sidereal astrology)

The only way of accurately viewing current astronomy is through observational astronomy, not through any astrological method. Some form of telescope or sensor, not looking at calculated tables that have inherent rounding errors and other flaws.

Kenring wrote: »

A way of working out the energy balance between the earth, moon, sun etc (tropical astrology).

There's no energy balance as such between Earth Moon and Sun, other than what can be perfectly explained through orbital mechanics. Even relatively simple Newtonian mechanics explains the relative motions to the parts per billion. What energy balance did you mean?

Kenring wrote: »

The springboard used by Newton for his gravitation laws.

There's no basis that Newton used any astrological concepts in his gravitational theory. He developed on the astronomical concepts known at the time, as the difference between astronomy and astrology was well established by this stage. There isn't any way to correlate any astrology with astronomy for reasons I've expounded upon in my previous post.


Some of what you've described above is exactly what the middle-ages concept of astrology was known as, and it has since been definitively discounted as having any reality.

Kenring wrote: »

The most helpful to all would be to forget astrology if you are not willing to accept its place in history. 300 years ago one could not be a dictor without also being a qualified astrologer. In China, India, Japan, many indigenous cultures etc, the science of this is still valid and helpful to many. It is not for one culture to pass critical judgement on the practices of any other.

There's no criticism of cultures going on here - and it's off-topic! Don't forget that those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. After all, we used to torture those of differing religious beliefs (nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) , and trepanning was considered a valid medical procedure for many ailments in the past. It has a place in history, but absolutely no place in the modern scientific world. As a placebo or something light to entertain the masses, but nobody can take it seriously these days
In those places that you mention, Astrology is not considered as a science anywhere on earth, as it doesn't fit within the scientific method. It may be practiced, but that is no validation of its correctness.

Al this still didn't answer the question though. I suppose that I can re-rephrase my question.

Are the cycles chosen for the opinion generating based on purely observational astronomy, or "some other process" based purely on numerical tables?

Kenring

Popoutman wrote: »

Wikipedia quotes on astrology:
"Astrology comprises several systems of divination[1] based on the premise that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world."
Which would apparently cover my question above. I've made no distinction between an ancient or modern astrology, as there's isn't any modern astrology. If there is can you point to some resources that show this?

"At the end of the 17th century, new scientific concepts in astronomy and physics (such as heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics) called astrology into question. Astrology thus lost its academic and theoretical standing, and common belief in astrology has largely declined"
This implies that there is no modern astrology. Even those that call themselves astrologers agree with this.

"Astrology has been rejected by the scientific community as having no explanatory power for describing the universe (see pseudoscience). Scientific testing of astrology found no evidence to support any of the premises or purported effects outlined in astrological traditions. Where astrology has made falsifiable predictions, it has been proven wrong.[5]:424 There is no proposed mechanism of action by which the positions and motions of stars and planets could affect people and events on Earth that does not contradict well understood, basic aspects of biology and physics"
This is about the time that Newton was around, which goes against the statements that Newton's contemporaries were all astrologers, or that proficiency in astrology was needed for medical practices.


But Ken, is it not true that it was the development of mathematics (as devised by e.g the Greek philosophers, if that fulfils what you mean by "ancient") that led to the ability of others to put some tabulation into the art of astrology? It would be a lot more accurate to say that ancient mathematics led to the development and refinement of astrology, and once science was able to show how astrology had no basis in reality it was eventually dropped as a scientific endeavour in favour of real stuff.



The only way of accurately viewing current astronomy is through observational astronomy, not through any astrological method. Some form of telescope or sensor, not looking at calculated tables that have inherent rounding errors and other flaws.


There's no energy balance as such between Earth Moon and Sun, other than what can be perfectly explained through orbital mechanics. Even relatively simple Newtonian mechanics explains the relative motions to the parts per billion. What energy balance did you mean?


There's no basis that Newton used any astrological concepts in his gravitational theory. He developed on the astronomical concepts known at the time, as the difference between astronomy and astrology was well established by this stage. There isn't any way to correlate any astrology with astronomy for reasons I've expounded upon in my previous post.


Some of what you've described above is exactly what the middle-ages concept of astrology was known as, and it has since been definitively discounted as having any reality.


There's no criticism of cultures going on here - and it's off-topic! Don't forget that those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. After all, we used to torture those of differing religious beliefs (nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!) , and trepanning was considered a valid medical procedure for many ailments in the past. It has a place in history, but absolutely no place in the modern scientific world. As a placebo or something light to entertain the masses, but nobody can take it seriously these days
In those places that you mention, Astrology is not considered as a science anywhere on earth, as it doesn't fit within the scientific method. It may be practiced, but that is no validation of its correctness.

Al this still didn't answer the question though. I suppose that I can re-rephrase my question.

Are the cycles chosen for the opinion generating based on purely observational astronomy, or "some other process" based purely on numerical tables?

It seems to me that you are getting in your own way, and trying to block mine. It is not vaild to put your own spin on something from another culture and expect to learn something new. It is like reviewing a red wall through blue tinted glasses.
I am university science trained so I knoiw the language. But I have made it my business to also study the astrological physics Newton used for his Principiia. I believe it is still not understood by modern scientists, because they view it only through narrow eyes. Consequently I have come up with the rules I need from both modern science and the ancient techniques. Although mainstream science thinks itself superior, it cannot forecast weather more than 2 days ahead and cannot predict earthquakes, yet in eastern countries using the techniques I aspire to this is possible. I have shown that it is possible to do both, using something mainstream science, with its nose in the air, scorns.
So I will not debate astrology here. I use what I have picked from it, what works. I have also used what works from the science world. It is not for me to give away all the ins and outs of my method because it changes as solar and lunar peaks change.
Anyone who is to be a serious student of this needs to shed all affilitations to modern science, as it will only obfuscate and confuse, and introduce what is considered noise, but which is in reality a source of good constants once reframes are applied.

Popoutman

Are the cycles chosen for the opinion generating based on purely observational astronomy, or "some other process" based purely on numerical tables?

bobrobnz

I believe its something to do with the moon. On a recent blog post in NZ 22-July, Ken stated

"The moon has the greatest gravitational pull on our planet, being twice that of the sun because of the moon's closer proximity, but it is not something our earth scientists now choose to consider." = Ken Ring

Unfortunately all discussion on that forum was shut down by the author as it didn't agree with the viewpoint he wanted to force upon people, and disent didn't help.

This seems to be a common approach, and it came as no suprise to see that at the start of this forum that Ken stated "If this thread goes ahead I shall complain to as high an authority as I can."

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

It seems to me that you are getting in your own way, and trying to block mine. It is not vaild to put your own spin on something from another culture and expect to learn something new.

Please explain what you mean by this, as I have not put spin on anything in my post. Just because someone uneducated or unscientific in manner practices something known to be non-scientific - this does not make that practice scientific. Whether a first-world man or an aboriginal tribesman practice astrology doesn't make astrology any more meaningful. Why are you concentrating on "cultures" when it has no part in the overall conversation and only serves to divert attention away from answering the questions?

Kenring wrote: »

I am university science trained so I knoiw the language.

If I were to say that I don't believe you and asked for proof of this, what would you say? I've seen other work that appears to contradict what you say, but I'll leave that sit for another thread unless requested in this one. If you could clarify exactly what you mean by "university science trained"? Bachelor's degree, Masters, PhD, post-doc researcher, accredited lecturer, that would be appreciated, thanks. It'll give me a better idea at what level I should pitch my questions for least ambiguity and maximum understanding for least effort on both sides, as it appears I've been pitching to the wrong level up till now.

Kenring wrote: »

But I have made it my business to also study the astrological physics Newton used for his Principiia.

There weren't any astrological physics as that concept doesn't exist. Newton used Astronomical concepts. Have you even read any of his work? If you had you would see that this is correct.

Kenring wrote: »

I believe it is still not understood by modern scientists, because they view it only through narrow eyes.
<snip>
Although mainstream science thinks itself superior,

Mainstream science doesn't think itself superior. Real science is superior. As is proven over and over again, many times, in many different fields. Once something that was previously on the fringes of accepted science proves itself through the scientific method, it becomes part of real science. There's no "they" with science - that's one of the beauties of it. Science is not dependent on the personalities to be valid. as it is the best explanation (due to predictability) of the observed phenomena. There's no such thing as mainstream science, except to those whose unorthodox ideas contradict the accepted theories and are unable to furnish proofs that those accepted theories are wrong (needed for the unorthodox ideas to have any validity). There's science, and stuff that isn't science, and a pretty easy distinction between the two - but that's a chat for another time.

Kenring wrote: »

it cannot forecast weather more than 2 days ahead and cannot predict earthquakes,

I've seen valid forecasts up to ten days in advance that have proved accurate. The state of the art suggests that consensus these days with the current models suggests that 5-7 days is the point at which accuracy becomes limited.
Neither can your methods predict earthquakes Ken, but that's a subject for another thread and another forum. Hindsight bias does not a valid prediction make.

Kenring wrote: »

yet in eastern countries using the techniques I aspire to this is possible.

Which Eastern countries? Poland/Czech Republic etc? Or is it Japan / Korea? Or is it even Kenya/Eritrea?

Kenring wrote: »

I have shown that it is possible to do both, using something mainstream science, with its nose in the air, scorns.

[citation needed] - both for the scorn, and for where it has been shown to be able to do both.

Kenring wrote: »

So I will not debate astrology here.

But you already have, and I'm simply responding to your postings, and seeing some problems with those posts, and asking for clarifications of the statements you make.

Kenring wrote: »

I use what I have picked from it, what works. I have also used what works from the science world. It is not for me to give away all the ins and outs of my method because it changes as solar and lunar peaks change.

But this is you talking about your methods. If we can't ask you to describe what you do, and if we're not allowed by you to examine the results or accuracy of your methods, then what can we learn about it? So there is no core methodology used by yourself as it is constantly changing. What are the peaks based on? Angular size in the sky, orbital speed, orbital distance, or something else? It's unusual for a methodology to be needed to change when the input parameters change, unless the methodology is faulty to begin with and it's a matching process to get better outputs.

Kenring wrote: »

Anyone who is to be a serious student of this needs to shed all affilitations to modern science, as it will only obfuscate and confuse, and introduce what is considered noise, but which is in reality a source of good constants once reframes are applied.

You can't at first project yourself as a scientist (after all you say you are science trained ) and then say that you must reject science. after all it's science that allows you to get those almanacs physically made, it's been science that allowed you to get a platform to push your ideas in the media, it's only science that even allowed you to make your opinions known to people on the opposite side of the world through computers and the internet it's been proper meteorology (known as a part of real science) that allowed the collection of data that you yourself use in your opinions. You can't have it both ways.

Scientific methods correctly applied are pretty good at sifting the noise from the signal, but any proper follower of the scientific method knows that.

And again:
Are the cycles chosen for the opinion generating based on purely observational astronomy, or "some other process" based purely on numerical tables?

bobrobnz

Kenring wrote: »

I am university science trained so I knoiw the language. .

Unfortunately this statement may lead people to believe that you actually have a qualification from a university and that qualification lends weight to the methodology. For clarity, Ken has no degree in any field from a recognised university.

This fact doesn't mean his methodology in weather forecasting is invalid however. And the results stand for themselves.

Hope this clears it up.

Kenring

bobrobnz wrote: »

I believe its something to do with the moon. On a recent blog post in NZ 22-July, Ken stated

"The moon has the greatest gravitational pull on our planet, being twice that of the sun because of the moon's closer proximity, but it is not something our earth scientists now choose to consider." = Ken Ring

Unfortunately all discussion on that forum was shut down by the author as it didn't agree with the viewpoint he wanted to force upon people, and disent didn't help.

This seems to be a common approach, and it came as no suprise to see that at the start of this forum that Ken stated "If this thread goes ahead I shall complain to as high an authority as I can."

This is incorrect, and this poster and his co-ordinated gang forced the shutdown by the news agency that hosted that site, through their abusive rantings. I had no power to shut down the blog, which was an open forum run and operated by Yahoo.

Kenring

bobrobnz wrote: »

Unfortunately this statement may lead people to believe that you actually have a qualification from a university and that qualification lends weight to the methodology. For clarity, Ken has no degree in any field from a recognised university.

This fact doesn't mean his methodology in weather forecasting is invalid however. And the results stand for themselves.

Hope this clears it up.

I do wish these posts, abusive in the nature and intent and content, were no allowed here. It reduces the forum to a bear pit.
For the record I do have qualifications, and a Queens Award for my past career, but my qualifications are not relevant to astrometeorology. That there is no chair in any university for this subject should not reflect badly on its efficacy. There is no chair either of rugby, opera, rock music, mountaineering, athletics, philanthropy, and a host more worthy pursuits that benefit the community.

Kenring

A reasonable analysis of astrologically-affiliated physics and solar/lunar dynamics is outlined here
http://uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20Solar%20system%20formation.htm
It shows that planets of the solar system do unquestionably have effective influence on planet Earth and therefore on all that is on earth, which includes us. From there it is an easy step to appreciate that weather and climate have solar/lunar factorising at the very least.

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

I do wish these posts, abusive in the nature and intent and content,

I fail to see how this poster's post was abusive, but that's only my opinion on the matter. You've already had it suggested to you that if you have a problem, ignore the post and report it.
Personally I don't see an issue with some ordinary facts being brought into the open. It makes the debate a bit more honest I think.

Kenring wrote: »

For the record I do have qualifications, and a Queens Award for my past career, but my qualifications are not relevant to astrometeorology.

But Ken, you have never claimed to be an expert in astrometerorology.
You do know what astrometeorology is, don't you?

It's the study of weather on other planets - that are not Earth. Meteorology is the study of Earth weather processes. Have you started to branch out into giving weather opinions on Jupiter or even on other planets such as Kepler-62f or even such wonderful planets as Gliese 667C? I'd like to read those opinions. It could even be cutting edge! Whole new periodicities to tabulate and give opinions on. Ken, you could quite literally have a Field Day!

Kenring wrote: »

That there is no chair in any university for this subject should not reflect badly on its efficacy. There is no chair either of rugby, opera, rock music, mountaineering, athletics, philanthropy, .

But Ken, there are chairs in your subject. There are departments of Astronomy, departments of Meteorology, departments of Geology (including ones that specialise in vulcanology and seismology. These all cover portions of the subject that you claim to work in.

There's no chair either for witchcraft, homeopathy, chemtrail studies, palmistry (of people or of cats..:D). Doesn't mean those fields have any relevance in science.

All this is still diverting from a simple answer to a simple question that is still hanging out there waiting to be addressed.

bobrobnz

Kenring wrote: »

I do wish these posts, abusive in the nature and intent and content, were no allowed here. It reduces the forum to a bear pit.
For the record I do have qualifications, and a Queens Award for my past career, but my qualifications are not relevant to astrometeorology. That there is no chair in any university for this subject should not reflect badly on its efficacy. There is no chair either of rugby, opera, rock music, mountaineering, athletics, philanthropy, and a host more worthy pursuits that benefit the community.

There was nothing abusive in nature, intent or content in my post.

Thanks for clarifying your qualifications. I agree that a qualification in Astrometeorology is not necessary to be an expert in the field, and stated in my post ..

" This fact doesn't mean his methodology in weather forecasting is invalid however. And the results stand for themselves.

Hope this clears it up."

Popoutman

Kenring wrote: »

A reasonable analysis of astrologically-affiliated physics and solar/lunar dynamics is outlined here
http://uvs-model.com/WFE%20on%20Solar%20system%20formation.htm
It shows that planets of the solar system do unquestionably have effective influence on planet Earth and therefore on all that is on earth, which includes us. From there it is an easy step to appreciate that weather and climate have solar/lunar factorising at the very least.

That particular site fails quite a few of the pseudoscience questions, but the demonstration of that is outside of this thread.

As an exercise for the reader, here's a link to Carl Sagan's tests for pseudoscience:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037
Here's another link to baloney detection:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/bogus-science-sevensigns.html

Read through those and apply the questions anywhere that you think there may be some charlatans at work.

Out of curiosity what does "solar/lunar factorising" mean?

bobrobnz

Popoutman wrote: »

But Ken, you have never claimed to be an expert in astrometerorology.
You do know what astrometeorology is, don't you?

It's the study of weather on other planets - that are not Earth. Meteorology is the study of Earth weather processes. Have you started to branch out into giving weather opinions on Jupiter or even on other planets such as Kepler-62f or even such wonderful planets as Gliese 667C? I'd like to read those opinions. It could even be cutting edge! Whole new periodicities to tabulate and give opinions on. Ken, you could quite literally have a Field Day!

.

I have found multiple definitions of astrometerorology that actually match what methods Ken uses. They have a different definition to the one you have used

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/meteorology1.html

and

http://www.weathersage.com

so you might have to concede the point on that one

Popoutman

bobrobnz wrote: »

I have found multiple definitions of astrometerorology that actually match what methods Ken uses. They have a different definition to the one you have used

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/meteorology1.html

and

http://www.weathersage.com

so you might have to concede the point on that one

that's fair enough - I'm more familiar with the astronomical terms. I suppose the study of weather on exoplanets would be exometeorology after all. My mistake!

Still, it appears looking at those links that astrometeorology as used there is weather forecasting via astrology, not forecasting by using any physical process or any rigorous methodology. Interesting.

pistolpetes11

I think the discussion has run it's course, just going around in circles now , to all involved please don't bring it up in other threads.