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

Popoutman wrote: »

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

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

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

Popoutman wrote: »

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

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

Kenring wrote: »

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

Here we go. The conspiracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Akrasia wrote: »

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

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

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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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...

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 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.