NZ guy who predicts weather

ch750536

BEASTERLY wrote: »

It is an illeagal fraudelent SCAM! Not just a poor product, thats why am so worked up!

Ken has to be stopped promoting a lieing onhere or else Boards.ie is at risk of being accused of facilitating fraudsters and aiding this outrageous scam.

Unfortunately it is none of those (or fortunately depending on perspective). At the point of sale it is made very clear that accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Before that point he can say what he likes, the contract is at the point of sale.

So not illegal, not fraudulent & not a scam. Suggest you use those words a little more carefully too.

Redsunset

Chaz

BEASTERLY wrote: »

It is an illeagal fraudelent SCAM! Not just a poor product, thats why am so worked up!

Ken has to be stopped promoting a lieing onhere or else Boards.ie is at risk of being accused of facilitating fraudsters and aiding this outrageous scam.

Thats your opinion. I just saw this linked from the front page - makes for interesting reading - I, for one, cant see what all the fuss is about. You and some others are acting like real pratts trying to 'show' him up.

Redsunset

Im sorry i couldn't resist but it's NEW YEARS EVE and i never did worry bout the little things.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!

djmc

I Like to see some long range forcast being offered even if it is not right all of the time a few years back we had a very wet year 08 or 09 and ken said it would dry up in september he got it right almost to the day and his forcast was 90 per cent right that year.
I thought last years forcast was hard to follow and not as good
I would like to see a forcast for more of the country as a whole rather than towns
The lunar forcast is used by old moore's almanac for the last few hundred years and its still selling, a lot of old people thinks it is right a lot of years.
It is a long time ahead to predict weather for a year and I dont expect it to be right all the time.
I think a lot of what of what has being said here is being comes across very petty.
I see the point about money in these hard times old moore's almanac is a few euros. 60 euros is a lot for a forcast that might not be correct every year but its a free market so maybe give the guy a break as nobody else here is giving a forecast for 12 months ahead.
keep up the good work ken;)

BEASTERLY

BEASTERLY wrote: »

It is an illeagal fraudelent SCAM! Not just a poor product, thats why am so worked up!

Ken has to be stopped promoting a lieing onhere or else Boards.ie is at risk of being accused of facilitating fraudsters and aiding this outrageous scam.

I think you might want to mind your words. Seriously , Kens lawyers are probably all over this now. You must have 100% proof of that accusation if he decides to take you to court for defamation of character, bullying,
Mind how you go. I know you genuinely feel you are warning people, thats great, but, Id be really careful.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/index.html Defamation Act


Slander.

' [countable, uncountable] a false spoken statement intended to damage the good opinion people have of somebody; the legal offence of making this kind of statement
a vicious slander on the company's good name
He's suing them for slander.'

4Sheets

I say Post the website..we are'nt stupid we can make up our own minds without mods..I think most of us here a while wouldnt be easily fooled

Yeah sorry just read the last few pages..must say judging animal behaviour is one general broad indicator as to the weather using the moon is barmy!

ro_chez

Well, IMO, anyone who pays €60 for a weather forcast/service needs their head examined whether it be from Ken Ring, MT Cranium or God himself .

jamesoc

Listen to Kens podcast on Matt Cooper .

http://www.todayfm.com/shows/weekdays/matt-cooper/Matt-Cooper-Blog/10-09-16/Ken_Ring_weather_prediction_latest.aspx?ReturnURL=%2Fshows%2Fweekdays%2Fmatt-cooper%2Fmatt-cooper-blog.aspx%3FBlogTagID%3D20fc7197-c030-4060-93cf-5ac1a2d4dd9a&BlogTagID=20fc7197-c030-4060-93cf-5ac1a2d4dd9a

Here are the ME summaries for Sept/Oct/Nov
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/sep10sum.pdf
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/sep10sum.pdf
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/nov10.pdf

Light snow in September but nothing about the December blizzards , lol .

BEASTERLY

I would like to take back my comments i have posted here in this thread. Ken Ring's forecasts are a lot more accurate than i earlier made them out to be.

In fairness I was a too harsh on Ken, i know he is genuine. My post re scams etc was just to do with being annoyed at on of ken's post and my comment had no truth in them at all..

The above poster is right there is absolutely no reason to think Ken Ring is fraudulent. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Ken for my out of place, incorrect and unfounded accusations. I had no reason to think what i said, it was out of anger.

Sorry Ken, and I wish you a very happy new year.

Su Campu

Here is the UK Met Office's Monthly Summary for May 2007, mentioning frost near the end of the month but no snow, so it still remains for Ken to post the link to where he found the report of snow for Lough Navar. Just because there was frost does not mean snow will fall. There may be a cold layer only a few metres deep near the ground, but above that it could be several degrees above zero.

I have absolutely no problem with anybody having a stab at forecasting, whatever their method, but I think that when they're right, people should acknowledge the fact, the same way as when they're wrong, they should admit it and move on. I just think Ken you could make a lot more friends if you stuck to this idea. Show us where it snowed in May 2007 and we'll hold our hands up. Or if you don't nail a forecast, do what even the UK Met do/did and admit it. They even removed their seasonal forecasts because they felt they weren't good enough. If you can do better then fair play, but don't be afraid to take an objective look at your forecasts accuracy - it's the best way to go.

Happy New Year (belated by now!)

Northern Ireland diary of highlights

Changeable weather throughout May after an initial dry, settled, start.
The 1st to the 4th was dry with early mist and fog patches soon clearing to leave plenty of sunshine with temperatures up to 22 °C. The 5th was mainly dry with some sunshine but cloud thickened to bring rain late in the day, still quite warm with Killowen reaching 19 °C.
There was rain during the morning of the 6th followed by brighter, showery, weather that persisted until the 15th. Highlights throughout the period were reports of a tornado at Carrickfergus on the 9th, heavy downpours on the afternoon of the 12th when St Angelo reported 11.4 mm in one hour during the afternoon and a funnel cloud was reported was above Cloughmills on the 15th. A cooler spell of weather than earlier in the month with maximum temperatures around 15 °C.
The weather turned unsettled from the 16th through to the 18th as fronts brought spells of rain with 20 mm falling at St Angelo on the 16th. When the sun did shine 16 °C was recorded at Newry on 16th and 21 °C on the 17th. Rain cleared through the first half of the morning on the 18th to leave sunny spells and showers, occasionally heavy. This showery and occasionally windy spell of weather persisted until the 20th.


A chilly start on the 21st with Katesbridge recording -1 °C, but a bright or sunny day followed with Helens Bay reaching 18 °C. Then it was back to changeable weather as fronts brought spells of rain and drizzle, mainly to the north and west with brighter conditions, at times, across the south and east.


Bright, sunny or clear spells with showers from the 25th to 29th. These showers merged to give a longer spell of rain during the evening of the 26th when Glenanne reported 15 mm over a 5 hour period. Hail showers were reported on the 28th. It remained cool with ground frosts on each night, and Katesbridge recorded -3 °C on the 29th. A bright or sunny start on the 30th, but thickening cloud brought rain during the evening, which cleared during the morning of the 31st to be followed by sunny spells and occasional showers, more so across South Fermanagh, South and West Tyrone and South Armagh.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

Here is the UK Met Office's Monthly Summary for May 2007, mentioning frost near the end of the month but no snow, so it still remains for Ken to post the link to where he found the report of snow for Lough Navar. Just because there was frost does not mean snow will fall. There may be a cold layer only a few metres deep near the ground, but above that it could be several degrees above zero.

I have absolutely no problem with anybody having a stab at forecasting, whatever their method, but I think that when they're right, people should acknowledge the fact, the same way as when they're wrong, they should admit it and move on. I just think Ken you could make a lot more friends if you stuck to this idea. Show us where it snowed in May 2007 and we'll hold our hands up. Or if you don't nail a forecast, do what even the UK Met do/did and admit it. They even removed their seasonal forecasts because they felt they weren't good enough. If you can do better then fair play, but don't be afraid to take an objective look at your forecasts accuracy - it's the best way to go.

Happy New Year (belated by now!)

Su, you are correct, I actually had no word "snow", but then I have no words for anything in my raw data, only figures, and the figures are only for moisture in gauges, temperatures and sometimes other parameters like wind strengths, depending on the station and depending on the collecting-diligence of staff many years back. So whatever I say in a forecast has to be about interpretation of potential. Subzero minima concurrent with precipitation can mean hail, snow/sleet, heavy frost if the precipitation is minimal(because the gauges can't distinguish light rain from other moisture) or even just very cold rain. So I apologise if I mislead. The point of the forecast would have been to warn of unseasonal cold. I would be surprised if there was no frost that day, or sleet, given that the temperature registered at -3C and that there was light precipitation recorded. And there is very little difference between a heavy winter frost and light snow. Sometimes the two concur, depending on changes aloft.
It is a message that is always hard to convey with longrange forecasting, because readers of daily forecasts have been trained to look for detail, and this is because we have evolved instrumention with numbers on it. Nature is not really like that, and can vary over a relatively small area such as a front yard vs a back yard. But we can't go sticking gauges over every metre of ground. Therefore there has to be a lot of reading between the lines, using the gauges as a starting point.
So when you see 'snow' from me, I would recommend readers think of very cold conditions, and maybe snow, at least potential for it which would be in the nature of a wake-up call for farmers, who are my target audience and commercial support base.
I would have thought most of this would have been assumed anyway, given that there are weather buffs here who know about how various factors initially come together as conditions to then become a weather episode. That is what forecasters are employed to do, and why therefore they cannot be wrong if they don't initially say they are going to be right. If I tell my two children to be careful crossing the road because of the risks, and one crosses safely and the other has a mishap, was what I said wrong or right? If you go to the casino you may win a lot of money, you may lose your shirt. If you issue a report beforehand describing what would be in your pocket as you walked home, you would be doing what many meteorologists do, because they seem to be unbothered about saying "will" all the time. I assiduously avoid that word, yet I do agree that "snow" does sound like a final outcome. Well, there is no other and better way to describe it. So put it down to the inefficiency of our language - I am certainly not trying to deceive anyone.
Compliments of the season to you too.
cheers

Kenring

BEASTERLY wrote: »

I would like to take back my comments i have posted here in this thread. Ken Ring's forecasts are a lot more accurate than i earlier made them out to be.

In fairness I was a too harsh on Ken, i know he is genuine. My post re scams etc was just to do with being annoyed at on of ken's post and my comment had no truth in them at all..

The above poster is right there is absolutely no reason to think Ken Ring is fraudulent. I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Ken for my out of place, incorrect and unfounded accusations. I had no reason to think what i said, it was out of anger.

Sorry Ken, and I wish you a very happy new year.

Accepted, no worries mate. Thanks for saying it. May I wish you and yours very best wishes for the season and coming year too. Let's all work towards a better understanding.:)

Kenring

waterways wrote: »

What I contribute? Well, I'm not a weather forecaster and my potentials for serious inputs here are low and I'm not a native speaker. Sometimes I cannot do more than to thank other contributers for their great postings. You have never thanked anybody here, referring to this my humble contribution is greater than yours. I'm more a reader and learner. And I appreciate all the qualified contributions here. Now I know a bit more about weather and climate and I learn every day when reading here, for example about the influence of NAO and AO.
You say you are qualified, especially in Astrometeorology and I just ask you what you intend to contribute here? What can I learn from you here despite how to promote commercial products?

How am I supposed to know what you can learn from me? I don't claim to be your teacher. I didn't say I was qualified in the sense you might mean it, because I am not a Dr of Astrometeorology or anything like that, because I am not interested in collecting letters after my name that would make me appear more attractive to a potential employer than someone without the letters.
That I haven't thanked anybody is a strange thing to say, when the thread was started by someone asking about me and most posters then leapt on me with jackboots. What's to thank? I am certainly grateful for those who stood up to me, so thanks to them. Is that what you mean?
And the dig about promotion is unwarranted. Please get past the commercial thing. It is no crime to earn money to live and support a family. It is no stain on someone's character to turn a passion/hobby/ interest into an earning situation. It is nothing immoral to have a website, nor to be promotional of it. I'm sure you earn a living. I'm sure you or your company advertises. Even priests promote their services.

BEASTERLY

Kenring wrote: »

Accepted, no worries mate. Thanks for saying it. May I wish you and yours very best wishes for the season and coming year too. Let's all work towards a better understanding.:)

In my defense, at the time i did believe the accusations to be true at at the time i said them, and maybe a few new years drinks were involved, lol.

After more research i have now realized the article i read was false and that you have the best intentions in giving your forecasts and those accusations were totally false(the article i read was less than truthful).

I hope that has now amended the record,
Thanks Ken, have a good 2011.

Kenring

BEASTERLY wrote: »

In my defense, at the time i did believe the accusations to be true at at the time i said them, and maybe a few new years drinks were involved, lol.

After more research i have now realized the article i read was false and that you have the best intentions in giving your forecasts and those accusations were totally false(the article i read was less than truthful).

I hope that has now amended the record,
Thanks Ken, have a good 2011.

Ah, John Barleycorn, I've tangled with him before!
Amended in my book.

BEASTERLY

Kenring wrote: »

Ah, John Barleycorn, I've tangled with him before!
Amended in my book.

Haha, cheers. I didn't mean to cause any harm. I would hate to think there is any hard feelings. I have deleted my earlier misinformed and non researched comments so people wont get the wrong idea.

Anyway maybe through 2011 you could come on here and try blending your forecast methods with M.T's and all of our thoughts to see what we come up with? Ya never know, maybe we can make weather an exact science before 2011 is over.

Someones been onto their Solicitor LOL;):p:D

BEASTERLY

Jake1 wrote: »

Someones been onto their Solicitor LOL;):p:D

Nope i just re read the article and realized it was untrue.

ro_chez

BEASTERLY wrote: »

Nope i just re read the article and realized it was untrue.

Yeah, like night and day...easterly, westerly

BEASTERLY

ro_chez wrote: »

Yeah, like night and day...easterly, westerly

I made a mistake(who hasnt?) and apologized.

BEASTERLY

BEASTERLY wrote: »

I made a mistake(who hasnt?) and apologized.

Some people are never happy, you apologised, ken accepted, done deal folks. Move along, nothing to see here.

Good man Beasterly.

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

Just looked it up. Lough Navar Forest got some on 30 May 2007.
Close enough for you?

Now it's your turn. Show me where Met Eirann predicted that. I'm willing to allow a couple of days either side.

I still have the same problem Ken. You said above that you looked it up and Lough Navar got snow on May 30th, 2007 (the specific topic of snow was implied by another poster). That is a very specific statement, not a generalised one of just potential of snow. That is where people have a problem with you. In an attempt to appear correct you will manufacture these facts and figures out of nowhere. As far as the records show, it did NOT snow anywhere in Ireland in May 2007, so how can you say it did? Where did you "look it up"?

How you can forecast "snow", as you have done on many occasions, and then make out that well it didn't snow, but there was frost or cold rain so it's the same thing, I cannot understand. Modern stations can and do detect and distinguish between many precipitation types, and contrary to what you say, rain gauges can measure to trace amounts (<0.05mm), which is typically the limit of what will be deposited in a "non-precipitation" event, such as frost, fog, etc., and not several times that, as you have stated before. That is fact, and is in the spec sheets for any instruments if you care to look them up.

If someone gives a farmer a forecast of snow and it doesn't materialise, that's an innacurate forecast - be it from you, me , Met Eireann, IWO, the Kazakhstani Met Service, whoever. I'm not going to get into any personal bashing, but you are one of a number of businesses that charges money for your services, and as such should be held to higher account than those who do not charge, as should any other similar businesses. You get a lot of free airtime on radio, and have no problem promoting your amazing accuracy there (without any mention of the 4 day-either-side / 80km rule), so this is the only place where those claims can be challenged in public. If there any other such service providers, they can be challenged here too, it's not a witchhunt against you. If you were to bring a level-headed approach to the game though it would have saved you from many an irrate poster, and I feel that until you do so, you will continue to feel their "wrath"!

Kenring wrote: »

Su, you are correct, I actually had no word "snow", but then I have no words for anything in my raw data, only figures, and the figures are only for moisture in gauges, temperatures and sometimes other parameters like wind strengths, depending on the station and depending on the collecting-diligence of staff many years back. So whatever I say in a forecast has to be about interpretation of potential. Subzero minima concurrent with precipitation can mean hail, snow/sleet, heavy frost if the precipitation is minimal(because the gauges can't distinguish light rain from other moisture) or even just very cold rain. So I apologise if I mislead. The point of the forecast would have been to warn of unseasonal cold. I would be surprised if there was no frost that day, or sleet, given that the temperature registered at -3C and that there was light precipitation recorded. And there is very little difference between a heavy winter frost and light snow. Sometimes the two concur, depending on changes aloft.
It is a message that is always hard to convey with longrange forecasting, because readers of daily forecasts have been trained to look for detail, and this is because we have evolved instrumention with numbers on it. Nature is not really like that, and can vary over a relatively small area such as a front yard vs a back yard. But we can't go sticking gauges over every metre of ground. Therefore there has to be a lot of reading between the lines, using the gauges as a starting point.
So when you see 'snow' from me, I would recommend readers think of very cold conditions, and maybe snow, at least potential for it which would be in the nature of a wake-up call for farmers, who are my target audience and commercial support base.
I would have thought most of this would have been assumed anyway, given that there are weather buffs here who know about how various factors initially come together as conditions to then become a weather episode. That is what forecasters are employed to do, and why therefore they cannot be wrong if they don't initially say they are going to be right. If I tell my two children to be careful crossing the road because of the risks, and one crosses safely and the other has a mishap, was what I said wrong or right? If you go to the casino you may win a lot of money, you may lose your shirt. If you issue a report beforehand describing what would be in your pocket as you walked home, you would be doing what many meteorologists do, because they seem to be unbothered about saying "will" all the time. I assiduously avoid that word, yet I do agree that "snow" does sound like a final outcome. Well, there is no other and better way to describe it. So put it down to the inefficiency of our language - I am certainly not trying to deceive anyone.
Compliments of the season to you too.
cheers

jamesoc

jamesoc wrote: »

Listen to Kens podcast on Matt Cooper .

http://www.todayfm.com/shows/weekdays/matt-cooper/Matt-Cooper-Blog/10-09-16/Ken_Ring_weather_prediction_latest.aspx?ReturnURL=%2Fshows%2Fweekdays%2Fmatt-cooper%2Fmatt-cooper-blog.aspx%3FBlogTagID%3D20fc7197-c030-4060-93cf-5ac1a2d4dd9a&BlogTagID=20fc7197-c030-4060-93cf-5ac1a2d4dd9a
Here are the ME summaries for Sept/Oct/Nov
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/sep10sum.pdf
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/oct10sum.pdf
http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly_summarys/nov10.pdf
Light snow in September but nothing about the December blizzards , lol .

I think a possible clue to Kens methods are to be found in that podcast , people really should have a listen and check against the ME monthly summaries , he is not wrong all of the time but then again neither is a stopped clock .

Kens type of forecasts are ok if the weather pattern stays in the groove so to speak ,ie a few rainy days here a few dry days there and if we're lucky maybe a settled spell for a week or ten days

Where these forecasts are found out is when the weather becomes extreme , floods (nov08) and severe cold (dec10) heavy snow (dec/jan 09/10) and dec10) surely the main reason anyone would have any use for these long range forecasts is to get advance warning of these events .

Where in Kens podcast is there any mention of Decembers record breaking freeze .

''No white Christmas'' says Ken , yeah right .

Light snow was not recorded anywhere last September afaik , and probably never has been since the 1800s .

Have a listen to that podcast , his December predictions are hilarious :rolleyes: , but no doubt he will return here later and attack me for highlighting his shortcomings , and will then proceed to explain how he was actually correct all along :eek: .

Ken a broken record becomes annoying , be better to actually just admit publicly when your Irish forecasts are wrong ( frequently ) , they of little use and imo a waste of money , your scientific publication about reading cats paws might be a bit more interesting at this stage .

PS . your forecast for today 1/1/11 was ''very cold and snowing'' in Carlow , atm it is 5c and mist in the ME site in Oak Park in Carlow , assuming that ''very cold'' actually means the temp is actually cold enough for snow i really cant see snow today at this stage but i will let you know tomorrow how your forecast verified .

Edit 2.45pm : Re your NYD forecast of snow for Carlow from just 2 weeks ago Ken , 2pm Oak Park ME stn is reporting 7c and dry , not great conditions for snow imo , now i may be wrong , ie a raging blizzard could begin there in the next 10 hrs ... or it may be just another hopeless forecast from you

proon4

irishguy wrote: »

Thanks for the quick reply guys. I am sick of listening to Met Eireann they seem to get it wrong the whole time and the forecasts arent very accurate.

Any recomendations of a more accurate forecasting service?

try weatherunderground.com i find it very good

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

I still have the same problem Ken... That is a very specific statement, not a generalised one of just potential of snow. That is where people have a problem with you. ..How you can forecast "snow", as you have done on many occasions, and then make out that well it didn't snow, but there was frost or cold rain so it's the same thing, I cannot understand. Modern stations can and do detect and distinguish between many precipitation types, and contrary to what you say, rain gauges can measure to trace amounts (<0.05mm), which is typically the limit of what will be deposited in a "non-precipitation" event, such as frost, fog, etc., and not several times that, as you have stated before. .. If you were to bring a level-headed approach to the game though it would have saved you from many an irrate poster, and I feel that until you do so, you will continue to feel their "wrath"!

As I have said, "snow" comes closest to describing subzero temps+precipitation. It is not always actual snow. I agree with you, it could be a problem. That's why I say that very thing in my forecasts, to warn farmers that interpretation is key.
Modern stations may very well distinguish the differences, but not the data I am dealing with, some going back 56 years.
I do try to bring a level headed approach to the subject, and there will always be irate posters, not necessarily because my forecasts didn't turn out as they wished, but because the moon represents paganism to many, and this in turn represents things like astrology, New Age literature, other belief systems, all of which they long ago decided they hated. That is their problem.
If you don't like what I write, just don't read it. I am trying to be helpful. It may not work out in your case. But if one person counters what you say with "it worked for me" then it cancels you out. The day they all say "it didn't work for me" is the day I'll take something else on. Until then you might wish to reflect that I am doing my best, and it may not be to everybody's liking. Just shop elsewhere.

waterways

From another thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055948304&page=80:

Villain wrote: »

I heard Ken on the radio and had people who know I'm into the weather asking me if the "Fella from New Zealand" was really able to predict so far in advance.

So instead of saying yes or no without giving him a chance I purchased his forecast for the year and basically its been useless and I mean useless every major weather event has not been forecast.

Ken, why don't you allow Villain to discuss here your predictions for Ireland which he has bought?

Gareth Renowden mentioned a few years ago that Erick Brenstrum, senior forecaster at MetService New Zealand (http://blog.metservice.com/profiles/erick/), noticed that your prediction charts are 18 years old "recycled" because you had forgotten to Tippex out the name "Drena" on a storm approaching. It would be interesting to compare your predictions for Ireland, Villain has bought, with the reported weather and weather data of 18 years 10/11 days ago (Saros cycle).

Do you fear that similar will be found as referring to your other predictions for New Zealand and Australia?
Some interesting readings on your S1 Scores, Hit and False Alarm Rates and more can be found here:

http://www.limestonehills.co.nz/Down%20On%20The%20Farm/Archives/2006/September06/AllByYourselfInTheMoonli.html

http://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2010/11/19/ken-ring-cant-predict-the-weather/

Su Campu

Kenring wrote: »

As I have said, "snow" comes closest to describing subzero temps+precipitation. It is not always actual snow. I agree with you, it could be a problem. That's why I say that very thing in my forecasts, to warn farmers that interpretation is key.
Modern stations may very well distinguish the differences, but not the data I am dealing with, some going back 56 years.
I do try to bring a level headed approach to the subject, and there will always be irate posters, not necessarily because my forecasts didn't turn out as they wished, but because the moon represents paganism to many, and this in turn represents things like astrology, New Age literature, other belief systems, all of which they long ago decided they hated. That is their problem.
If you don't like what I write, just don't read it. I am trying to be helpful. It may not work out in your case. But if one person counters what you say with "it worked for me" then it cancels you out. The day they all say "it didn't work for me" is the day I'll take something else on. Until then you might wish to reflect that I am doing my best, and it may not be to everybody's liking. Just shop elsewhere.

As I said before I have no problem with your methods/theories, and actually believe there must be something to them. I think given a better understanding of "mainstream" meteorology, you would indeed be able to improve your accuracy. Sometimes your understanding of basic topics seems limited at best, and may be holding you back a bit. So I am not one of those you say dismiss the moon as a pagan object - I don't think you seriously believe that anybody here does, c'mon!

If the data you use go back 56 years then they were definitely obtained through manual observation, which is way more reliable IMO. If it snowed, an observeer reported it so, if it was frost, that was reported. Snow is not produced 1.5m above the ground, where thermometers are located, but hundreds/thousands of metres above that, so the fact that it's cold at the surface is a very bad way to forecast "snow" - whatever form you may take it to be!?

The very basics of science is that you come up with a theory, set up an experiment to test that theory, and if that test can be repeated to give consistently positive results then you're on to something. If not, then something's not quite right with it. Nobody ever said mainstream meteorology was perfect - nobody knows that better than the "highly paid meteorologists" you have a gripe with. In the same way, your theory gives some positive hits along with some mis-hits - that's no problem, but please don't try to make out that these mis-hits don't exist. They do, but it's nothing to be ashamed of. A marrying of the two methods would most likely improve results but you seem opposed to anything outside your comfort zone, and that's a pity.

Kenring

Su Campu wrote: »

As I said before I have no problem with your methods/theories, and actually believe there must be something to them. I think given a better understanding of "mainstream" meteorology, you would indeed be able to improve your accuracy. Sometimes your understanding of basic topics seems limited at best, and may be holding you back a bit. So I am not one of those you say dismiss the moon as a pagan object - I don't think you seriously believe that anybody here does, c'mon!

If the data you use go back 56 years then they were definitely obtained through manual observation, which is way more reliable IMO. If it snowed, an observeer reported it so, if it was frost, that was reported. Snow is not produced 1.5m above the ground, where thermometers are located, but hundreds/thousands of metres above that, so the fact that it's cold at the surface is a very bad way to forecast "snow" - whatever form you may take it to be!?

The very basics of science is that you come up with a theory, set up an experiment to test that theory, and if that test can be repeated to give consistently positive results then you're on to something. If not, then something's not quite right with it. Nobody ever said mainstream meteorology was perfect - nobody knows that better than the "highly paid meteorologists" you have a gripe with. In the same way, your theory gives some positive hits along with some mis-hits - that's no problem, but please don't try to make out that these mis-hits don't exist. They do, but it's nothing to be ashamed of. A marrying of the two methods would most likely improve results but you seem opposed to anything outside your comfort zone, and that's a pity.

I've never said the mis-hits don't exits, don't know where you get that from. I have disclaimers all over the place. Weather is created far far above the earth, far above where planes fly, fed by tides of turbulence that emanate from the sun through portals in the radiation belt that get skewed by the moon. What hits the ground is like what wavelets lap onto the sand at the beach, It's these 'wavelets' that get examined under the microscope by the meteorologists, and they want the public to think that is the whole story. I have no need to peer down that particular microscope with them, with that viewpoint and that aim in life. My viewing is the other way around.

Kenring

waterways wrote: »

From another thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055948304&page=80:


Ken, why don't you allow Villain to discuss here your predictions for Ireland which he has bought?

Gareth Renowden mentioned a few years ago that Erick Brenstrum, senior forecaster at MetService New Zealand (http://blog.metservice.com/profiles/erick/), noticed that your prediction charts are 18 years old "recycled" because you had forgotten to Tippex out the name "Drena" on a storm approaching. It would be interesting to compare your predictions for Ireland, Villain has bought, with the reported weather and weather data of 18 years 10/11 days ago (Saros cycle).
Do you fear that similar will be found as referring to your other predictions for New Zealand and Australia?
Some interesting readings on your S1 Scores, Hit and False Alarm Rates and more can be found here:

http://www.limestonehills.co.nz/Down%20On%20The%20Farm/Archives/2006/September06/AllByYourselfInTheMoonli.html

http://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2010/11/19/ken-ring-cant-predict-the-weather/

The trouble with saros is quite a few days out and 18.613yrs, the declination cycle, is half a year out. The better one is the Metonic and double metonic, which both get to the day at the right time of the year. The better one still factors-in the solar cycle so that temperatures can be included in trends. Stonehenge and Irish stone circles like Drombeg seem to use metonic. Also, eclipses were more of a major back then. I use what I can get for weather maps, the best match is the lunar year of 355 days. I use a combination of cycles, and Solar Fires de luxe, an astrological program, for my daily descriptions. By including the positioning the planets, mainly Jupiter and Saturn, which affect the sun the most, I think it is getting closer to an ideal for including the sun.
So I wouldn't believe what Gareth and Erick wrote, they are not authorities, they are both ravingly anti-astrology, and accordingly both receive a lot of scorn in some quarters for their public attacks on climate change skeptics. Gareth wrote a book about global warming and the other guy isn't taken very seriously because opposing statements often come from his office and colleagues. He was on TV opposing me in a doco interview and he said I made 9 mis-forecasts in a year. I was quite chuffed at that. I thought I made more.