Ken Ring predictions

Poly

I was always sceptical about his predictions, earlier this year I heard him on Matt Cooper doing his predictions for this summer.
I marked it on a calendar, so far he has been accurate, He predicted the good spell beginning 16th may and I also have 14/15th june marked for 2 weeks.
He also predicted a nice start to July and a good week from 17th Aug.

I’m now a believer.

I heard Met Eireann rubbish his theories before.

What do ye think of him?

Min

I think he is a valued member of the weather forum....

Joe Public

Like all long range forecasters he has his hits and misses but in Ken's case he has very interesting theories.

M.T. Cranium

I'm working on some similar ideas as well as some other new ones -- and these are now being discussed in a thread here too.

I haven't really had the opportunity to study Ken's forecasts in enough detail to form any opinions, to do this I would need to get a long run of them because anecdotally any method is bound to have its successes and failures that people can use to different purposes. The real proof is in the cumulative record of accuracy using some sort of realistic scoring system where a random outcome is well-defined.

For example, here on Boards weather forum, we have a monthly contest which certainly requires a full and detailed monthly trend forecast (but only a few scattered daily events). But the scoring system that we use does not have a clearly defined "random" level of skill score, although I think it's probably around 40/100 on the scale we use. Some of our regulars are in the range of 50-60 on that scale. This does not mean 50% to 60% accurate.

Scores that deal in percentage accuracy are open to abuse. If you only score a temperature forecast as right or wrong on which side of normal you make the call, then okay that is a rough and rather primitive indicator. Someone scoring 80-90 per cent on that index would no doubt be doing quite well, but 60 might involve a lot of large errors with correct signs (so might 80 or 90 but these tend to converge on small errors when you see a high percentage).

If you score by percentage how many times a forecast is within 2 degrees, then you lose the (random is 50%) certainty. To know what is random there, you need to assess a number of forecasters, the range of the climate (2 degrees at Valentia or Malin Head is not as good as Ulan Bator or Calgary) and the lead time for the forecast (a good forecaster should be on average around 1-2 degrees off the daily highs morning of and 2-3 for the day before, but seven days in advance? maybe 3-4 is a fairly good indicator there.)

Ken, I believe, claims better success with precipitation than temperature, which is a robust sign if true, because precipitation says more about circulation than temperature alone. I will try to get into assessing his forecasts before I finish my days in the weather forum -- which hopefully won't be too soon. :cool:

Villain

I bought his full forecast for Carlow last December and haven't been impressed tbh, he says allow 3 days either way but in Ireland if you allow 3 days you can't be too wrong.
He got May pretty wrong for Carlow anyway

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

I bought his full forecast for Carlow last December and haven't been impressed tbh, he says allow 3 days either way but in Ireland if you allow 3 days you can't be too wrong.
He got May pretty wrong for Carlow anyway

If you recall I said the Irish summer would be in two lots, for two weeks at the end of May-start of June, and for another fortnight about a month later from last week of June - first week in July.
For Dublin they have only had 3 rain days between 20 May-5 June. You can check for yourself on
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/EIDW/2010/5/4/MonthlyHistory.html

I do not have archival data through May for Carlow; perhaps you can give me a list of rain days.
Carlow have only had 6 rain days so far in June
ref: http://www.carlowweather.com/
You will see in the report you say you ordered, that I, too, predicted 6 rain days in June up till the 14th.

Up till 14 June, Carlow have had 16mm
ref: http://www.carlowweather.com/Index.htm
Again, you will see in my report that for the same period, I predicted 18mm.

So it seems that for June I have had great success, bearing in mind that
I did all this over two years ago. With respect, it would be weird and almost beyond belief if, using the same method, one month was a near perfect score but another (May) was completely out of whack. It is possible that you have a microclimate that may not match general trends for the county.

regards
Ken
www.predictweather.com

Villain

Kenring wrote: »

I do not have archival data through May for Carlow; perhaps you can give me a list of rain days.
Carlow have only had 6 rain days so far in June
ref: http://www.carlowweather.com/
You will see in the report you say you ordered, that I, too, predicted 6 rain days in June up till the 14th.

Up till 14 June, Carlow have had 16mm
ref: http://www.carlowweather.com/Index.htm
Again, you will see in my report that for the same period, I predicted 18mm.

So it seems that for June I have had great success, bearing in mind that
I did all this over two years ago. With respect, it would be weird and almost beyond belief if, using the same method, one month was a near perfect score but another (May) was completely out of whack. It is possible that you have a microclimate that may not match general trends for the county.

regards
Ken
www.predictweather.com

May:
Your predictions were incorrect for 16 days from 31 in May just just under 50% correct.

Now take June, if you pick figures like amount of rain over 14 days then yes you were accurate, and yes again you predicted 6 rain days up to 14th of June and yes we had 6 rain days. But did you get the days right?

But lets look at the days you predicted:
1 June Predicted 0 - Actual 4.4mm Wrong
2 June Predicted 0 - Actual 0 Correct
3 June Predicted 0 - Actual 0 Correct
4 June Predicted 0 - Actual 0 Correct
5 June Predicted 1 - Actual 0 Wrong
6 June Predicted 0 - Actual 3.1 Wrong
7 June Predicted 0 - Actual 4.3 Wrong
8 June Predicted 10 - Actual 2.8 Correct
9 June Predicted Trace - Actual 0.3 Correct
10 June Predicted 1 - Actual 0 Wrong
11 June Predicted 3 - Actual 0 Wrong
12 June Predicted 2 - Actua 0 Wrong
13 June Predicted 2 - Actual 1.3 Correct

So leaving aside the amount's you got 7 days wrong and 6 correct.

Once again also you have to get the snide comment "You will see in the report you say you ordered", in fact I did order it, sadly the first order didn't go through according to you but then after I ordered it a second time it did go through and I received the report.

Sadly though my credit card statement showed 2 transactions and it took several weeks for you to send me a cheque to correct the issue despite me sending photo's of the credit card statement.

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

May:
Your predictions were incorrect for 16 days from 31 in May just just under 50% correct.

Now take June, if you pick figures like amount of rain over 14 days then yes you were accurate, and yes again you predicted 6 rain days up to 14th of June and yes we had 6 rain days. But did you get the days right?

But lets look at the days you predicted:
1 June Predicted 0 - Actual 4.4mm Wrong
2 June Predicted 0 - Actual 0 Correct
3 June Predicted 0 - Actual 0 Correct
4 June Predicted 0 - Actual 0 Correct
5 June Predicted 1 - Actual 0 Wrong
6 June Predicted 0 - Actual 3.1 Wrong
7 June Predicted 0 - Actual 4.3 Wrong
8 June Predicted 10 - Actual 2.8 Correct
9 June Predicted Trace - Actual 0.3 Correct
10 June Predicted 1 - Actual 0 Wrong
11 June Predicted 3 - Actual 0 Wrong
12 June Predicted 2 - Actua 0 Wrong
13 June Predicted 2 - Actual 1.3 Correct

So leaving aside the amount's you got 7 days wrong and 6 correct.

Once again also you have to get the snide comment "You will see in the report you say you ordered", in fact I did order it, sadly the first order didn't go through according to you but then after I ordered it a second time it did go through and I received the report.

Sadly though my credit card statement showed 2 transactions and it took several weeks for you to send me a cheque to correct the issue despite me sending photo's of the credit card statement.

Thanks for providing more specific detail.
Taking into account a 1-2 day error, plus the error of tiny amounts of moisture like 1mm being a possible dew/frost/haze/mist/fog = a fine day, we get days 2nd-5th okay, 6th out, 7th-9th okay, 11th out and 12th-13th okay. That means out of 14 days, 2 are awry, which is 85% accuracy, and which is the figure I usually claim as a ballpark figure as the most one can expect in any type of forecasting, especially with something done from two years back.
I did not intend snideness, sorry if you interpreted it that way. I cannot be expected to know who you are from a nom de plume.
And yes, I am careful to whom I send refunds and have to check claims, and I would be a fool not to, which is why I requested evidence of payment from you. When you supplied it I did send the refund cheque, but mail from NZ to Ireland is notoriously slow.
If you are less than happy with the results, perhaps you were expecting a bit more than what can be delivered, given that longrange forecasting is as inexact as tidal tables, but is okay for general trends. I'm grateful that plenty of farmers seem satisfied enough to regularly re-order and I have been supplying Ireland weather reports now for nearly 5 years.
regards
Ken
www.predictweather.com

Villain

To be fair allowing 2 days each way in Ireland gives a big chance of been correct.

The hot spell we had in May was also not forecast by you, you told me before that temps aren't that accurate but they are included in a paid forecast.

You have no rain forecast from the 17th June until the 10th of July bar 1mm on Sunday the 20th June and then quite a bit of rain from 11 July until the 7th August so lets see what happens

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

To be fair allowing 2 days each way in Ireland gives a big chance of been correct.

The hot spell we had in May was also not forecast by you, you told me before that temps aren't that accurate but they are included in a paid forecast.

You have no rain forecast from the 17th June until the 10th of July bar 1mm on Sunday the 20th June and then quite a bit of rain from 11 July until the 7th August so lets see what happens

I think you'll find that 2 days each way is generally accepted as the error coefficient by Met Eirann as well. It is also at least that in the medical profession and no one considers it to be unreasonable. Plus, I do warn of the potential for error beforehand and on every report that gets sent out.
I can only express again that what you purchase from me is an opinion, not a fact sheet. I do not know how to better say that. It is as if I am expected to send physical goods, like 5 fine days in a sealed box, and if one is missing, or a day late, then there is some kind of inquiry called for.

Villain

Kenring wrote: »

It is as if I am expected to send physical goods, like 5 fine days in a sealed box, and if one is missing, or a day late, then there is some kind of inquiry called for.

imo Your attitude is appalling and you seem totally closed to any kind of constructive debate.

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

imo Your attitude is appalling and you seem totally closed to any kind of constructive debate.

Well, I apologise if offense is taken, I was speaking generally. You have written "I haven't been impressed tbh" and "he got May pretty wrong", "Your predictions were incorrect", "snide comment", and "Your attitude is appalling"?? Is that what you mean by constructive debate?

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

I think you'll find that 2 days each way is generally accepted as the error coefficient by Met Eirann as well. It is also at least that in the medical profession and no one considers it to be unreasonable.

Two days?? :eek: Explain what you mean, cos I can't see how that makes sense. "It'll rain either tomorrow or Thursday" isn't quite going to cut it with the public.

Two HOURS maybe.

Villain

Kenring wrote: »

Well, I apologise if offense is taken, I was speaking generally. You have written "I haven't been impressed tbh"

Well I haven't and I outlined why, I didn't just say your forecast was crap that would be unfair and not constructive

Kenring wrote: »

and "he got May pretty wrong", "Your predictions were incorrect",

I have explained why I said that based on factual reports

Kenring wrote: »

"snide comment",

It was a snide comment, you had no reason to believe I hadn't bought your forecast.

Kenring wrote: »

and "Your attitude is appalling"?? Is that what you mean by constructive debate?

Your attitude is appalling in my opinion not just in this thread but in other threads.

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

Well I haven't and I outlined why, I didn't just say your forecast was crap that would be unfair and not constructive

I have explained why I said that based on factual reports
It was a snide comment, you had no reason to believe I hadn't bought your forecast.

Your attitude is appalling in my opinion not just in this thread but in other threads.

Yes, I have now read your comments twice each. Is that what you mean by constructive debate? And I had no reason to believe you had bought my forecast because no one called Villain ordered anything from me.

Villain

You see where I come from we take what people say at face value unless we have a reason to doubt them, I said I had bought your forecast and instead of checking you decided to throw in a snide comment basically saying I was lying.

Maybe its a cultural thing but imo its a bad attitude.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Two days?? :eek: Explain what you mean, cos I can't see how that makes sense. "It'll rain either tomorrow or Thursday" isn't quite going to cut it with the public.

Two HOURS maybe.

You don't have to buy my reports. They have a 1-2 day error factor. I admit it and I challenge any weather service, from two years away, to do better. You want 2 hours error, no more, over two years? What service gives that?
How often have you heard it said, on TV, "the rain held off", or "the rain stayed away" or "chance of snow this week" etc etc? Once again, it seems there may be one rule for me, different rule for others.

Villain

Su Campu wrote: »

Two days?? :eek: Explain what you mean, cos I can't see how that makes sense. "It'll rain either tomorrow or Thursday" isn't quite going to cut it with the public.

Two HOURS maybe.

I heard him say 3 days before so yes basically if he predicts rain on the 14th, if it rains anywhere between the 12th and the 15th he was correct!

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

You see where I come from we take what people say at face value unless we have a reason to doubt them, I said I had bought your forecast and instead of checking you decided to throw in a snide comment basically saying I was lying.

Maybe its a cultural thing but imo its a bad attitude.

I never said you were lying. If you choose to use a false name you must take the consequences. Where I come from a person who hides in one sense is usually hiding other things as well.

Villain

LOL its an internet forum, if you think everyone here who doesn't use their real name as their username is hiding something I think you might have a hard time discussing, I'd say over 90% people here don't use their name for their username.

Considering on this forum everyone knows my website and also saw me on TV recently I think they know who I am

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

LOL its an internet forum, if you think everyone here who doesn't use their real name as their username is hiding something I think you might have a hard time discussing, I'd say over 90% people here don't use their name for their username.

Considering on this forum everyone knows my website and also saw me on TV recently I think they know who I am

If you are such a public figure then why hide yourself here? Are you a meteorologist?

Villain

lol not at all, just an amateur Weather enthusiast, I own CarlowWeather.com and I was featured on RTE's nationwide recently. If you search this forum you will see all that information. I have nothing to hide

Kenring

Villain wrote: »

lol not at all, just an amateur Weather enthusiast, I own CarlowWeather.com and I was featured on RTE's nationwide recently. If you search this forum you will see all that information. I have nothing to hide

Except your name? You'll have to come clean if you want to be taken seriously by me.

Villain

Sent you a pm with it

Poly

Villain wrote: »

To be fair allowing 2 days each way in Ireland gives a big chance of been correct.

The hot spell we had in May was also not forecast by you,

In fairness to Ken, I heard him mention the dates on the Matt Cooper show, he was correct for May within a day or so. As I mentioned, I have it marked on a calender from May 16th on.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

You don't have to buy my reports. They have a 1-2 day error factor. I admit it and I challenge any weather service, from two years away, to do better. You want 2 hours error, no more, over two years? What service gives that?
How often have you heard it said, on TV, "the rain held off", or "the rain stayed away" or "chance of snow this week" etc etc? Once again, it seems there may be one rule for me, different rule for others.

You misunderstood me, I was wondering what you meant by 2 day error for Met Eireann. Are you saying their regular forecasts have that error? That's what I was quoting, not your forecast. I have no intention of paying for your forecast, or anyone else's for that matter.

I don't see how ME can have that error. Are you saying that if they say it will rain tomorrow, it could actually be up to two days later? That's proposterous. I know they don't do two year forecasts so you can't be referring to that. But anyone can do one by looking at climatalogical history, picking a date and saying that there will be rain in the two days before or after that day, ie. a four day period. So now there's a four times greater chance of being "correct" for the "day" in question. In our climate any one location is very likely to see some sort of rain one day in four, except for a handful of periods a year.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

You misunderstood me, I was wondering what you meant by 2 day error for Met Eireann. Are you saying their regular forecasts have that error? That's what I was quoting, not your forecast. I have no intention of paying for your forecast, or anyone else's for that matter.

I don't see how ME can have that error. Are you saying that if they say it will rain tomorrow, it could actually be up to two days later? That's proposterous. I know they don't do two year forecasts so you can't be referring to that. But anyone can do one by looking at climatalogical history, picking a date and saying that there will be rain in the two days before or after that day, ie. a four day period. So now there's a four times greater chance of being "correct" for the "day" in question. In our climate any one location is very likely to see some sort of rain one day in four, except for a handful of periods a year.

No, I'm referring to their "extended" forecasts. It is a standard international leeway. Nothing to do with ME specifically. They all try to look forward a week based on what is on the radar now. They assume constancy and don't take into account the varying speed of weather systems due to lunar declination.

pauldry

In fairness to you Ken you are very right about this year so far. Do you do weather for the Winter because I only heard the Summer ones of last year and this year. Did you predict it would be so cold last Winter?

I challenge you to enter the boards monthly forecasting competition and lets just see how right you will be. I know you will beat me but can you claim top spot??

Kenring

pauldry wrote: »

In fairness to you Ken you are very right about this year so far. Do you do weather for the Winter because I only heard the Summer ones of last year and this year. Did you predict it would be so cold last Winter?

I challenge you to enter the boards monthly forecasting competition and lets just see how right you will be. I know you will beat me but can you claim top spot??

I underestimated the total extent of the cold over winter because I thought the solar minimum would be over earlier. Whilst December/January would be cold I had February warming sufficiently to bring up the average for the season. Temperatures are not the forte of the moon method, the latter which is better for the timing of weather events. It is akin to tides: tide height is controlled by many factors local and closer than the moon, but tide timing is essentially lunar and more clockwork.
As to competitions I am not that interested but thanks anyway.

Poly

Hi Ken, Do you think our next winter will be as severe as the last?

I'm in meath, we had a cracker of a day here yesterday and it's looking fairly good for the week, you mentioned this week on the radio show.

Kenring

Poly wrote: »

Hi Ken, Do you think our next winter will be as severe as the last?

I'm in meath, we had a cracker of a day here yesterday and it's looking fairly good for the week, you mentioned this week on the radio show.

I think next winter will be milder. And yes, I think the best part of this summer is going to finish with widespread rains leading to floods in some places about mid July.
www.predictweather.com

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

No, I'm referring to their "extended" forecasts. It is a standard international leeway. Nothing to do with ME specifically. They all try to look forward a week based on what is on the radar now. They assume constancy and don't take into account the varying speed of weather systems due to lunar declination.

I know of no weather service that has a two day error over the period of 7 days. But in any case I would imagine that over such a short period, upper atmospheric dynamics at t=0 greatly outweigh any influence from the factors you state. But maybe over longer periods your factors become more important, in which case they may hold water (excuse the pun).

By the way I'm not dismissing your methods, my one and only gripe is that your forecasts are to detailed. I don't care whether you're sure that lunar factors will increase the probability of low pressure in September, you have stated on the record that Roscommon (I think it was) will have snow on a certain day in September. Whether that's true or not, it gets the headlines, gets you in the papers and on the radio, and most importantly it gets $ in your pocket from people who are gullible enough to believe enerything in the media withohut checking things out first, such as your forecasting accuracy (which I still haven't got a figure on)

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

I know of no weather service that has a two day error over the period of 7 days. But in any case I would imagine that over such a short period, upper atmospheric dynamics at t=0 greatly outweigh any influence from the factors you state. But maybe over longer periods your factors become more important, in which case they may hold water (excuse the pun).

By the way I'm not dismissing your methods, my one and only gripe is that your forecasts are to detailed. I don't care whether you're sure that lunar factors will increase the probability of low pressure in September, you have stated on the record that Roscommon (I think it was) will have snow on a certain day in September. Whether that's true or not, it gets the headlines, gets you in the papers and on the radio, and most importantly it gets $ in your pocket from people who are gullible enough to believe enerything in the media withohut checking things out first, such as your forecasting accuracy (which I still haven't got a figure on)

You brought up several points so I will try to address them.
1. What in your mind is ME's expected error over 7 days? If they consider themselves a branch of science they will have a figure. Or are you saying they have a 0% expectancy of variability, so 100% accuracy rate? Do tell.
2. You are falling into the trap many make of claiming I said something then criticising what you have made up that you think I said. I never said any area will see snow in September. 'Will" is a word I studiously avoid. If it slips in it is unintentional and I am quick to correct. I said there was a potential for snow because of subzero temperatures combined with precipitation. There is equally the same potential for hail, frost, sleet, or just cold rain.
3. Also, don't be fooled by my mentioning a certain day. That is only for point of focus. I am quite prepared for a predicted event to be a week either side if necessary, particularly an event that may be long in generation or intensity. Longrange forecasting is about trends, not specifics. I appreciate that it is a difficult concept to grasp for anyone who is reluctant to see past mainstream meteorology.
4. As to headlines and dollars, I don't live in Ireland so the media approach me. Are you suggesting that because you feel uneasy about seeing that happen, I should henceforth desist?
5. As to accuracy, others on this forum have already said that they have found my lunar method reasonably on the mark. I don't feel any need to prove anything. But just supposing, serious question here, for the sake of argument, what criteria do you consider would be involved for proof, bearing in mind that what I produce and sell is always just my opinion?
6. As to dollars, people pay money for what I issue quite of their own free will. And yes, I make a charge because I have a small staff and a family with food and medical bills and I don't see why I should work for nothing whilst you and others expect wages for what you do in a working day.
www.predictweather.com

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

You brought up several points so I will try to address them.
1. What in your mind is ME's expected error over 7 days? If they consider themselves a branch of science they will have a figure. Or are you saying they have a 0% expectancy of variability, so 100% accuracy rate? Do tell.

I don't know what their exact error is, but I would be sure it's less than 2 days. In those forecasts they generally do highlight the that there is uncertainty attached, using phrases like "current indications suggest that...", etc. so the reader knows not to take it as gospel and will inform his/herself further nearer to the time.

2. You are falling into the trap many make of claiming I said something then criticising what you have made up that you think I said. I never said any area will see snow in September. 'Will" is a word I studiously avoid. If it slips in it is unintentional and I am quick to correct. I said there was a potential for snow because of subzero temperatures combined with precipitation. There is equally the same potential for hail, frost, sleet, or just cold rain.

Fair enough. But the only word I saw mentioned was snow, which gets maximum impact to the reader.

3. Also, don't be fooled by my mentioning a certain day. That is only for point of focus. I am quite prepared for a predicted event to be a week either side if necessary, particularly an event that may be long in generation or intensity. Longrange forecasting is about trends, not specifics. I appreciate that it is a difficult concept to grasp for anyone who is reluctant to see past mainstream meteorology.

OK, but I've heard you several times on radio and you've always given specific dates. Now the fact that you mean a week either side of that does not come across to the listener, well not to me anyway. You say something like "from the 14th to the 23rd...." that's being pretty specific if you ask me, and will amaze any average listener.
I know longrange forecasting is about trends, that is why you don't get any other forecasters being that specific. And if you were referring to me when you said "reluctant to see past mainstream meteorology" then take a look at my comments to MT on his thread".

4. As to headlines and dollars, I don't live in Ireland so the media approach me. Are you suggesting that because you feel uneasy about seeing that happen, I should henceforth desist?

I never said I was uneasy about that. You are entitled to make a buck whatever way you wish (within the law of course!). We all have bills to pay and you're no different.

5. As to accuracy, others on this forum have already said that they have found my lunar method reasonably on the mark. I don't feel any need to prove anything. But just supposing, serious question here, for the sake of argument, what criteria do you consider would be involved for proof, bearing in mind that what I produce and sell is always just my opinion?

And many have equally highlighted where you were wrong. I asked you some time ago for your forecast accuracy and still haven't got it. But that's the problem, how can we prove if something's accurate if we don't know when it was supposed to happen. The general lifetime of a mid-latitude depression is around 7 days, and when we get one we usually get more after it, so over the space of a couple of weeks we could get 4 or five depressions. If you have predicted "a depression to bring rain around the 23rd" for example, then which depression is the actual one you predicted? We saw above that you gave Villain a rainfall forecast for each if the first 14 days of June, and some were right and some were wrong....overall was it an "accurate forecast"? Plus the fact that you gave highly specific rainfall totals, how is that possible when using "trends"?

6. As to dollars, people pay money for what I issue quite of their own free will. And yes, I make a charge because I have a small staff and a family with food and medical bills and I don't see why I should work for nothing whilst you and others expect wages for what you do in a working day.
www.predictweather.com

There's one born every minute.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

If you have predicted "a depression to bring rain around the 23rd" for example, then which depression is the actual one you predicted? ..Plus the fact that you gave highly specific rainfall totals, how is that possible when using "trends"?
QUOTE]
Once again you are asking questions that make what I am doing try to fit into mainstream meteorology. It will never come up to that mark. The technology is entirely different, I don't have access to a range of models, big computers, satellites, or committees. I've no idea which depression, any more than the tide has any idea which currents will propel higher water into every bay on the Irish coastline around July 14.
The specific rain amounts I mention are just focus ideas, not actual amounts. They are to be read as 'large amounts' and/or 'small amounts'. When under 2mm they may indicate wet or dry weather, because that moisture reading may equally be dew, frost, snow flurries, haze, fog, drizzle. Therefore small readouts are not to be given as much credence as larger quantities.
I don't claim to be highly specific - just the opposite. You and others try to hold me to be so, despite my denials, yet you persist, and I think it is an attempt to try to dissuade others. It is as if an athlete is training for an event in the future. He may think he stands a chance of a possible placing based on form and says so. His opponents ask him what place in what race, and with what exact time. He answers I don't know, I just think I stand a chance. His opponents try to smear him with labels of fraud etc, just because he does not comply with their interrogation. The race day arrives, he performs well, and his opponents say it must have been a fluke
www.predictweather.com

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

Once again you are asking questions that make what I am doing try to fit into mainstream meteorology. It will never come up to that mark. The technology is entirely different, I don't have access to a range of models, big computers, satellites, or committees. I've no idea which depression, any more than the tide has any idea which currents will propel higher water into every bay on the Irish coastline around July 14.
The specific rain amounts I mention are just focus ideas, not actual amounts. They are to be read as 'large amounts' and/or 'small amounts'. When under 2mm they may indicate wet or dry weather, because that moisture reading may equally be dew, frost, snow flurries, haze, fog, drizzle. Therefore small readouts are not to be given as much credence as larger quantities.
I don't claim to be highly specific - just the opposite. You and others try to hold me to be so, despite my denials, yet you persist, and I think it is an attempt to try to dissuade others. It is as if an athlete is training for an event in the future. He may think he stands a chance of a possible placing based on form and says so. His opponents ask him what place in what race, and with what exact time. He answers I don't know, I just think I stand a chance. His opponents try to smear him with labels of fraud etc, just because he does not comply with their interrogation. The race day arrives, he performs well, and his opponents say it must have been a fluke
www.predictweather.com

Fair enough, it's a good analogy.

But just to be pedantic one more time a "wet" day is defined as having 1.0mm or more precipitation, be it rain, drizzle, hail or snow.

Deep Easterly

Su Campu wrote: »

But just to be pedantic one more time a "wet" day is defined as having 1.0mm or more precipitation, be it rain, drizzle, hail or snow.

What if the 1.0mm fell in 5 minutes at 4am and the rest of the day was filled blue skies and white fluffies and temps reaching 30c, would it still be defined as a wet day?

Su Campu

Deep Easterly wrote: »

What if the 1.0mm fell in 5 minutes at 4am and the rest of the day was filled blue skies and white fluffies and temps reaching 30c, would it still be defined as a wet day?

Yes it would, and a whole grey dreary drizzly day with only 0.9mm would be dry!

Deep Easterly

Su Campu wrote: »

Yes it would, and a whole grey dreary drizzly day with only 0.9mm would be dry!

OK, I get it now. It all makes perfect sense...

pauldry

Yes understandable but who made up the 1.0mm rule originally?

Gerald Fleming?

pauldry

and Ken, if any of your predictions turn out to be wrong... Ill be after you!!

Dont worry just jokin

Kenring

pauldry wrote: »

and Ken, if any of your predictions turn out to be wrong... Ill be after you!!

Dont worry just jokin

That's okay Pauldry. Let me save you the trouble - they're all wrong, and they're all flukes

pauldry

Kenring wrote: »

That's okay Pauldry. Let me save you the trouble - they're all wrong, and they're all flukes

dont worry your secret is safe with...................oh wait a minute:eek:

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Yes it would, and a whole grey dreary drizzly day with only 0.9mm would be dry!

This is why it's such an inexact science. You can get low lying areas where 1mm feels very wet whereas not much actually gets recorded. Around the summer last quarter moon you can sometimes get a really heavy afternoon shower out of an otherwise mostly blue sky. In the old days when reports came in from actual people who knew the areas, you got more accurate reports. With automatic weather stations in places like lighthouses, it has necessitated more conservative and cautious reporting, with more reliance on whatever has actually crossed the coast and already arrived. The metservice policy in NZ is to call something a tropical cyclone only when it has actually arrived and is belting down. Until then it is a low pressure system they say "we are keeping an eye on"

Speak Now

Kenring wrote: »

I think next winter will be milder. And yes, I think the best part of this summer is going to finish with widespread rains leading to floods in some places about mid July.
www.predictweather.com

I'm with Ken on this one. As last winter was our coldest in over 45 years i also predict next winter will be milder.

padi89

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

I'm with Ken on this one. As last winter was our coldest in over 45 years i also predict next winter will be milder.

lol

Poly

Your prediction for this week is shaping up nicely Ken, I've planned the weekend in Donegal around it.
Thanks

nacho libre

Kenring wrote: »

I think next winter will be milder. And yes, I think the best part of this summer is going to finish with widespread rains leading to floods in some places about mid July.
www.predictweather.com

do you mean relatively milder compared to the freakish one we had?
or do you forsee a winter dominated by prevailing south westerlies. do you share the view of M.T and paddy1 that the active Hurricane season to come will eventually hearld a significant change in the weather pattern that we have experienced over the last six months?

Kenring

nacho libre wrote: »

do you mean relatively milder compared to the freakish one we had?
or do you forsee a winter dominated by prevailing south westerlies. do you share the view of M.T and paddy1 that the active Hurricane season to come will eventually hearld a significant change in the weather pattern that we have experienced over the last six months?

1. Considerably milder northern hemisphere winter.
2. More active hurricane season, but more so in the southern hemisphere. 2015 could be the year to batten down the hatches in the northern hemisphere.
www.predictweather.com

nacho libre

Kenring wrote: »

1. Considerably milder northern hemisphere winter.
2. More active hurricane season, but more so in the southern hemisphere. 2015 could be the year to batten down the hatches in the northern hemisphere.
www.predictweather.com

no Ken say it ain't so:(

no offense intended but i hope you're wrong:)

Lumi

nacho libre wrote: »

no offense intended but i hope you're wrong:)

+1 Some decent snowfall is LONG overdue in the west:rolleyes: