Ken Ring

boardswalker · 20-11-2009 12:40am

octo wrote: »

Again, is there some kind of analysis to show that your method provides a forecast which is more accurate than what you might get from just a seasonal guess?

Hi Octo, you wanted an analysis of Ken Rings forecasts.

Have a look at the Irish Independent's August 09 look back at Kens Forecast.

By Breda Heffernan

Monday August 24 2009

AN unorthodox weather watcher who uses the moon and the tides to create long-term forecasts is celebrating after his predictions for the Irish summer have largely come to pass.

New Zealander Ken Ring correctly predicted the summer's mini-heatwave at the start of June and was on the money when he calculated that July would be a washout.

His achievement is all the more remarkable as some of the experts have got their long-term forecasts spectacularly wrong. The UK Met Office was left with egg on its face after trumpeting a "barbecue summer" in April only for the UK to see its wettest July on record.

Mr Ring is an Auckland-based professional weather watcher and made his predictions about this summer's weather on Marian Finucane's show on RTE Radio 1.

While his novel means of forecasting have been greeted with some scepticism, he was largely on the mark.

"I think I've done quite well, or at least the farmers tell me so," he said. "Of course, weather forecasting is not an exact science and so the best we can come up with are trends that have a few days' leeway on either side. For instance, I did say summer in Ireland for 2009 was never going to be all that hot -- maximum temperatures may not exceed 25 degrees."

He forecast that many parts of the country would be dry for the first fortnight in June and that temperatures would reach above 20C before the weather turned unsettled for the rest of the month. While there were some heavy periods of rain on June 6, 12 and 13, he was largely correct and temperatures did reach a high of 27C.

Experience

Ken predicted that July would be a mainly wet month, although parts of the north, west and east would experience dry conditions from July 12 to 17.

And so it came to pass, with Met Eireann saying it was the wettest July for over half-a- century for many parts of the country.

His forecast that August would be another wet month has proven largely correct.

Ken stands by his prediction, made months ago, that September would be the "warmest and most summery month".

Meanwhile, Met Eireann meteorologist Joan Blackburn said more orthodox long-term forecasting, such as that used by the UK Met Office, was still in its infancy.

"If it could be done with a degree of accuracy that would be invaluable, but it's not happening at the moment," she said.

What Ken said:

June: Many areas will be dry for the first half and temperatures will be above 20C, unsettled for the second half.

July: Mainly wet month for all. Parts of the north, west and east will have chances of dry days only between July 12 and 17.

August: A wet month for all. The east has a chance of dry windows from August 4 to 9 and 21 to 25. The south will see some sun from 25 to 30.

What happened:

June: First week was largely dry and sunny with temperatures well above normal. Second week was cool and windy with occasionally heavy rain. Rest of the month was unsettled with showers and some thundery downpours.

July: Wettest July for over 50 years in many places. Very wet at some weather stations in the east and west on July 13 and 14, but July 12, 15, 16 and 17 saw practically no rain.

August: Started out very wet, particularly in the south. Almost a perfect score for August 4 to 9 in the east.

- Breda Heffernan

octo · 20-11-2009 8:42am

Thanks for that Boardswalker. Although why do I get the feeling he wrote most of it himself?

Interesting he said that it wouldn't be hot, yet it almost a degree warmer than normal. People forget that.

Because back in March he predicted in the Tribune a "fine summer ahead, with September a scorcher" - saying "a marginally better summer than 2008.... [and] September will be the warmest and most summery month for all".

Really? Were average temperatures and sunshine figures for september larger than July? But true believers like Boardswalker and others probably aren't men or women of science and such questions probably come across as petty and irrelevant. And Ken would never retrospectively change his forecast, would he?

So, Ken's predictions (yours for only €89) give you 4 factors for each day, max temp, min temp, sunshine and rainfall. Three of those for the summer gone by, the summer that I hear being trumpeted to the high heavens, were wrong. It's not looking good for a serious analysis of Ken's forecasts.

Anyway, I was hoping for something more substantial, over a longer period. Ken's forecasts, as we all know, consist of max & min temps, sunshine hours, and daily rainfall amounts - copied from the climate database from 18 years and 10 days ago. Look for it yourself on the world climate data center for free.

An analysis would consist of a statistical examination of his forecasts with the actual reported data. Ken's usual defense against this, is to say that his figures are just trends. But it's quite easy to measure correlations between two corresponding streams of data - you can do it in ms excel - this will indicate if they're even any good at trends. Ken's a former maths teacher - he understands this stuff.

Accept Ken Ring's theories and you reject the scientific method. Ken is rewriting the laws of physics - attributing significant gravitational and meteorological effects on the atmosphere to the moon and the planets, without either theoretical or empirical evidence. He's saying that meteorolgy, a developing science since the early 1800's, has got it all wrong. Something has been revealed to Ken that has eluded everyone else.

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and Ken Ring's claim is as extraordinary as they come. But he refuses to submit evidence and accuses people who request it to be 'forcing him off the planet'. While for a number of years now he's been doing a healthy trade down under, and this year expanding his operation into Ireland. One wonders why he isn't making a fortune in Wall Street on weather derivatives instead of hawking his wares over the internet. But let me guess - high level traders are secretly using his methods?

M.T. Cranium · 20-11-2009 10:03am

These are basically the charges brought against all those who look into alternative research theories, and in my case, I have endeavoured to be very open about the theories, the limitations I continue to see, the advances that I feel justified in pointing towards, and all I can say is that the actual situation is probably more mixed than this previous view would have us believe.

For example, it seems unfair to Ken to suggest that September was not a better month than July, I think had this discussion not been taking place and you just asked around, that would have been the general consensus.

Ken has had some documented reasonably successful long range forecasts in my estimation, and I am not approaching his work with any sort of rose-coloured glasses; for example, I am also aware of the work of Piers Corbyn and I don't rate it as highly. So it takes some actual accomplishment to get any particular alternative forecaster into my good books. I'm aware of several others at work in the UK and over this way, as well as my own efforts, and the basic theme of the whole enterprise is that we may all be on the right track and seeing some valid connections, but some may have more of a handle on a possible new approach than others.

The criticism that involves the observations that if this were all so obvious other people would have noticed, or that we should all be filthy rich, are not scientifically valid criticisms, there is no requirement to show ease of discovery nor value of discovery in a scientific context. And how do you know that Ken (or myself for that matter) are not making huge amounts of money on the stock market? I can tell you that I would be playing these futures markets if I could set aside enough capital, but to start into that you have to have some money set aside and presumably from some other type of employment since obviously the climate is such that we are not going to stumble across research contracts or high-level positions in meteorology.

I know most people who get interested in this alternative methodology do so gradually over a period of watching weather events from some amateur perspective; anyone already working in the field is probably culturally conditioned not to look at this stuff, as you can see from the negative response my rather strong pressure curve generated. While global warming proponents would snap up something half as convincing and require everyone to repeat "this is serious proof of something really important," it appears that we will need to have an act of God take place before anyone in conventional meteorology will accept any evidence for the alternative theories -- and this then allows them to continue to claim they have seen no evidence.

I think Galileo had roughly the same problem getting people to look through his telescope in 1609 or so. Plus ca change ...

Now, I don't want to get into a running battle with Octo or anyone else; I would just say let's keep an open mind about whether these alternative approaches are promising or not -- Ken has come as close as anyone I know to showing the signficance of these approaches. I suspect there is more ahead of us in terms of discovery, convincing proof, and physical cause and effect. I suspect there is some force operating that is stronger than conventional gravitation over large distances, but weaker than electromagnetic over short distances, for example, some of the effects that I have researched can be quantified fairly well by taking a much less augmented distance factor than distance squared; I will try to post some of this in a few days because it's off on some other computer at the moment. I was working on some sort of physical explanation for the field structure that is important in my theory, and finding that it was best handled by this different set of equations but still using mass and distance.

Anyway, what I also have to wonder is why there is so much hostility to the alternative research, if it's basically no good, then what threat could it be, and if it's showing potential, then why be hostile to it? Does it offend anyone to suggest an external source of energy, as though our planet needs to be in control of its own destiny and only allow solar energy, the obvious external factor that none would deny? Is it a fear of finding out that some people who were ridiculed for their beliefs were actually right all along? (Bingo)

Or is it just human nature to suppose that we, as experts, must be smarter than everyone else? (Double bingo) I've dealt with this attitude myself on a number of occasions. It goes basically like this, "MTC (but use my real name), we know you did well in school and are a bright chap and have observed the weather night and day for forty years and follow astronomy very closely, but other than those clues, how could you possibly think you knew something that we, Canada's smartest five people who just happened to choose climate research as their future career, did not discover for ourselves, even though we never even tried to do so, nor would we have, because the other smart people would have booted us up to Eureka to clean out the latrines had they found out about it?" (I had no helpful answer for that)

I suppose one day, people like Ken might be the new experts with the same attitudes to yet another group of outsiders with yet another set of theories. I excuse myself there on the age factor. :cool:

Listen, I'm working on expanding that data base to the whole year for Malin Head, and it's going to take a few more days, then I'll have a better basis to show what I feel would be signficant evidence that the Moon is more than just another pretty face.

boardswalker · 20-11-2009 10:49am

octo wrote: »

As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and Ken Ring's claim is as extraordinary as they come.

Can you provide evidence that conventional long-range forecasting is better.
Its easy to knock - but give us your better alternative.

And by the way, rather than being a true-believer, I would consider myself open-minded. It gives more options.

I like your "non-personal" approach to scientific debate.

octo · 20-11-2009 11:07am

M.T., I'll get back to your later on the other stuff. In the meantime, your results will be worthless without signifigance tests - and my hunch is you'll need far more than a year's worth of data to prove a signifigant correlation.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

Listen, I'm working on expanding that data base to the whole year for Malin Head, and it's going to take a few more days, then I'll have a better basis to show what I feel would be signficant evidence that the Moon is more than just another pretty face.

The moon and the weather
May change together
But change of the moon
Does not change the weather
If we'd no moon at all
- and that may seem strange
We still would have weather
That's subject to change
(1882)
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1935JRASC..29..108H/0000109.000.html

To say that this topic hasn't been looked into before is simply a myth. Attached are three papers which I easily found in the literature. It's been well researched and abandoned as a fruitless line of inquiry - along with perpretual motion machines and frontal labotomies.

M.T. Cranium · 20-11-2009 11:36am

See though, there are glaring errors there.

First of all, my research investigation for Malin Head, as clearly stated before, is for 35 years of data, I am just talking above about getting the full year into my data set to replace what I first showed, the Dec to Feb portion.

Then as to the poem written in 1882, that's not even remotely proof of anything except a minimal talent in poetry. Anyone could write any poem they wanted about any theory, for example I just made this up:

The only thing wrong with the theory,
and perhaps this may make Al Gore teary,
is that no globe is actually warming,
but much Antarctic ice is now forming.

And as I tried to explain, those early studies on lunar atmospheric pressure interactions were not done with any respect to a grid where storm tracks and atmospheric processes were first studied and identified, so they tended to show the effects more on a daily scale in places that were far from the locations where the interference patterns are strongest. This may have diverted attention away from a possible research avenue prematurely. I don't see any of those studies as being a refutation of more focused, grid-oriented studies that seek to identify actual locations for a lunar atmospheric response. I believe one of the places first studied was Berlin, Germany, which is the last place I would look because it's between two timing lines and in a climate zone with a lot of meso-scale developments and lee waves from mountains to the south. I would not expect certain locations to show any kind of an organized signal.

So you may feel like you have won some debate with those points, but sadly, those points have deceived several generations of meteorologists into wasting their time and resources trying to make numerical weather prediction techniques work over 10-20-30 day periods which will be a very difficult challenge indeed when it's realized that large energy cycles come and go from external sources over 7-10 day periods -- in other words, it's like trying to predict whether the light at the far end of the city will be green or red on your drive home from work, using 30-second intervals updating your current position on a GPS map. It may show weak signs of significance, but the better way to predict it is to have a timetable of green and red lights and a known time of your arrival. It's that sort of paradigm shift where conventional meteorology will presumably just keep banging its head against the brick wall of guaranteed signal degradation no matter how fancy the computers become -- a fact made evident by the continued inability of the models to give us an accurate view of day 10 to day 16, despite advances from day 3 to day 6. It's not anyone's fault, but if energy cycles that haven't even started yet are not somewhere in the initialized data, then how could the computer model possibly know about them in two or three weeks' time?

With our approach, we at least have some sort of coherent time scale for energy peaks and the main question is not when but where. This eliminates half of the challenge that an empirical model would have.

The other point I would make is that, despite all the cold water poured on our research approach, meteorology has had 150 years to come up with a theory of why there is weather on a given date and has failed to do so. There is no other theory extant but ours, that can hope to explain why there was a stronger storm on 22 November 2009 than say 22 November 2007, 2002 or 1997, or questions of that sort. This makes meteorology far less than a real science, it is an empirical process with scientific theory embedded in it, but that science does not extend to prediction. Numerical weather prediction as now handled by supercomputers is essentially a sophisticated study of momentum; it is not scientific in the same way that a NASA space probe to a distant planet predicts with great accuracy where the spacecraft will be at very long time intervals. It is more like some medieval approach where a skilled warrior could say to the general where the catapult would fall in the distant castle. In other words, it is very much based on similar past experience and not some set of independent equations of motion.

Gene Derm · 20-11-2009 3:14pm

In the ancient past the religion was measurement itself, and the moon the great measurer, due to its clockwork nature that sees it lose only 10 seconds a year with respect to its position relative to the background of stars. Societies ran around the lunar clock, hence were much more ordered and stratified. Communities sought a confidence of identity by mathematically plotting their physical position in the cosmos. The word 'measurement' comes from the word 'moon'. While we have moved away from that, some very much older societies still have not. Today there is very little respect for alternative ideas despite chest-beating about multiculturalism and scientific open-mindedness, which is mainly tokenistic, the real agenda being the further entrenchment of conservatism.
In the main a university trained academic will regard their training as the last word in a subject, and if they come across an idea that was not covered in their courses then their immediate conclusion is that it is probably too unimportant to take seriously, or they would have been told about it, or it must be wrong or even evil, because there are "our" scientists and all the rest are charlatans, end of story. The simple fact that there is no chair at any university that offers study in my subject does not make my work unscientific or invalid. It just shows how limited universities can be when it comes to any wider scientific viewpoint, in the same way that acupuncture until a few years ago was considered quackery.
A classic example is the comment that I must have made up the newspaper article that was quoted from the Independent newspaper. It is my lament that most of the newspaper articles that feature me are usually full of misquotes and incorrect interpretations by the reporters, something I have no control over, and I am always quite relieved when an article does print what I might have actually said, as this one did.
The meteorologist on this forum keeps quoting what he thinks is my system. He does not know that I have looked at all possible cycles and that I have picked the bones from those that I have found work best, from trial and error over a period of 35 years. If anyone views one of my almanacs they will find that there are many systems and cycles being considered and commented on, and each one is factored according to application.
I have often been criticized for being critical of meteorologists, but such is not the case. Most are only doing what they were trained to do and I appreciate but cannot help that. The fact that a long-range prediction technique cannot be found in textbooks of meteorology apart from some analysis of past long-term averages does not mean that such a concept is an impossibility. Meteorology concerns itself with the atmosphere, in other words not weather at all, but the effects of weather upon the gas we call air. It is only after the fact stuff, and will never develop into a system of prediction, because by the time the specimen is examined the process has already happened. Perhaps this is why so many weather reports tell us what transpired me that in the past 24 hours or over the past month, as if we were not there to see for ourselves. Any comments as to weather due to arrive can only come from an assumption that current weather patterns will continue which will indeed work 50% of the time because sometimes systems are slow moving.
As I do not have any interest in now or backcasting, but only in what lies ahead, there is nothing about my techniques that should be analyzed by meteorologists intent on drawing comparisons. I know what they do and it doesn't bother me, in fact many do what they have been trained for brilliantly, and I ask that they extend me the same courtesy. I do not call myself a meteorologist, so there is no deceit, and I cannot be responsible for what others think I am and having decided then proceed to be critical of it.
The scientific method does not call for analysis, so the fruitless calling for analyses in my case does not make me unscientific. The scientific method only calls for open-mindedness, because the process involves the careful selection of variables, and testing for each. As it is never possible to discover all variables, the process is always inconclusive, which gives rise to the null hypothesis and which is why the process relies on hunches and intuition stories. If the scientific method was ever truly carried out, then all known variables would be listed one by one and isolated using double blinds. Also, the same scientist would have to do all the experiments, to overcome operator bias.
Really, what we call science is only an attempt to find precision, it is an approach and never reaches a destination. As soon as someone who calls himself a scientist declares that only what he is doing his science, and what others are doing is not, he ceases to be a scientist. It is an easy line to cross over without realizing. The brief of the scientist is to assume patterns and to discover them, which means cycles. He/she must assume predictability, and then set out to discover rules to make such predictions. The brief of a scientist is never to say such-and-such can never be predicted. Take the tides as an example. No one would dispute that the tides are measurable. Take medicine as another example. No one would dispute that swallowing poison would incur severe illness. Prediction is what science stands for and exists to pursue. But being able to predict weather is for some reason labeled unscientific. If that shoe fits then I would suggest that this is only an indication of the labeller being at fault and in need of re-education.
Ken Ring

octo · 20-11-2009 3:54pm

Gene Derm wrote: »

As I do not have any interest in now or backcasting, but only in what lies ahead, there is nothing about my techniques that should be analyzed by meteorologists intent on drawing comparisons.

Gene Derm wrote: »

The scientific method does not call for analysis

This is a complete copout Ken. You and MT know well that the scientific method as put together by Popper (a one-time resident in NZ) put falsifiability as a central core of scientific argument. It's not scientific if it's not falsifiable. You have resisted all efforts to enquire as to the falsifiability of your work, and all the while label yourself 'scientific'. You're right in saying you can't prove a theory - you can only disprove it. But the more failed attempts there are to disprove it, the more the evidence for it accumulates - but of course nothing is 100% conclusive.

Stop slithering around. Put up one of your day-by-day forecasts here on Boards for the next 4 months, we'll compare it to what actually happens, and judge for ourselves.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

The only thing wrong with the theory,
and perhaps this may make Al Gore teary,
is that no globe is actually warming,
but much Antarctic ice is now forming.

Nice poetry. Alternative science.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

First of all, my research investigation for Malin Head, as clearly stated before, is for 35 years of data, I am just talking above about getting the full year into my data set to replace what I first showed, the Dec to Feb portion.

Apologies. Is your mind made up about the conclusions before the results are in? What about significance testing?

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

meteorology has had 150 years to come up with a theory of why there is weather on a given date and has failed to do so. There is no other theory extant but ours, that can hope to explain why there was a stronger storm on 22 November 2009 than say 22 November 2007, 2002 or 1997, or questions of that sort.

agreed, but

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is no other theory extant but ours

this is not the only option! You can go back as far as the big bang if you like, looking for ultimate causes, but they won't help you predict the weather.

You may very well discover some correlation with moon phases that could be incorporated in the numerical models. I wish you well.

boardswalker · 20-11-2009 5:10pm

octo wrote: »

Put up one of your day-by-day forecasts here on Boards for the next 4 months, we'll compare it to what actually happens, and judge for ourselves.

Two things Octo.

Firstly, I don't think you understand what Ken does.
His website states that he produces long range weather forecasts.
He calls it the home of long range weather.

Secondly, I am still waiting for you to show me better long range forecasts using conventional methods. Your silence here is eloquent.

There's a lot of people out there who, like me, aren't worried how he does it but are just happy with his accuracy levels. We have compared his long range forecasts to the actual weather patterns and found that they were quite reliable. As far as I am concerned he passes your key test.

Met Eireann don't even try to do long range.

M.T. Cranium · 20-11-2009 7:25pm

No, I haven't made my mind up before seeing the results. I was honestly quite surprised that the full-new moon cycle in midwinter was quite as strong as it was in that part of the data. A researcher always has some preconceived idea of what he might find in the research, otherwise, he wouldn't have chosen that approach at all. But quite frankly, I already studied this question of position of low pressure near the British Isles from another angle than daily pressure at Malin Head, and so I am rather expecting to find evidence of several interlocking cycles that just happen to reinforce in midwinter (as explained before). However, what I actually do find will educate me as to some details, and if those details include a total reworking of the theory, I will go in that direction.

I have already done all this kind of research work for timing line one locations and have that documented and ready to publish. Time has been a big problem for me in recent years, I was for several years working full-time at a non-related job that was physically demanding so that when I had spare time some of it was not available for research work at all. As a result, I tend to have a backlog of projects half finished or half forgotten as I try to do the work of ten ordinary men so to speak. Sound familiar, Ken?

Who knows when this debate might be resolved? I have the strong feeling that one day, this will become one of those "sudden new paradigm shift" situations that has happened in the past in other sciences, like continental drift, the Milankovitch theories, ice age theories in the 19th century, even evolution or Big bang, size of the universe, etc etc.

If it does become one of those sudden paradigm shifts, it will probably be because somebody in my situation either publishes an irrefutable paper, or if somebody in Ken's situation (or mine) becomes so well known as a reliable long-range forecaster that people will have to change the normal rules of peer review and make a sort of de facto change in the way meteorology views these questions. Perhaps Ken at that point would be too busy to publish but could be surrounded by people assigned to familiarize themselves with his methods for general publication purposes. I know it sounds a bit unlikely given the history, but in my own case, I am not really putting up any barriers, at any point in time where the WMO, UKMO, NWS, Env Canada, Met Eireann, or anyone else official and big-time wants to know what I'm doing and how I'm doing it, I would share what I have and given my age I hope this happens soon because you don't want some doddering old codger chasing the boffins around the cafeteria with a walking stick (although I could probably do that now).

Some may read this sort of thing and say "well they are dreaming about that" but realistically, it's their gain more than ours, we already know this stuff.

Gene Derm · 21-11-2009 1:15am

Met Eireann don't even try to do long range.
That's correct, Boardswalker, it is like the old mechanic telling the new panelbeater to close up premises because the mechanic's shop will continue to handle everything to do with locals' cars, even though he does not beat panels. Unless the new guy does, the older one will reveal the panelbeating industry's secret shortcuts and failure rates. Analyses is being called for of my work. So where can we find honest longterm analyses of the work of Met Eirann?

Gene Derm · 21-11-2009 9:33am

octo wrote: »

This is a complete copout Ken. Stop slithering around. Put up one of your day-by-day forecasts here on Boards for the next 4 months, we'll compare it to what actually happens, and judge for ourselves.

No problem. Let us take a test case, County Clare, from this coming December to the following March. I have chosen Clare because I have no historical archival data for that County so cannot look back and bring forward anything from the past. My method has been astrological, and based around plottable lunar events, and I have included them in parentheses here for readers to see and follow for themselves. The lunar key follows the report. The astro-aspects are supportive but of lesser importance so would be time-wasting here and I don't think many would be interested. In offering this I think it only fair and sporting that you as a meteorologist or for that matter any of your vast staff of colleagues also offer up ideas for this time period, so that we can compare notes. Whilst hoping you or they will, I suspect that we will not see any. Please prove me wrong.

Clare, December to March
December: Chance of rain 1-10 December (FM+N dec) but few if any subzero minimums, most rain arriving within 2 days either side of the 4th (P), and mostly overcast conditions. Between 11-23 December should be mainly dry but cooler (NM+S dec), possibly two subzero minimum days giving frosts about the new moon 18-20 December (A), then rains returning just before Xmas with some heavy falls between then and the end of the year ( FM+N dec).
January: still unsettled weather but contracting to much lesser rainfall amounts in the first 10 days of January (LE+lastQ), followed by some heavy falls around midJanuary (NM+A), with rain potential petering out about 20 January (LE). Then a run of dry days between 21-31 January (1stQ+N dec+FM and P, these events well spaced which suggests more settled weather) but cold enough for frosts between 19-27 January (FM+P).
February: the month doesn't see much precipitation, perhaps 3-4 significant rain days and the sun breaking through on about 6-7 days, which may be mostly between the last week of February and first week of March (FM+P+LE).
March: a miserable month, mainly cloudy and wet, however apart from the first few days few if any frost-prone minimums likely (LE interrupting FM and NMs).

Key: FM=full moon, NM=new moon, N dec=northern declination, S dec=southern declination, P=perigee, A=apogee, LE(lunar equinox or moon crossing equator), 1stQ=first quarter moon, lastQ=last quarter. The FM+P (unless LE) brings rain. NM+S dec brings drier days in winter. FM+P brings frosts. NM+A brings overnight showers but less cold winter nights. 1stQ winter moon (unless LE) brings showers and sunny periods.

Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

tucker1971 · 25-11-2009 1:26pm

Gene Derm wrote: »

octo wrote: »

This is a complete copout Ken. Stop slithering around. Put up one of your day-by-day forecasts here on Boards for the next 4 months, we'll compare it to what actually happens, and judge for ourselves.

No problem. Let us take a test case, County Clare, from this coming December to the following March. I have chosen Clare because I have no historical archival data for that County so cannot look back and bring forward anything from the past. My method has been astrological, and based around plottable lunar events, and I have included them in parentheses here for readers to see and follow for themselves. The lunar key follows the report. The astro-aspects are supportive but of lesser importance so would be time-wasting here and I don't think many would be interested. In offering this I think it only fair and sporting that you as a meteorologist or for that matter any of your vast staff of colleagues also offer up ideas for this time period, so that we can compare notes. Whilst hoping you or they will, I suspect that we will not see any. Please prove me wrong.

Clare, December to March
December: Chance of rain 1-10 December (FM+N dec) but few if any subzero minimums, most rain arriving within 2 days either side of the 4th (P), and mostly overcast conditions. Between 11-23 December should be mainly dry but cooler (NM+S dec), possibly two subzero minimum days giving frosts about the new moon 18-20 December (A), then rains returning just before Xmas with some heavy falls between then and the end of the year ( FM+N dec).
January: still unsettled weather but contracting to much lesser rainfall amounts in the first 10 days of January (LE+lastQ), followed by some heavy falls around midJanuary (NM+A), with rain potential petering out about 20 January (LE). Then a run of dry days between 21-31 January (1stQ+N dec+FM and P, these events well spaced which suggests more settled weather) but cold enough for frosts between 19-27 January (FM+P).
February: the month doesn't see much precipitation, perhaps 3-4 significant rain days and the sun breaking through on about 6-7 days, which may be mostly between the last week of February and first week of March (FM+P+LE).
March: a miserable month, mainly cloudy and wet, however apart from the first few days few if any frost-prone minimums likely (LE interrupting FM and NMs).

Key: FM=full moon, NM=new moon, N dec=northern declination, S dec=southern declination, P=perigee, A=apogee, LE(lunar equinox or moon crossing equator), 1stQ=first quarter moon, lastQ=last quarter. The FM+P (unless LE) brings rain. NM+S dec brings drier days in winter. FM+P brings frosts. NM+A brings overnight showers but less cold winter nights. 1stQ winter moon (unless LE) brings showers and sunny periods.

Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

Thanks for that Ken. Without wanting to bother you too much, is there a chance you could tell me your prediction for the first week in July 2010 for
the eastern half of Ireland?

Gene Derm · 26-11-2009 3:31pm

Hi Tucker1971
I have mostly dry for the whole country between 1-9 July, except for rain in north and SW on 5 July, and starting to cloud over with drizzle patches across the north and Sligo to Louth on 8th and 9th. If you give me your latitude and longitude I can supply an astrological analysis.
cheers
Ken

tucker1971 · 26-11-2009 3:41pm

Gene Derm wrote: »

Hi Tucker1971
I have mostly dry for the whole country between 1-9 July, except for rain in north and SW on 5 July, and starting to cloud over with drizzle patches across the north and Sligo to Louth on 8th and 9th. If you give me your latitude and longitude I can supply an astrological analysis.
cheers
Ken

Thanks for that Ken!
Latitude= 53.2739 Longitude=7.4889

Cheers!:)

octo · 26-11-2009 3:43pm

Hi Tucker1971 - I hope this is more accurate for you than the snow forecast.

nacho libre wrote: »

on his site he predicts some significant falls about the second week in Nov, then Nov 16,

Joe Public · 28-11-2009 1:40pm

I admire anyone who sticks their neck out and makes long range predictions based on their methods, most people will not for fear of failure and ridicule. It is indeed a brave or slightly eccentric person that follows this quest but isn't this how the best discoveries were made?

There is also the argument that there are "quacks" out there in every field of science who prey on the vulnerable and convince them their methods work .............

The only answer I have for the 2nd argument is - A man with experience met a man with money. Next day, the man with experience had the money and the man with money had the experience.

octo · 29-11-2009 8:52am

Joe Public wrote: »

I admire anyone who sticks their neck out and makes long range predictions based on their methods, most people will not for fear of failure and ridicule. It is indeed a brave or slightly eccentric person that follows this quest but isn't this how the best discoveries were made?

I don't know, I'd say most people will not because because they know that it just isn't possible to predict an individual day's weather months in advance.

Joe Public wrote: »

There is also the argument that there are "quacks" out there in every field of science who prey on the vulnerable and convince them their methods work .............
The only answer I have for the 2nd argument is - A man with experience met a man with money. Next day, the man with experience had the money and the man with money had the experience.

Imagine you're a west of Ireland farmer who bought one of these 'forecasts' last year and now you sit there watching your home and your farm under a foot of water wondering "why didn't it predict this?" and feel much too embarrassed to admit to anyone that you actually fell for it. Would that valuable life lesson in gullibility make it all worthwhile?

M.T. Cranium · 29-11-2009 10:24am

Ironically, this is exactly how the skeptics view global warming, and we would note that we're out more than just the cost of a forecast, the world economy was retooled to produce ethanol which partly led to mass food shortages and price hikes in a sort of ill-considered domino effect of "unintended consequences" -- and to rub it in, it is getting colder rather than warmer, say many.

Now, you may recognize this as somewhat of an overstatement, but there again, so is a total dismissal of Ken's methods. He said September would be a fine month, and it was. He has some successes, and it seems unfair to me to keep banging on about how it is all random and nonsense when the truth is, perhaps he's on to something and it is non-random -- not perfect, I would be certain, but progress in this difficult field is not going to come easily, and we should be careful about totally dismissing the few methods that actually do show some promise out beyond the conventional time frame or the more generalized trend forecasting that organized meteorology attempts to do (with some success also, I would grant).

I think maybe before we all march lock-step into oblivion following the pied pipers of Hadley CRU, Al Gore and the IPCC, we should all attempt to return a bit of balance and remove some of the self-interest from these discussions. I said this before, if I was not impressed by any of Ken's forecasts, I would say so, that might be the case for some other person of similar "notoriety" in official circles that was named already, and for that matter, there's some official mets who make frequent bombastic and often way-off predictions of this and that also. On the other hand, you've got the rather respectable track record of Dr. Gray in Colorado concerning Atlantic hurricanes to show that it is possible to see some indications among all the conflicting signals.

For my money, Ken is looking in some of the right places and getting some good results. I hope he's younger than me, because my experience is that with the total lack of research funding that this sort of alternative forecasting attracts, you have actually a lot less time to do the work than you would like, and you are not always approaching it in the best frame of mind for that reason. So those of us looking at these alternative concepts have the disadvantage of making slower progress than we might like just because of the difficulties of working for free in comparison to being part of a larger, well-funded group (and we have recently seen how sometimes such people throw away their resources as if there were no tomorrow).

I'm a firm believer in these connections, and I don't think of them as "mystic Meg" stuff as some of my critics have enjoyed saying (because it's easier than actual analytical thought). The idea that the Moon influences the atmosphere is surely not that far-fetched, it's more a case that conventional researchers never had the framework or the insights required to unravel the complexity of the signals. I feel that if the WMO or anyone else wanted to put some resources to good use (instead of this IPCC mumbo jumbo) they might be surprised how much potential there is in this approach.

I should also point out that any given forecast that Ken makes is entirely independent of any forecast I might make because I have a different set of parameters in use in my model, although I would expect some overlap. If anyone had the time to compare Ken's winter forecast with mine, you might see some differences, and quite a few similarities. We might both be making some progress to compare notes. Just my thoughts on this subject, and I should also note, as to the farmers using a forecast, they would be the best judges of whether they got their money's worth or not. You shouldn't assume that any given user is displeased with a product you probably haven't even seen or read yourself. Many people in North America swear by the "Farmer's Almanac" which makes some very detailed long-range forecasts. I happen to find it rather hit or miss, but I am not going to go out there and try to intercept the shipments of these forecasts to stores and post offices just because I don't find it useful. And besides, as Mrs Tiger Woods just showed us, there are often unsuspected uses for certain products (like the seven iron).

octo · 29-11-2009 12:18pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

He has some successes

Of course, thats the whole point. Anyone giving a forecast will have some successes. I could make up a forecast for the year ahead and I'd probably get it right 90% of the time if I give myself a plus/minus 2-day error.

Weather is a complex non-linear chaotic system.

The climate change debate has nothing to do with it.

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

when the truth is, perhaps he's on to something and it is non-random

and perhaps, especially because his system defies the accepted laws of physics and he doesn't predict significant weather events, he's on to nothing.

kerry1960 · 30-11-2009 2:51am

Ok then , i have been silently following this debate for a while , and being a hill farmer/dweller/weather enthusiast i would have more interest than most in this matter , my opinions here are mine and mine alone , but since others have put their own opinions in the public domain i feel i am entitled to reply to them , as the following :
Octo : your arguments might be somewhat on the strong side but i basically agree with them .
Mr Ring : a large portion of western Ireland is more or less a lake at this time , the result of several weeks of incessant rainfall , totals are running at almost 120 % of normal atm , a weather event of great magnitude for those unfortunate folk involved , and where did you predict this ? , as far as i can see you didn't , so out of respect to the people whose houses are under 4 feet of water i respectfully suggest that you file your em... forecasts in the astrology section .

M.T. Cranium · 30-11-2009 3:33am

Kerry, I am not aware of any forecast that Ken issued for November, so I can't comment. It's possible he never made a forecast of rainfall in November. There is a super-typhoon near Guam right now that at some point hit about 870 mbs, it would have been a coup to predict that, but if any given forecaster did not predict it, that tells us nothing about his capabilities.

Part of verification has to be an agreed schedule of forecasts and the means for verifying them.

Now it could well be that Ken had a forecast out, good or bad, I don't know. But I would not consider the absence of a forecast meaningful in this discussion we are having.

And Octo, I don't want to bang on endlessly about this, surely my point is fairly obvious, I am used to assessing forecasts and as long-range forecasters go, Ken is ahead of a fairly large pack of alternative-methodology forecasters that I know about. I'm not saying he has solved the whole puzzle or found the holy grail, but I am trying to be fair to the man and say that if anyone has demonstrated a better than random track record, it would be Ken.

I threw in the analogy about global warming because it too is an "alternative" long range forecasting system, like it or not, and criticism of it seems to offend the meteorological establishment. Apparently the AGW crowd are allowed endless tries to get a warm period and they are also allowed to change their paradigm in mid-forecast. These are not advantages given to anyone challenging the orthodoxy. And many long-time climate and weather people think it is all something of an over-hyped hoax too.

I would say that predicting monthly precip trends may be more difficult than temperature trends. I think the statistics kept by agencies that do both would show this to be true. For one thing, temperature anomalies tend to form fairly organized patterns that don't often vary greatly from point to point while rainfall anomalies can vary greatly from point to point.

kerry1960 · 30-11-2009 3:59am

MTC ,i respect your commitment to this forum but im not interested in Guam , this man has been more than happy to make his opinions available here before ....and please look at this as a positive criticism ...but in simple Kerry language....the country is flooded ...4% of Ireland is under water ... Ken Ring didnt predict it...and even more importantly if he's that advanced in his LRF ....WHY DIDN'T HE ...so whats so special about Mr Rings LRF ... i'll answer that myself then ...he is basing his LRFs on a combination of averages/averages/and averages ... would have as good a chance myself in long range forecasting by looking at the local frogs ...at least i dont have a web site charging premium rate for that , go away Mr Ring ,go fleece your own countryman please .

Danno · 30-11-2009 3:29pm

I wouldn't disregard Ken's work at all, I do read his forecasts and keep an open mind to the fact that no forecast is 100%. I look for trends in what he is saying, not taking them as a literal forecast.

krattapopov · 30-11-2009 4:52pm

Howdy Ken,

Here is one for you.. I'm getting married on the 28th of December in South Dublin.. we chose the day hoping to get a nice crisp wintry day. What are the chances?!

octo · 30-11-2009 6:06pm

krattapopov wrote: »

Howdy Ken,

Here is one for you.. I'm getting married on the 28th of December in South Dublin.. we chose the day hoping to get a nice crisp wintry day. What are the chances?!

I can tell you what Ken's forecast will be - steady intermittent rain throughout the day, SW to W winds at 20-30kts, cloudy. Because that's what it was like on Dec 18 1991. My advice for what its worth, start checking the internet a week beforehand, don't worry about it before then.

The very best of luck on your big day.

Gene Derm · 01-12-2009 1:44pm

But there WERE significant falls in the second week of November, and on 16th.
7th in N, W and S
8th in N, W and S
9th in all except E areas
10th in the N
11th in the N, W, S and central counties
12th in all ares except SE
13th across the S
and 16th, in all areas. So I was correct. What IS your problem???
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

Gene Derm · 01-12-2009 1:58pm

kerry1960 wrote: »

Ok then , i have been silently following this debate for a while , and being a hill farmer/dweller/weather enthusiast i would have more interest than most in this matter , my opinions here are mine and mine alone , but since others have put their own opinions in the public domain i feel i am entitled to reply to them , as the following :
Octo : your arguments might be somewhat on the strong side but i basically agree with them .
Mr Ring : a large portion of western Ireland is more or less a lake at this time , the result of several weeks of incessant rainfall , totals are running at almost 120 % of normal atm , a weather event of great magnitude for those unfortunate folk involved , and where did you predict this ? , as far as i can see you didn't , so out of respect to the people whose houses are under 4 feet of water i respectfully suggest that you file your em... forecasts in the astrology section .

As far as you can see is not that far Kerry, so I don't know that you are a farmer, and I suspect a straw doll. A farmer would have received the Irish farming journals, and my columns in them, saying how much heavy rain was coming in November, especially the second week.
Ken Ring

Sponge Bob · 01-12-2009 2:07pm

Kens forecast in this forum for Clare from December to March kerry1960 is a few miles south and I am a few miles north of there.

I will be watching things with fascination from now on seeing as today is day one of the forecast and will keep my own notes intended for posting in late March or early April ...unless it goes bady off the rails that is

Gene Derm · 01-12-2009 2:21pm

krattapopov wrote: »

Howdy Ken,

Here is one for you.. I'm getting married on the 28th of December in South Dublin.. we chose the day hoping to get a nice crisp wintry day. What are the chances?!

Hi Krattapopov
My December forecasts are posted on
https://www.predictweather.co.nz/assets/articles/article_resources.php?id=143

I have cloudy with rising temperatures, as on the 28th the moon is in last quarter and 9deg in Taurus which is a cold and dry indication, 10deg being a change to wet. You may strike it lucky but I do like a 24-hr error as with all forecasting so it's hard to call.

I would have left it at that, only I see Octo the Meteorologist has taken it upon himself to answer astrological questions directed to me, which seems to be the best a meteorologist can do these days, when they are not destroying historical data that shows them to be making up figures to qualify for research funding, a la ClimateGate. Oh dear. If I was a meteorologist I would surely be laying low for a while.

Ken Ring

Comments