Ken Ring's Winter Forecast

[pottyprof]

Ken.. Thanks for explaining your thoughts clearly this time around.. Some make sense even if not scientifically proven..

I assume that you use ancient calendars etc to prepare your forecasts.. I'm just wondering if you'd be prepared to explain what goes into how you forecast for all the new members.. As you know we do have other respected members who use alternative methods and I for one would like to know more about your method..

At the end of the day, we put our trust in models but even some of the N-W forecasters are saying that they can't be trusted some of the time.. What makes your method stand out from the crowd for you personally?? :unsure:

[Ken Ring]

..I for one would like to know more about your method..What makes your method stand out from the crowd for you personally?? :unsure:

I have put some of my method up here in the past but got such a bad time not only from members but also from moderators, that in the end I went away. Now I am more wary. I suggest you first read my website. Don't read what others have said about me on the net on other websites because they have not studied any part of the method in length and are just looking for reasons to scoff, and for that reason they misquote me and then react emotionally to their own misquoted and distorted interpretations. The result is indeed gibberish, so they achieve their aim! But on my website there is much to devour, including my audio interview for about an hour, on 28 October, 2005 on Today-FM in Dublin. Taking part were host Matt Cooper and former Head Meteorologist Brendan McWilliams. Click below and go to Last Word Friday 5pm hour. Then scroll forward to 47 minutes into that hour.

http://www.radioireland.ie/lastword/lastword.html

The transcript of the UK report was posted on my website immediately after the interview.

If you want more then there are my books, Predicting Weather By The Moon, Secrets of the Moon and the latest, The Lunar Code(Random House Publishers). If you desire one, please buy them from me, not from Amazon, because those are bootlegged printings unauthorised, put out by Gothic Press of Glastonbury, who think it's okay to print someone's books for five years without paying a cent in royalties.

After all that, I'm happy to answer further questions..

hope that helps

cheers

Ken Ring

www.predictweather.com

[drgl]

I went to that point and got adverts and then discussion on chinchillas!! Have the links changed??

[Ken Ring]

I went to that point and got adverts and then discussion on chinchillas!! Have the links changed??

They appear to work from my end. In the past few days I have added more to my UK forecast on my website.

http://www.predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=39

Also, weather for Dublin for each month of the year 2007

cheers

Ken

www.predictweather.com

[Gavin P]

So you think we're going to have to wait until 2013 for a cold winter (bearing in mind we haven't actually had a cold winter since 95/96)????

Theres going to be a lot of unhappy faces around on Internet forums like this one for the next 7 years! :unsure:

[Ken Ring]

So you think we're going to have to wait until 2013 for a cold winter (bearing in mind we haven't actually had a cold winter since 95/96)????

Theres going to be a lot of unhappy faces around on Internet forums like this one for the next 7 years! :unsure:

Well, from what I have written it is fairly clear that these big cycles have happened in the past, except that no one thought of beating their heads about it on a block called climate change. People have short memories and even shorter focuses. If it is cold one day and hot the next and this happens more than once then apparently something has to be wrong. Put it this way - if climate/weather was not cyclic in the relatively short term(less than 1,000 years), it would be the only thing in nature that was not. The bigger question would be, why isn't it, how come it is the exception? Is it not more likely that it is cyclic but the cycles haven't, until now, been discovered? I believe the moment climatologists start looking seriously at the wider cycles of the moon is the moment they will discover the secrets of weather and the repetitions of seasons.

regards

Ken Ring

www.predictweather.com

So you think we're going to have to wait until 2013 for a cold winter (bearing in mind we haven't actually had a cold winter since 95/96)????

Theres going to be a lot of unhappy faces around on Internet forums like this one for the next 7 years!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist

1934, 1970/71, 2006/7..spot the mild cycle???

Ken

[Gavin P]

OK, but last winter wasn't a 69/70 or anything like it. And the winter before definatly wasn't a 68/69! :unsure:

Edited December 15, 2006 by Gavin P

[Ken Ring]

OK, but last winter wasn't a 69/70 or anything like it. And the winter before definatly wasn't a 68/69!

No, but you are perhaps falling into the common trap of being too narrow-focussed when assessing longrange, which is essentially all about trends..

UK Winter of 2005/6..quite dry(but compare UK winter of 1933/34.....Dec 1933..dry, Jan 1934 dry and mild, Feb 1934 exceptionally dry. Coincidence?). So one cycle is not enough. The more you unearth the more the trend is observable. Critics and skeptics commonly pick on one instance where it doesn't work and say the whole system is valueless, because they have no time or inclination to do real digging and legwork. I have learned to disregard anomalies and look for the wider trend.

hope that helps

regards

Ken Ring

www.predictweather.com

[Gavin P]

Well as ever, I keep an open mind, so I'll be watching your forecasts with great interest over the next few years.

[Ken Ring]

Well as ever, I keep an open mind, so I'll be watching your forecasts with great interest over the next few years. :lol:

Fair enough. There are two choices, science(openmindness) and religious bigotry. One advances truth, the other wants to close debates, censor and tell others what they should think. These days I think the latter passes for climate science.

[M'Lady]

Fair enough. There are two choices, science(openmindness) and religious bigotry.

What about those of us that are religious and open minded?

Hmm?

[Ken Ring]

What about those of us that are religious and open minded?

Hmm?

My phrase was religious bigotry. If you class yourself as openminded then I have no quarrel with that. Gone then will be talk of any global warming "consensus", or that the climate change "debate is over" or that anything to do with lunar science is either 'snakeoil', 'voodoo', 'fraudulent', 'scientifically unproven', or any of the like labels that have appeared on this forum in the past in response to my postings. But if you are saying that being religious is synonymous with being bigoted then surely that has no place in a scientific discussion. We are all religious in our application. Perhaps we should all be a bit more religious in keeping openminded.

[M'Lady]

And scientific too? Possibly?

Indeed... Religious, open minded and scientific. Definitely not bigoted.

That's me.

And lovely too of course.

Mr Ring, I certainly wasn't suggesting being religious was synonymous with being bigoted... although it appeared to me that you were.

However, I'm afraid I still fail to see the influence of a big lump of shiny rock on either our weather, our lives or our personalities.

But that's just my opinion.

[Gray-Wolf]

However, I'm afraid I still fail to see the influence of a big lump of shiny rock on either our weather, our lives or our personalities.

But that's just my opinion.

And there you are with the fluctuations in 'weight' due to the moons gravity (it doesn't just pull up a huge mass of water with it's gravitational effect I'm sure.....) never mind the affect of such a body on the electro-chemical soup we call 'mind' (isn't there a positive ionic anomaly at moon rise?) So often I feel we displace things into the realms of our 'understanding' as a way of maintaining some level of 'control' over our life experience when in reality the causes lay outside our consciousness. Anyway, as you say, that is your opinion and you have as much right to it as anyone

[M'Lady]

And there you are with the fluctuations in 'weight' due to the moons gravity (it doesn't just pull up a huge mass of water with it's gravitational effect I'm sure.....) never mind the affect of such a body on the electro-chemical soup we call 'mind' (isn't there a positive ionic anomaly at moon rise?) So often I feel we displace things into the realms of our 'understanding' as a way of maintaining some level of 'control' over our life experience when in reality the causes lay outside our consciousness. Anyway, as you say, that is your opinion and you have as much right to it as anyone

Sorry Gray Wolf, I think you misunderstood me (easily done)... I wasn't denying that the moon causes our tides... although since so much of the sea is uncharted and unexplored it is possible there are tiny sea floor dwelling creatures who run backwards and forwards at certain times causing the water to move about.

(Yes, I am joking.)

[Ken Ring]

Sorry Gray Wolf, I think you misunderstood me (easily done)... I wasn't denying that the moon causes our tides... although since so much of the sea is uncharted and unexplored it is possible there are tiny sea floor dwelling creatures who run backwards and forwards at certain times causing the water to move about.

(Yes, I am joking.)

The word tide isn't just confined to sea, land and air. It refers to molten core 5000kms down, to the water table in the field, to the sap level in a tree, to the electromagnetic variations that ionise water droplets in a cloud, to what happens to gases on the sun when big planets come near, in fact everything we are aware of. Why should there not be tides within us, considering we are made of water, air, grit and gas, as well as electrical impulses. And why should not those internal tides be at least somewhat influenced by sun and moon, if these have been shown to at least somewhat influence the physical world? But influence is total. If it happens at all, it happens 100% and just because it hasn't been studied, shouldn't be thrown away because the notion might go against one's religion.

[Ken Ring]

Fair enough and very good point Ken that if tides affect the oceans, they must affect us water based animals. Have you got evidence for this though? Surely there must be studies on this subject?

Well, evidence is not always evidence that suits everybody, and not everything we know to exist can be proven. Can you "prove" love exists? And if not, then must we deny its existence? To have what we call logic and intellect simply involves some acceptance of the sufficiency of deduction. Why would the moon only control water that was in the ocean, and not the water that was in the human? How does it know where the water is?

[I can't believe it's not better]

This has got something to do with gravity not just making the sea go up and down has it???

[pottyprof]

This has got something to do with gravity not just making the sea go up and down has it???

Yes.. Gravitational pull of the moon, sun and planets..

[M'Lady]

The word tide isn't just confined to sea, land and air. It refers to molten core 5000kms down, to the water table in the field, to the sap level in a tree, to the electromagnetic variations that ionise water droplets in a cloud, to what happens to gases on the sun when big planets come near, in fact everything we are aware of. Why should there not be tides within us, considering we are made of water, air, grit and gas, as well as electrical impulses. And why should not those internal tides be at least somewhat influenced by sun and moon, if these have been shown to at least somewhat influence the physical world? But influence is total. If it happens at all, it happens 100% and just because it hasn't been studied, shouldn't be thrown away because the notion might go against one's religion.

Having read your post (which is in reply to an earlier one of mine) several times I have come to the conclusion that you didn't actually properly read mine... or you failed to understand me.

This is probably a good thing.

[Gray-Wolf]

Because the moon has been 'recognised' as an influence over time we have language that has evolved around it, like 'loonatic' or a recognition of 'difference' at various stages in the lunar cycle (werewolves only changing at full moons) but studies don't bear out effects. A & E depts are supposed to be busier at the full moon (people going nuts and having accidents) but the results of studies were inconclusive even if the staff 'feel' it is busier over these periods.

In communist Russia Taxi drivers used to have their biorythms plotted (including lunar phase) and if these 'bottomed out ' around a full moon the drivers were not allowed to drive as ,statistically , they had more accidents over this period.

From my own obsevations driving during the day on a 'new moon' is a noticeably different experience as many drivers do not seem as 'focused' on the job at hand than they normally are. Again, this may just be me becoming over sensitised by my own 'theory' and therefore more critical of other drivers at this period. I would love to see an insurance claim plot of accidents through the year to see if any correlation exists though I think they may have spotted it by now if there was!!

EDIT: I think if you are 2lbs lighter (or there abouts) when the moon is overhead (because of it's gravitational 'pull' cancelling out some of the Earths gravitational effects) you may feel a little more 'energised' as so be more likely to stay up later or drink that extra beer when the full moon is overhead.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[I can't believe it's not better]

Perhaps hail stones can grow larger under the moons gravitational tug. They would be effectively lighter and able to remain in the cloud for longer, gathering more layers, before dropping.

[Gray-Wolf]

Perhaps hail stones can grow larger under the moons gravitational tug. They would be effectively lighter and able to remain in the cloud for longer, gathering more layers, before dropping.

And maybe it is things like that, a small augmentation to what already exists, that we are on about. Not a driving force but a finishing touch.

[Ken Ring]

Hi Ken,

I only asked for evidence or studies, I don't believe I doubted you, or indeed believed you (openminded?!).

I cannot prove love exists (or for that matter prove that it does not exist), although I am prepared to accept that there is a physiological condition where two animals are prepared to go to whatever ends to ensure their own genetic survival through reproduction and the rearing of youngsters. I think that love does exist; it's simply a state of hormones and survival instinct!!

And as my earlier post said "if tides affect the oceans, they must affect us water based animals".

So I still await an answer Ken, any evidence may or may not suit me, but any evidence is better than none, surely??

Robbie.

Apologies if I appeared gruff in my reply - not intentional. I was trying to answer matter-of-factly. Evidence is nearly always subjective because of operator-bias and selective focus. Tides are not even defined properly, because if they were then they would include nearly everything in nature. There are studies, and they easily can be found using Google. Just look up Full moon and sickness, moon and behaviour, and similar captions. But these days climate science has fallen into such complete disrepute, with once-respected journals shutting out skeptic viewpoints, peer-review only colleagues patting each other on the back, opinion masquerading as fact and sheer incorrectness(CO2 from vehicle exhausts doesn't rise beyond 1000 feet=haze), as to render "evidence" rather useless, which is why I hesitate to supply any.

Having read your post (which is in reply to an earlier one of mine) several times I have come to the conclusion that you didn't actually properly read mine... or you failed to understand me.

This is probably a good thing.

Sorry if I misunderstood, Lady P. I thought you were saying the moon was against your religion but you didn't like the word bigoted, although you couldn't see that the moon could have any effect on weather. And that it was an opinion.

Which didn't detract from your openmindeness.

[Ken Ring]

And maybe it is things like that, a small augmentation to what already exists, that we are on about. Not a driving force but a finishing touch.

And maybe the ocean tide is pushed up by centrifugal forces and the moon's force is a finishing touch. And maybe the earth is warmed by cosmic rays and internal heat and the sun's effect is a finishing touch. And perhaps the rustling of the trees causes the wind and the earth's rotation+gravity+sun's heat+moon's direction are just finishing touches. Ple-ease..what would be so horribly wrong with the notion of a huge object between a quarter and a third the size of Earth(so close that it lights up the night sky enough to almost read by) affecting the air enough to alter the weather? And do you really think a tiny thing like a car's exhaust can alter weather/climate but a big thing like the moon cannot??? Oh, in case you haven't noticed, crabs, insects (like bees), birds, fish and cows obviously know more about astronomy than humans. They know when the moon is about to be full or new even though they often can't see it, and their behaviour, mating, migratory movement and feeding, alters accordingly. Now wouldn't it be good if one day we became smart like that.

Ken Ring