Another diatribe aimed at ken Ring comes from :
http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2011/03/07/ken-rings-predictions-...

This author insists that Ken reinterprets his predictions after the fact.
What those predictions were I can't tell they are the sort of genera that I publish as often as not.

And I have only ever predicted a couple or three times.

I get the impression that Ken's efforts have more to do with overturning patent misconceptions housed in places of authority and that he is merely pointing out an obvious connection between heaven and earth.

The biggest problem in my efforts is that astronomy isn't ready yet to detail the differences between aerial waves and seismic ones. We still need weather computations for that.

All that being so, what does the author fail to do?

You guessed it.

He fails to distinguish what he means by magnitude.
In all fairness it is a problem quite a few accepted seismologists have difficulty with.

I remember Petra Challus berating Roger Musson of the British Geological Survey about it and getting only tardy and grudging respect for her efforts.

(I vaguely remember him writing to her, telling her the results he found from the study were worthy of further research. That upset her but I thought it sounded like a good result.

What did she want?

Respect?

From "THEM"?

Really?

It would be bad enough if the "experts" were just ordinary people wallowing in a bucket of shit with their heads up their arses proclaiming situation normal.

But they are cynics to boot.)

Ken Ring was interviewed on New Zealand. In the interview the interviewer
was very much against him and did not give him much chance to explain about
how he claims to predict the date of earthquakes (it might still be on
YouTube...it was on the Campbell Live TV program). Many people believed his
March 2011 prediction and travelled away from Christchurch over the
predicted period but were angry at Ken when no major earthquake occurred.
With the many earthquakes in canterbury, New Zealand where Christchurch is
located little is said about Ken's predictions. There use to be a lot of
people keen on knowing what Ken's predictions were was it seemed to be the
only way to find out when a major earthquake might happen and many people
don't like being in the dark and not knowing.

I use to look up Ken's predictions as I was curious to find out if a strong
earthquake did occur when he said it would but have since lost interest.
Also if you make on the calendar all the date ranges for his earthquake
then there are not many days that the earthquake would not occur on.
If Ken had predicted a major earthquake not in March but in February then
it might have become more famous. I have a feeling that Ken is hoping to
say "I told you so" and be recognized as an expert on earthquakes. However
he does better on his weather predictions and according to New Zealand
farmers he has been accurate in his weather predictions.

--
Regards Brian

Thanks for the info Weatherlawyer.

They say that the strongest earthquake felt in Christchurch was the
February earthquake but the June earthquake was felt more stronger in my
personal option. The ground moved at a much faster acceleration. The June
earthquake would have done as much damage as the February and maybe more if
February earthquake had not occurred.

--
Regards Brian

On Aug 4, 3:19 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

It is not that much different from the average standard of journalism
these days. It all goes into the same cake overall, oscillating
between PR and Content Farms. Usually the best of the best journalism
is a slight step higher than that produced by the average shit that
works for Rupert Murdoch.

That was the time to sell up and relocate.

The problem that besets most astro-meteorology is that uncertainties
creep in due to distance and the best records in the world are lacking
in all the other forms of geo-physics data, so it is easy to miss out
on important prompts.

There is no data to go with meteorological records that define even
other meteorological data in other areas. What you get -even from
reanalysis is local meso-scale and synoptic charts.

What is going on in China and Mexico or the South Pacific is not
described when researching something like the NorthAtlantic. This used
to be a problem for me and it is still a major drain on my time. But a
lot of weather forecastas are made from consulting previous records.

But a failure to allow for the seismic state of the earth or for where
and when tropical storms are or were...
That would leave them only one step better off that FitzRoy. (Two if
you count what we now know about rotating storms.)

How can anyone base a forecast from the solar system's line-up on data
like that?

But what super storms WERE active? Earthquakes occur all the time but
the activity is very focussed on that type of storm both just before
and after according to the category and in between the rate of increas
and of decay seems to have a ratio with magnitudes on the list for
that day. And of course they reound to the Fijian Triangle.

I just realised; this set of islands is the gravitational centre of
the arc of influence for ENSO oscillations.

When the pennies drop they shower out of heaven don't they?

From what I read of his free book on the subject he took himself out
of the circuit most of us grow and die in. Some sort of an hippy, he
lived in a bus and taught his children himself. Let them be his
judges. I don't think he is into self glory at all. (People like that
would soon find a new line of work once failure kicks their arses.
I've met that sort, they are duds IMO, as far as human nature goes.)

You get a good definition for annual overall patterns, as a weather
season for farming, tourism and etc., is built up of a range of events
that DO take into account (sometimes without knowing it) such things
as storms and quakes.

The fact is that there is a hell of a lot to his lunar theory. I base
my stuff on the time of the phases. He uses perigee and apogee a lot
IIRC. But you have to ask yourself:
"Why and How does the moon behave the way it does" to get the next
clue. Because (as we can see) there is a stage or two missing in the
algorithm.

Then you start wondering that the astrologers of old knew all about
the moon, why didn't they make predictions like that?

Of course without modern data they couldn't. But they would have
noticed something. Something for growing crops and making war (an
early form of tourism.)

Which explains the use of standing stones and the structure of Minoan
and Phoenecian temples. Apparently the one belonging to the
Philistines that Sampson wanted to explore was made with a twin
central pillar that was used as a sighting agent for astronomers of
the day (which made the idea of a blind man using it so comical to his
captors.)

To this day a lot of centres of worship are oriented to sunrise. Which
also means star and moonrise. (Though the first stars to be seen from
higher latitudes are the circumpolar navigables, which are generally
already well up by sunset.)

It would be worth your visiting his site again. Next time go better
armed. Use something like the NEIC lists and a daily storm list such
as this one to make your own allowances for what he says:

http://www.tropicalstormrisk.com/

Do you have a link to Ken's site? I use to have his site address but he has
changed it a few times.
One thing I was pleased was that he added me to his e-mailing list when I
asked him a question. I got a news update by e-mail from him a while ago
but have not heard from him since then.

--
Regards Brian

On 6 Aug, 10:55, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:

http://www.predictweather.co.nz/

Here is something from the birth of Meteorology at CalTech in the
1930's:

By the end of 1940, knowing the military implications of what was
being learned in CalTech's meteorology division under Krick direction,
Millikan and von Karman invited General Arnold-1 was now a general and
head of the Air Force-to drop in next time his flying missions around
the country brought him to the Pasadena area.

Arriving in December, Arnold walked into Krick's laboratory just as
Krick read a telegram from a Christmas tree company in Newfoundland
that had wanted to know how much time was left to get a cutting of
trees out of the woods before they were buried under a fresh snowfall.

"Your forecast's right on the nose," the grateful client wired, going
on to say that they had gotten the last trees out just as the first
flakes began falling.

Krick handed the wire to General Arnold. "Gee, how do you do that?"
asked Arnold, who knew that because of German submarine prowling" the
Atlantic, Newfoundland was blacked out to weather reports. "How can
you forecast the weather in a place where you're not getting any
observations?"

"With our weather types we can get by without many observa- tions,"
Krick answered. "We can go into an area downwind from our types and
develop a fairly good forecast without them." Arnold thought a moment,
then broke into the grin that made him known as "Hap." He said, "I
want that for the military. Would you set up a special course in long-
range forecasting for some of my guys you've trained? Select any four
that you want, and I'll grab them from wherever they are and send them
to you."

Krick chose four of his most promising former students from the Army
Air Corps and gave them a special course in what had been learned
since they graduated, including how to forecast for a blacked out
region such as Newfoundland. There would be many of those for the
United States if war came.

In October, 1941, at the request of General Arnold, who was anxious to
make the Weather Bureau more familiar with Ktrck's work as it was
being developed for the Air Force, Krick went to Washington and gave a
series of lectures to the government fore- casters. He won no converts
to his ideas.

With the country now at war, the Air Force in February, 1942, ordered
the lectures published for distribution to its weather officers
throughout the world. But the man charged with their distribution, Dr.
Harry Wexler, a former Weather Bureau employee commis- sioned for
service in the Air Force, locked the documents away, never to be seen.

Far from getting the Weather Bureau's ear, Krick presently found
himself on the receiving end of a lecture himself from the bureau's
chief, F. W. Reichelderfer. Krick thus was hoist with his own petard,
incidentally, for it was he who had recommended Reich- elderfer, a one-
time Navy weatherman, for his post, acting through Dr. Millikan,
former chairman of President Roosevelt's Advisory Committee on the
Weather Bureau. Reichelderfer had been upset by "recent press notices
in which you [Krick] were credited with new discoveries in methods of
long- range forecasting making it possible to forecast with a high
degree of accuracy for periods up to ten years."

In the wake of these stories, Reichelderfer continued with a note of
distress, the bureau had received a flood of questions from newsmen
and government departments wanting to know where the Weather Bureau
stood on long-range forecasting and its use by the military.

"You know that our purpose is to aid and encourage progress in this
extremely important phase of weather forecasting," Reich- elderfer
wrote on December 5, 1941, two days before Pearl Harbor. "Headlines
claiming great accuracy in long-range forecasting arouse controversy
and are not conducive to real progress."

Reichelderfer recalled impatiently that he had spoken to Krick about
this matter twice before, the first time on a visit to CalTech during
the summer, and again no longer ago than September. "I emphasize that
I would not like to see you count too much upon your present methods,"
he wrote. He stressed that Krick's methods were "still experimental."

Caution was the watchword. "If you are on the verge of an en- during
technique we shall be very glad, but if it does not turn out as you
expect you will suffer and so will the profession." Reichelderfer
advised that "for your own protection you ought to get someone to make
a thorough statistical check of your latest method." And the agent to
do that, Reichelderfer indicated, was the United States Weather
Bureau.

Reichelderfer enclosed a copy of the reply he had prepared for all
those who wanted to know about long-range forecasting after reading in
the newspapers about Krick's work. In the statement Reichelderfer
dismissed long-range forecasting as a military tool. He conceded that
"defense needs have multiplied several-fold the importance of extended
weather forecasts," adding in passing that this had been "a subject of
intense human interest since time immemorial," and he told what the
Weather Bureau was doing to foretell the weather further in advance,
but said it hadn't made much headway-just as no one else had, either.

"Long-range weather forecasts for periods greatly in excess of those
issued by official meteorological organizations," the state- ment
continued, "are somewhat like anticipations of stock market
fluctuations-they should be carefully checked for a few months at
least before one puts much money in them."

The long-range forecasting claims by the German military, pub- lished
in the United States shortly before Hitler invaded Poland and set off
World War II, had been carefully studied by our own weathermen, both
government and private, and had been found to be nothing to get
excited about.
http://weathersage.com/texts/boesen/chapter3.htm

A potted history here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_P._Krick

Shit happens!
The book is very readable, if slightly propagandist.

Since the man apparently used what was to become standard practice in
meteorological circles, it only has a bearing on the thread due to the
fact that nay-sayers tend to get in the way of progress. These days
looking for older weather records is standard practice. One would like
to think the more esoteric principles have not been abandoned and that
I am not still the only one on here looking for a first cause.