Write your message below to post a review: Rating:. Ask a Question About this Product More Ask a question. Look for similar items by category. People also searched for. Horoscopes Books. Penguin Group NZ Books. This title is unavailable for purchase as none of our regular suppliers have stock available. If you are the publisher, author or distributor for this item, please visit this link. Write your question below:. Is Ken Ring a scientist? Is Ken Ring's forecasting method scientific? Is it climate or weather?

Are they predictions or just opinions? Are long-range forecasts even possible? How does Ken Ring respond to criticism? No Follow-Up on Predictions Background Some of Ken Ring's other Strange Beliefs Conclusion Readers' Comments Comments from Ken Ring References Introduction While this article is rather lengthy, it is broken into various sections and the time required to read it is but a drop in the ocean compared to the time that one would spend reading, studying and interpreting his Almanac everyday for years and years.

If you are prepared to allocate this time to his Almanac, you should at least be prepared to see whether you should even bother buying it in the first place. Plus this advice is free, unlike Ken Ring's. Luckily you don't have to read the entire article to understand our argument, since to begin with we offer 'The Short Version: 5 Reasons why it's all a Scam'.

This briefly sets out why in our opinion Ring's claim to be able to accurately predict the weather is false. This may be all you need to convince yourself that Ring's claims and method is nonsense. But for those that want more examples of Ring explaining how everything works and more detailed arguments of how it all falls to pieces, we provide various sections that each, we believe, provide another reason for rejecting Ring's claim to being a weather guru. Most sections can be read as stand-alone arguments and in any order, although they each add to each other in building up the case against Ring.

Then we will briefly explain the basics behind Ring's 'Moon Theory' for predicting the weather. Following from this we will look at the confusion, in Ring's mind anyway, that surrounds astronomy and astrology , and show that it is ancient astrology that powers Ring's predictions. In the section 'It's Pseudoscience because In the section 'Ken Ring's False Claims' , we will provide a multitude of claims, mainly involving science, that Ring has made to support the validity of his prediction method that are all false and error ridden.

These demonstrate a gross ignorance of real science, incompetence at performing basic research, and a clear indication that we should have no confidence that true science or history supports Ring's claims. We will look at the difference between weather and climate , and why Ring would prefer his customers believe there is no difference. And we will consider whether long-range forecasts are even possible.

From a practical point of view, we will look to see whether Ring's weather forecasts are specific , that is, can he really say if it will be fine for your wedding, sports event or crop spraying? This, to many people, including us, is what Ring's predictions are all about. We will also examine Ring's claim that he doesn't actually make predictions or forecasts at all, but merely offers opinions , just like a doctor does. We will show that Ring wishes to suggest that his method is scientific and that the success of his predictions can be easily verified, but if pushed he will admit that it is not scientific at all, and that validation is impossible.

Following on from this, we will ask how Ring can quote his own accuracy figures while claiming it is impossible for others to check the success of his predictions. Surrounding Ring's claims to a university science education, we will ask whether Ring really is a scientist , and will discover a nebulous past. We will reveal some embarrassing examples of how Ring, without fail, responds to those who are skeptical of his claims, who query his method and request more details surrounding the science, or lack of it. The threat of lawyers is bandied about, fear for the safety of his family members is expressed, conspiracy theories are invented and vile insults are issued, such as calling us a 'white supremacist red-neck jack-booted fascist nazi'.

One must question Ring's need to resort to threats and insults rather than calmly responding with reason and evidence. We will also list 'Some of Ken Ring's other Strange Beliefs' , that while not connected to weather prediction, serve to seriously undermine his claim that he can separate sense from nonsense. Things such as his book on palm-reading for cats and his pseudo-history views.

Did you know that man and dinosaurs coexisted or that Maori were brought to NZ as slaves? We also expand on 'Ring reinterpreting his failed forecasts'. There is nothing special about these examples, they were picked merely because we were familiar with the actual weather that occurred and we compared it with Ring's predictions. While some are dated, they still serve to demonstrate how Ring's forecasts fail in the real world and how he later attempts to reinterpret these failed forecasts in the eyes of the public.

We have to also thank the many others out there in cyberspace that have also been skeptical of Ring's claims. In challenging him on the likes of internet forums that Ring trolls to promote his business and squash criticism, they have teased out of him some of the many contradictory and nonsensical comments that we have quoted in this article. On the internet Ring once denied a request for more information stating that, 'There is very little reason for me to co-operate with you in my own demise' , but nevertheless, he has be unable to resist providing a wealth of comments that do contribute to his own demise.

He's like the Vatican and doesn't know when it makes more sense to keep quiet. But like the Vatican he has a business to run and must balance promoting his service while being careful not to reveal the embarrassing skeletons in the closet, especially the fact that both of their businesses are based on fantasies. It's always difficult being upfront when you have things to hide. So let's discover what Ken Ring would rather you didn't know about predicting the weather by the moon.

The Short Version 5 Reasons why it's all a Scam You don't have to read this entire article to understand our argument, since we're now going to summarise the 5 main points that discredit Ring's claimed ability to accurately predict the weather. If you find our claims unconvincing or confusing, we have provided more detail further into the article to substantiate them all.

In this article we will use quotes from Ken Ring's Almanac , website, books, Internet forums and email replies to us and others. The indented text in violet are Ken Ring's actual quotes. Our comments are in normal black text. For many of Ring's quotes we haven't provided links since Ring has removed the articles from his site, and some internet forums no long exist.

However we still have copies of most of these articles and forums, and if you wish to read them in full, contact us and we shall endeavour to locate them. Ken Ring's Predictions Fail in the Real World: This is the most telling failure of Ring's method, that his predictions fail in the real world. Without going further, this reason alone destroys his credibility. It could be possible the Ring's predictions are accurate even though he has no idea why they work. His ignorance of science, his insults, his lack of qualifications etc are all irrelevant if his predictions work.

But they don't. Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Oct Gisborne floods. Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Nov Gisborne floods. Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Jun Canterbury snow. Ken Ring's Almanac predicted a cyclone Bola strength storm would hit the N. This prediction failed. Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict the devastating Sep Southland snow storm.

Ken Ring failed to predict the Dec Asian Tsunami , and the earthquake that caused it, he failed to predict the , 7. Yes, he predicts earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and mass strandings of whales and dolphins as well as weather. Ken Ring predicted that the crater lake wall at Ruapehu was 'very likely' to blow in Nov, then Dec Ken Ring predicted 'lots' of rain, 'rivers will be up Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict March weather bomb that hit much of the lower North Island.

Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict the extreme weather event which struck Hobsonville, Auckland on Dec 6th, A tornado killed three people, put 7 people in hospital, cut off power, uprooted trees and seriously damaged up to homes. Ken predicted 'A mild pleasant day for most. Auckland: sunny, fine'. Ken Ring predicted a major earthquake to strike NZ on th Dec In his words: 'a big one Ken Ring's Almanac failed to predict the Dec extreme weather event, Cyclone Evan, that caused death and destruction in Samoa and devastation in Fiji. On the Internet in the weeks leading up to this cyclone, Ring made a special effort to give weather forecasts to a Fiji local, but failed to see any hint of this approaching cyclone.

These well publicised and well documented events were simply taken at random and checked against Ken Ring's Almanac. Every single prediction made by Ken Ring failed. Ken Ring Reinterprets his Failed Forecasts: After devastating floods on May 18th, that he failed to predict, Ken Ring stated in defence of his forecasts: Mention was made that I missed the 18 May heavy rain event I don't think so. Yet his Almanac forecast for this period predicted: "Little or no recordable rain anywhere" "Fine and dry everywhere" "Little or no rain in both islands" Are these phrases portents of disastrous floods?

We don't think so. Also Ring falsely stated that he was one day out on the forecast when in fact he was three days out. After the Canterbury September snowfall event , Ken Ring ignores his Almanac's 'Daily Forecasts' which failed to predict snow, and publicly quotes part of his 'Summary' which — strangely enough — does mention snow in both islands. Attempting to back up a rain forecast Ring says, 'Look outside. It is wet'. When informed that 'it is not wet today Ken. Looking outside it is a beautiful sunny day In this district the bush can glisten from rain from the previous evening until the sun gets at least overhead'.

Who but Ring could describe a 'beautiful sunny day' as 'it is wet' , simply because there is moisture on some leaves from the previous day's rain? This is typical Ring deviously reinterpreting his forecasts and hoping that people won't see through his lies by looking up his Almanac or looking out the window. When talking publicly Ring highlights the odd past weather event that the public remembers and states that he predicted that it would happen.

Of course the public and media almost never check his claims. Often when Ring says after-the-fact that certain weather would happen, he either never said that at all or he only said that it could happen, not that it would. We might get heavy snow, we might not.

If it does happen then Ring insists he was certain all along. He only talks about vague predictions that can be seen as successes, and buries all his failures. Note that his statement makes no mention of tsunami, Indonesia, Dec 26th or even December. He makes the same bogus claim for the Sept Christchurch earthquake. Here is what he said before the earthquake: 'you'll be reading about floods and winds and earthquakes and snow over the next week or so, particularly the South Island' Notice that he never mentioned a disastrous earthquake, he never mentioned Christchurch, he never mentioned Sept 4th.

He wasn't even certain it was to be in the South Island. And yet after the event Ring claims publicly: 'But I did predict the earthquake But let's remember that in that prediction he also foresaw disastrous floods, winds and snow, none of which happened. We must assume they were also to be of disaster proportion since his disaster earthquake prediction was among them. Ring makes numerous vague predictions and if one happens somewhere in NZ, he highlights it, making it sound far more accurate and specific than it really was, while suppressing all his many errors.

Ring also distorts the truth to make it appear that certain events match his moon theory. Here he is describing — in separate articles — how a specific phase of the moon caused the large Fiordland earthquake: New Zealand's last major earthquake registered 7. We might also note that the Te Anau earthquake of 8 July was also on a full moon day. Note that in the first quote he claims that the earthquake occurred on the 16th and was caused by an approaching new moon, ie 'just before new moon' , and yet in the next quote he claims it occurred actually 'on new moon'.

To make matters worse, and more confusing, he then claims in the third quote that it really occurred on the 8th and was caused by a full moon. He repeats the full moon claim in the fourth quote from a Feb 24, article. So did the earthquake occur on a new moon or a full moon? Actually neither, since the new moon was on Jul 22, not the 16th, and the full moon was Jul 7, not the 8th. Ring falsely and deviously claims that events match what the moon is doing and with his theory.

You might think that the 8th is only one day from the full moon, but in fact both dates that Ring mentions are wrong too. The earthquake occurred on the 15th, not the 8th or the 16th. The 15th was neither a full moon nor a new moon. Ring lied, and hopes that people won't check the accuracy of what he claims. And Ring knows very well that this earthquake was on the 15th and on neither a full nor new moon. Here he is commenting on the Stuff website on the day after the quake: No one has mentioned the moon.

No coincidence that last night the moon changed phase and hit the lastQ mark bang on 9. Big earthquakes usually happen around new moons and full moons, and a week either side. That's Ring admitting that the quake actually occurred midway between new and full moon, and then adding his ridiculous 'and a week either side' claim, so that his method now covers every phase of the moon, and every week of the month. See also these separate blog posts exposing more of Ring's bogus earthquake claims: Ken Ring and earthquake clusters Ken Ring's earthquake blanket Ken Ring and the making of a myth Here's a classic example of how Ring creates successful forecasts after-the-fact: The reality is that weather is an inexact science So if a forecast says rain for Auckland but it only rains in Huntly, 60 miles away, then given the tools available it is as close as one can reasonably get, and therefore can be considered a successful forecast.

So if he forecasts rain in Auckland but it rains somewhere else, but not in Auckland, that's a successful forecast according to Ken Ring. No wonder he trumpets his success to the gullible media. This forecast says only one thing: it will rain in Auckland. It didn't, therefore the forecast is wrong, end of story. Forget about where it might have rained, that's immaterial. Ken Ring seems to have no real grasp of why people look at weather forecasts.

They want to know about the future weather at their location. People concerned about rain in Auckland couldn't care less about what happens in Huntly and vice versa. And here's another, Ring states that 'a predicted event can be up to a week late If the rain, sunshine, wind or frost that Ring predicts is a week late, or a week too early, Ring still claims his predictions were successful. All the public hears are his claims of successful predictions and they are blindly unaware of the devious manipulations he has performed to turn actual failures into apparent successes.

Ken Ring Falsely Promotes his Ability: Ken Ring claims that his prediction method is not about predicting how much rain will fall, but only whether it will rain. It is not about amounts.

Daily Horoscope: May 8th to May 9th

He says this in a email to us, in his Almanac and on his website:. As for amounts, the moon method is more about the timing of rain. I use solar cycles for rain amounts He claims in the email that he predicted the BoP flood. In his Almanac he documents exactly how much rain he thinks numerous cities will receive each month. He markets his book on the premise that he can predict extreme weather, eg floods and droughts. Claiming that he can forecast a flood or a drought is to predict the amount of rainfall, yet he also claims that he can't predict the amount.

One of these must be a lie. His public claim is that he can reliably predict weather for very specific events : weddings, cutting hay, concerts etc. He then hides disclaimers in his work that deny this ability, that all his forecasts are plus or minus one day' and he even extends this by talking about a ' day window'. He markets his Almanac on 'specific event' accuracy, then denies it in the fine print. Here are some examples of how Ken Ring advertises his business, how he describes the service he offers.

The first is from the rear cover of his almanac: Ken Ring's Predict Weather almanac allows you to accurately calculate the weather for any day in the year ahead This [almanac] provides easy to use weather forecasting for the whole country. Rain, sun, wind, frost and snow predictions by month and by day Daily short forecasts for every major centre Regional rainfall expectations Extreme weather warnings Expected temperatures, sunshine and rainfall for over fifty locations The next three examples are advertisements Ring has placed on the internet over the last few years: Predict Weather offers services at affordable rates It is just as easy to forecast for one day or one year Need to know the weather in advance?

I can help. Call me now Predict Weather Ltd - Long range weather forecasts Accurate weather predictions for any day a year in advance Essential for farmers, fishermen Knowing the weather helps to plan for our major events like weddings and corporate events. Our services include: Predict weather Weather forecasts Accurate weather forecasts Weather predictions New Zealand, Australia In that last list, we wonder how much extra you have to pay to get Ring's 'Accurate weather forecasts' as opposed to his ordinary 'Weather forecasts'?

But clearly Ring is claiming in all his advertising to be able to predict what the weather will be on any given day, to accurately forecast 'Rain, sun, wind, frost and snow' , and that it's 'easy to forecast for one day or one year'. But skeptics who challenge Ring's claimed ability to predict the weather are met with the following denials: 'I don't claim to be able to forecast the weather Please get over it and get used to it I can't believe I have to spell this all out to grownups.

In the media and to those expressing an interest in buying his services, Ring claims that he most definitely can predict the weather, but in less public arenas Ring admits that he can't really, and that grownups should know that. We maintain that he relies, deliberately or otherwise, on confusion between climate and weather , and that he childishly wishes to deny responsibility for his failures by relabelling his predictions after-the-fact as mere opinions. Here's another snippet that he doesn't widely publicise: Most data is taken at airports, and that data most of the time is all that is available for me and my associates to use Thus unless your location is at or near the airport the forecast may be at least slightly and possibly way out.

So if you don't live next to an airport Ken Ring's forecasts could be 'at least slightly and possibly way out'. It's amazing how many excuses Ring hides in his material to 'explain' why his forecasts are wrong. Ken Ring's Theory is Pseudoscience: Ken Ring clearly sees the conflict between his prediction method and that of mainstream science as a debate between astrology and astronomy. Ring states that: I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to.

We are rediscovering answers about I use Ken Ring's theory is based on astrology. Thus his theory must also be a pseudoscience.

Forecasters 1.0.3 تحديث

But apart from linking himself to a known pseudoscience, are there other signs that he is promoting pseudoscience? So what is a pseudoscience and how do you expose one? Physicist Milton Rothman describes pseudoscience as 'a false science that pretends to be real'. The following is a list of things to check for. The more questions you answer YES to, the more likely the topic being examined is a pseudoscience. Later in this article we provide examples for every one of these points.

Since our argument also hinges on the claim that astrology is a pseudoscience and superstition that has been convincingly debunked, we will also provide information to this end. And unlike his predictions, there is no way that he can put a spin on these claims. End of story. These claims are not only wrong, they completely destroy Ken Ring's credibility. They demonstrate that his ability to research even straightforward facts, unrelated to his theory, is pathetic. If Ken Ring can't be trusted to get the simple stuff correct, why should we believe he gets the complex maths and physics correct?

On a more devious note, it would be despicable if Ken Ring is aware that these claims are bogus and still uses them to give the appearance that there is wide support for his theory. Let's hope he's just an incompetent researcher. Still not convinced? Or if you are but want to giggle and shake your head in disbelief over some more of the ridiculous claims that Ring makes to promote his business, then carry on to the 'The Expanded Version' or click here to choose from various sections.

Details are provided to support 'The Short Version' and further reasons are offered that clearly show Ring pushing pseudoscience, nonsense and ignorance with the arrogance of a Mafia mobster. The Expanded Version Ken Ring's Amazing World of Contradictions A quick and revealing way to decide what confidence the public should have in Ring's numerous claims regarding his weather prediction business can be gleaned from the way he describes his method or responds to questions.

Is his story consistent, does he give clients and skeptics the same message? Or do his answers change like the wind, depending on what he thinks the reader might believe? Remember that facts or strongly held beliefs should stay the same. If a person's story flip-flops from day to day, if different people are given different versions, then something is very wrong and no money should change hands. In other sections we look in more depth at Ring's many contradictions, but this short list reveals the real Ken Ring.

Ken Ring's Predict Weather Almanac I have had 9 years of university science training versus I have three years of university science units versus I spent 4 years fulltime and a final year part time at university [At university] I did I am scientific in my methods I'm not doing anything unscientific No one can Accurate weather predictions for any day a year in advance I invite discussion based on theories and ideas What dangerous antisocial fascist arrogance there are websites devoted to knocking these theories down We maintain that this is good for science versus may I suggest Silly Beliefs They would make any member of the Skeptic Society look like a card-carrying creationist I offer opinions, just like a doctor I am predicting lots.

Why else would the Te Anau earthquake have been on new moon I've proven it can be done. I've also predicted when the next shakes will cluster. Are you confused? Which is the real Ken Ring?

go to site

Supermoon horoscope: How Full Moon affects your zodiac - Mirror Online

The man who can prove his method or the one that can't, the one who is scientific or the one that isn't, the one that spent nine years at university or the one that spent only three, or perhaps four? Integrity doesn't enter into it. We've simply looked at some of Ring's claims and forecasts and checked whether they matched the real world. They don't. But what about the 'science' behind his theory? We're not meteorologists, astronomers, physicists or scientists of any description, but from what we've read it appears to be pseudoscience, i. Ring's Moon theory, or 'Lunar Science' as he sometimes calls it, is that the Moon not only influences the Earth's weather, it actually causes it: a dwindling few still claim that the Sun causes the weather.

All are wrong. By shifting the atmosphere, the Moon is directly responsible for Earth's climate. The predictions have been generated only by calculating the orbits of the moon. We are some of the 'dwindling few' that do still believe that the Sun is the major cause of our weather. Even Ring, contradicting himself yet again, has said that 'The sun is the engine, the moon is the driver.

Solar radiation is the true energy source'. But ignoring embarrassing admissions like this for the moment, the crux of Ring's theory is this: he believes the Moon creates our weather through its gravitational affect on the Earth's atmosphere, creating tides in the atmosphere similar to the tides the Moon causes in the oceans, and because these tides can be predicted, like those in the oceans, then so too can the weather: It is little known that there are at least four separate The question regarding the atmosphere is not whether there is an affect, but how much?

The Earth's gravity is the only thing holding the atmosphere to the planet's surface. Thus it is indisputable that gravity has a pull on the atmosphere. Also there is no fundamental difference between the Earth's gravity and that of the Moon. Gravity is gravity. Thus gravity, no matter from what source — the Earth, Sun, Moon or the most distant galaxies — must have some affect on our atmosphere. The crucial question is: How much affect do these different sources have? Ring falsely believes that anything that has an affect must have a noticeable affect: You might want to think of weather as air tides.

So is it too silly to state that if it has an effect on the atmosphere then it must control the weather by distribution of the clouds? Why should there not be tides within us 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. Meteorologists say the moon has NO influence on weather. Either it has or it hasn't. If it has, then it is total. By the same logic every piece of matter in the universe theoretically has a gravitational affect on our atmosphere, and so should be taken into account when forecasting our weather.

Gravity does not just suddenly stop when you get a certain distance away. According to Ring it is zero. Ring has conveniently ignored all these other sources of gravity, concentrating solely on the Moon: The predictions have been generated only by calculating the orbits of the moon. His reason no doubt is that these other sources are inconsequential. That theoretically they do have an affect but are so minor that they can be ignored and thus play no part in controlling the weather.

That the size and closeness of the Moon completely swamps all other sources. This is true as regards the stars and planets and galaxies, but not as regards terrestrial sources. Evidently the effect of a 1kg melon held one metre above your head is to produce times more tidal force in your body than the Moon does. The affect of the crowd would swamp that of the Moon. Mass migrations of wildebeests must also influence the weather. Why isn't Ring factoring these variables into his forecasts? But it's more than just gravity alone.

Ken Ring believes that since astronomical cycles exist, eg the Moon orbits the Earth once a month, and since the Moon's gravity affects the Earth, then the Earth's weather can be predicted based on what point we are along these astronomical cycles. Put very very simply, the weather during a full moon will be the same every full moon. Just as we can predict that it will normally be hotter at midday than midnight, Ring believes that our weather repeats in a predictable manner over months and years.

To this end Ring has obtained old isobaric weather maps from years gone by that were produced by meteorological organisations such as the MetService, and attempts to match them up with numerous astronomical cycles, mainly those involving the moon. Just as summer repeats, Ring believes a storm that happened on the 20th March for example, will repeat again and again years later as the moon goes through its cycles. Of course it's all very complicated to understand how these different cycles interact, but using old weather maps and ancient astrology Ring believes he can predict when our weather will repeat itself.

Here he is describing these cycles: 'Suffice that I use the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations, and lunar and solar cycles. I believe the sun comes first, then constellations. The moon answers to the sun but is also tethered to constellations. I use a different system for my isobaric maps. The cycles range between years, also , also Mainly, they follow tidal cycles, as you would expect' 'It is no secret that I use metonic, double metonic, selene and nodal cycles for moon, and sunspot cycles for sun, plus close planet movements especially Mercury declination.

Constellations are really declination-energy roadmaps. Temperatures are combinations of both solar and lunar for instance warmer in Aries or Leo' 'I use solar cycles for rain amounts, moon cycles for rain timing, and midpoint astrology for crosschecking. I use no earth-bound factors as I consider them as a tail wagging a dog. I also use sunspot cycles for rain amounts , planetary cycles for sunspot cycles , and local topographic factors. Furthermore, his argument screams pseudoscience when he claims to also use 'the ancient astrological energy grid of the constellations' , stating that 'Constellations are really declination-energy roadmaps'.

He further damages his case by using bogus astrology to crosscheck his astronomical cycles. That's like asking a witch to crosscheck a doctor's analysis of an MRI scan. Also note how Ring in his fourth comment says that he uses 'no earth-bound factors' , and yet in his two final comments he claims to use 'local topographic factors' and 'jetstreams'. He also said that 'I have never said the moon is the whole story, I use sun and planets Just more examples of Ring failing to keep his story straight, failing to remember what he says and writes. Do you know where weather is made?

Pisces – The Constellation

According to the Bible there are 'storehouses of the snow [and] storehouses of the hail Here's Ring's version: Remember weather is generated around 8 miles up What does he actually mean by this? Certainly rain, hail and snow are generated in clouds which can be several miles high, but the heat that warms the earth is generated in a star 93 million miles away, which in turn bathes the ground and oceans at ground and sea level.

Frost forms at ground level and sunlight heats the earth and, along with the rotation of the earth, drives the winds which can be found low or high in the atmosphere. Weather occurs in the band of atmosphere know as the troposphere, which extents from sea level up to around 7 or 8 miles. There is not a weather factory at the boundary of the troposphere and the next layer, the stratosphere. Weather is a complex phenomenon that occurs throughout the troposphere. When we experience a hot day at the beach it is not due to a weather factory 8 miles up.

But the contradictory person that Ring is then comes out with this amazing claim: Furthermore, the state of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the weather Say what?? The state of the atmosphere has everything to do with the weather. My dictionary even defines weather as: 'The state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure'. And to further prove his point that weather and the atmosphere aren't connected, Ring follows up with this statement: There are planets with weather but no atmosphere.

Just google that if you don't believe me. We don't believe you Ken. Weather by definition is the state of the atmosphere. If a planet has no atmosphere then it has no weather. Of course you can describe the surface temperature of a planet with no atmosphere, but talking temperature in this case is not talking weather, anymore than me saying what temperature you need to store icecream at is talking weather.

Ring's problem is that he defines weather as the mechanism that he insists causes the phenomenon that you and I call weather. Ring states that: Weather cannot arise from air or anything in air Weather is a form of tidal disturbance that is caused, like our sea tides, by outside forces and transmits itself through whatever atmosphere a planet has By the time temperatures, pressures and wind speeds are measured, weather has already happened. Only when we can think beyond our farting cows, our hazed-over towns, our borders and our globe, can we begin to understand what really controls and influences weather and climate.


  1. Pisces Baby – Your Baby’s Starsign.
  2. Editor's Picks;
  3. Insightful Guidance TO START YOUR DAY?
  4. Forecasters for Android - APK Download.
  5. sun signs taurus compatibility.

Huge cosmic forces are involved. We are simply at the end of their ride. From Ring's description weather sounds more like a visiting alien bringing salvation than a simple thunderstorm that disrupts my barbecue. To Ring weather is all about 'Huge cosmic forces' tidal forces that have been 'long in forming, traveling and arriving' , and that these tidal forces can influence a planet whether there is an atmosphere or not. And that's true, tidal forces operate regardless of atmospheres.

But tidal forces stretching and deforming the earth's surface is not what any normal person calls weather. Of course if we take the opposite tack and accept Ring's assertion that 'There are planets with weather but no atmosphere , then this obviously means that weather has no connection to atmosphere. Thus on earth it matters not what the moon's gravity does to our atmosphere because, as Ring implies, the weather doesn't care what the atmosphere is doing since the atmosphere doesn't even have to be there for us to have weather.

So Ring's theory that by observing how the moon's gravity stretches our atmosphere we can predict the weather, contradicts with his theory that 'the state of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the weather' , since atmospheres aren't even necessary for weather. Or at least not what he calls weather.

But just to confuse us even more, in another article on his website and in one of his books Ring contradicts his own theory by giving us these 'facts' about Earth's atmosphere: If it wasn't mixed and distributed by the Moon daily, more of the atmosphere would end up on the Sun's side because the Sun would be the only body in space with any gravitational pull. There would probably be one giant cloud always on the Sun's side, just as there is on Venus, which is why Venus always looks so bright. There would be no water, just one big stationary cloud.

It's not like the Moon is suppressing the Sun's gravity. According to Ring the Sun in isolation would create a giant cloud that rotated counter to the Earth's rotation, forever facing the Sun. But for a week every month during each New Moon, the Moon is located between the Sun and the Earth, so whatever power the Sun has in isolation, the Moon now adds its 'super' power. If the Sun alone would create a giant cloud, then the Sun and Moon combined should suck the atmosphere off the planet! Strangely enough we don't experience trouble breathing during these times.

Also if the Sun's gravity is strong enough to create giant clouds then surely Ring should be factoring its affect into his calculations rather than ignoring it. In fact the Sun does play an important part in our tides, but it is less than half as effective as the Moon. If there were no Moon we would probably still have water, contrary to what Ring believes, and we would still have tides, just not as high. And Venus isn't bright because of a single giant cloud either.

It's just amazing what Ring doesn't know about astronomy, but that doesn't stop him making things up if he thinks it will help sell his method and his books. We repeat, there is no scientific support for Ring's Moon theory.


  • Blog - Share market forecasting about as useful as astrology : Bloomsbury Associates.
  • horoscop december 2019 capricorn.
  • february 16 libra horoscope.
  • Supermoon 12222 horoscope: How Full Moon affects your zodiac?
  • elisabethe tessier horoscope.
  • The Moon, tides, astronomical cycles, gravity and our atmosphere are all real of course, but there is no good evidence that the movement of the Moon is the cause of the Earth's weather, anymore than lightning is caused by angry gods throwing bolts from the clouds. Is it Astronomy or Astrology? Initially, like most of the public no doubt, we didn't connect astrology with Ken Ring and his weather forecasts, hearing only scientific sounding explanations. We thought it was all astronomy. But the more we looked, the more the cracks began to show, such as this rhetorical question by Ring to the Auckland Astronomical Society [AAS]: "Why re-open the conflict between astronomy and astrology that last saw vigorous debate in the s?

    It seems the conflict is not between mainstream science and fringe science, but between astronomy and astrology. Since in this 'conflict' the AAS is obviously on the side of astronomy, one must assume that Ring aligns himself more with astrology. His writing is certainly sprinkled with references that appear to give credence to astrology, a superstition that has been thoroughly debunked. Such as when he explains "apogee" on his website: Apogee is curious Perhaps it gives energy to all other aspects of the Moon.

    It doesn't really matter how. This is a very astrological aspect - how one planet can 'give energy to' another. Some say lunar apogee gives power to ALL the other planets. You could be fooled into thinking you're reading a book on horoscopes. He goes on to remind the Auckland Astronomical Society, and everyone else who will listen, that: astronomy's founding fathers Maybe they did, but the point is that modern scientists don't still follow ancient false beliefs.

    All humans were once cave dwellers who had never heard of soap. We've moved on, it's called progress. What astronomy's founding fathers believed is irrelevant and a red herring. The fact is, as even Ring implies, they did move from belief in astrology to belief in astronomy. Finding astrology to be flawed, they ditched it and founded astronomy. Unable or unwilling to grasp this problem with astrology, Ring claims his theory uses algorithms that were: once the occupation of astrologers like Nostradamus and Sir Isaac Newton Again, so what?

    Utilising algorithms from a failed belief is a mark against his theory, not for it. And note that he doesn't mention that prophesying the future and turning lead into gold were also the 'occupation of astrologers Nostradamus and Sir Isaac Newton'. Those 'ancient methods' didn't work either. Ring's foray into astrology, his acceptance of it and his attempt to integrate it into his theory of weather forecasting, more than any other factor, shows his theory to be utterly bogus.

    He doesn't seem to realise that Sir Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, while brilliant and still widely used, was superseded many years ago by Albert Einstein's theory of gravity: General Relativity. And Einstein's theory certainly has no need of astrology. And neither did Newton's. And even though Ring states ad nauseam that Sir Isaac Newton was an astrologer, the fact is he wasn't. He was a physicist, as well as an alchemist and a devout religious heretic, but he wasn't an astrologer, paying it little attention.

    Ring even puts forward this nonsense to make people think twice if they giggle at astrology: 'For anyone to state they don't believe in astrology is to say they don't believe in the fact that stars are out there. This is just as silly as saying, 'For anyone to state they don't believe in witchcraft or the prophet Mohammed is to say they don't believe in the fact that there are witches and Muslims out there'.

    Ring naively believes that the mere existence of some belief, be it astrology, witchcraft or Islam, gives it some sort of validity. Existence of a myth equates to its truthfulness in Ring's philosophy. When someone points out to Ring that just because people keep buying astrology books doesn't prove it works, he replies: Ken Ring: Wrong, it proves [astrology] does work or the same people wouldn't keep buying [astrology books] Many people don't know what astrology is.

    Astronomy was and still is astrology, and at one stage a doctor had to qualify in astrology first. By this silly logic, Nigerian bank scams must work as well or else people wouldn't keep investing in them. We agree entirely that many people are ignorant regarding astrology, Ring being one of them.

    Astronomy and astrology have different names because they are different fields. Is that really so hard to grasp? Astronomy is science and astrology is pseudoscience. Astronomy works and astrology doesn't. Astronomy relies on evidence and astrology relies on superstition. And who cares if doctors in the dim and distance past studied astrology, they've long since realised their mistake and it no longer features in medical schools. In case you're still thinking that Ring is simply acknowledging astronomy's origins in astrology, here are more quotes from him that make it perfectly clear that we should reject astronomy and return to astrology, the system he uses: It is the old principles of Astrology that we should be turning back to We are rediscovering answers about Note that Ring in no way renounces the 'fortune-telling part' of astrology either, merely setting it 'gently' aside and implying that he is only concerned with weather prediction.

    Indeed, at one stage he even explains how eclipses fit into the 'fortune-telling part' : There are generally four eclipses a year - two solar and two lunar. The lunar nodes are very rich in symbolic meaning and are used extensively in Hindu astrology. It is said they form an axis across the birth chart, often pointing to deep, soul issues or moments of destiny in an unfolding life.

    The return of the lunar nodes occurs just before the ages of 19, 38, 56, and 75, and certain destiny-making events are supposed to transpire in one's life at these times. Cancer typically brings downpours, Leo is typically a still sign, not much wind Blustery conditions may develop, Scorpio dictates the potential for severe wet with heavy falls.

    In another weather ezine , 25 september Ring continues: Zodiac: you'll see Mars near the Moon In the old astrology, Mars heralded dry weather. The Moon is right now passing through the constellation of Sagittarius, also a dry sign. Then it moves to Capricorn You don't have to be an absolute astrology nut to notice that this matches up to what's happening right now. Other astrological descriptions used by Ring are: Snow will also come when the so-called cold planets are in special angles to the location, as described mathematically by the famous astrologer Sir Isaac Newton.

    The planet [Mercury] is very small, but is traditionally responsible for cold and wind. Mars is in Leo which is dry with not much rain. Mercury is in Scorpio and brings cold fronts and blustery weather. In the old astrology various planets had specific characteristics, depending on their aspects or positions. Mars brings heat and Mercury is known for wind We are far from explanations of most meteorological phenomena.

    We don't even have a good explanation for gravity. But in ancient times it was sufficient to observe and use repeated observation for future prediction. And look how Ken is still mired in his old astrology, claiming that 'We are far from explanations of most meteorological phenomena'. What nonsense to imply that science has no explanations for the likes of rain, frost, snow, hurricanes, thunder and lightning. Are gods still tossing lightning in Ringworld? And for your information Ken, gravity is not viewed as a meteorological phenomena. Have you ever heard a weather forecast that said: Monday should see some inland showers and possibly some low gravity along the coast, clearing by Tuesday.

    And here he is in a Jan article, 'The Moon and You' , describing how you and your actions might be affected by the moon, for example when to wash your hair and when to buy a house: The ancient teaching, astrologically, was that the phase you were born under is the most comfortable one for you and the one that best describes your personality Some believe it, some don't You may wish to see if it matches who you are Not for one moment am I saying they hold true, but if the cap fits you may wish to wear it What stage do you feel you are at and is it a preferred stage?

    Can you change it? This astrology was written down for those who would wish to use the guidelines of others. Whether the moon is on the rise or on the wane it was supposed to dictate what we do for the best. For example when it comes to deep skin cleansing, the best time to do this was said to be when the moon is on the wane You are supposed to care for the hair when the moon is in Leo On a simpler basis, sell a house before a full moon - people are said to be more impulsive then and typically don't quite know what they are doing Conversely buying a house after a full moon is better as you are likely to be more rational and level headed.

    So if a decision is to be made, watch the moon, act or wait. When challenged, Ring angrily insists that he doesn't believe in this sort of astrological nonsense involving horoscopes, personality and the like, and moans that 'Modern astrology has been denigrated to a party and coffee table game'. If that's truly the case, then why does he waste time and confuse his clients by offering them this bogus astrological advice that he believes is false and detracts from what he does? What else does he write about that he believes is utter nonsense but might draw in gullible customers? Could you ever imagine the Pope offering Catholics advice on how to live as atheists, you know, just in case the cap fits?

    Ring muddies the waters by talking about washing your hair when the moon is in Leo and clearly demonstrates that his astrological beliefs are just as silly and as worthless as they were thousands of years ago. All this is plain evidence that Ring's weather prediction method is intimately tied to astrology — bogus, superstitious, old fashioned astrology. While it's possible to take his claims that the Moon's gravitational attraction may have an influence on the weather seriously, his belief that astrology plays the crucial role in explaining this potential influence shows his research and conclusions to be seriously flawed.

    If he can't see the fatal flaws in the superstition that is astrology, he has no hope of mastering the complexities of modern science. The problem is that Ring naively believes that astrology is science: What the reader may have read about astrology is a beat-up As to a choice between science and astrological science, both have a place in the modern world. In his ignorance Ring believes that by simply tacking the word 'science' onto 'astrological' will transform it into a science. This is as childish as believing that Creation science is a science rather than a religion.

    Does witchcraft become a science by calling it 'witchcraft science'? The very fact that Ring talks about 'science and astrological science' shows that they are completely different beasts. If we talked about 'humans and women', wouldn't this suggest that women weren't human?

    People do have a choice between science and astrology, but would be fools to choose astrology. It was science that landed man on the moon, not astrologers. We now realise that Ring's talk of science is only a front and that his predictions are based soley on discredited astrology. There is no science involved, only pseudoscience. Predicting the weather by astrology is as silly as predicting it by plotting the movement of ghosts. We now completely understand why he makes vague, open-ended and often contradictory predictions.

    It allows the people reading his predictions to find the answer they want. It is the exact same ploy that astrologers, psychics, mediums and tea leaf readers use. We now understand why he can't provide evidence to support his claims and must therefore manufacture bogus data and historical supporters. There is no evidence supporting astrology, only mountains of evidence that debunks it. We now understand why he must demonise scientists and suggest conspiracy theories. He must make his clients suspicious of them and their pagan ways and therefore unwilling to listen to their explanations.

    If we have managed to convince you that Ring's method utilises astrology, but you're still not convinced that astrology really is utterly bogus, listed below are 3 short articles that clearly explain why you can safely throw away your horoscopes. They alone should convince you, but if not there are many other excellent websites, books and articles of a skeptical nature that explain why astrology doesn't work and never has. Bakich 'Astrology' Bad Astronomy 'Your Astrology Defense Kit' The Astronomical Society of the Pacific It's Pseudoscience because: In this section we expand on our earlier pseudoscience checklist , explaining why Ring's theory is a pseudoscience and not a real science.

    Here we are talking about Ring's claims as a whole, not just his use of astrology, which is also a pseudoscience. Recall that the more questions you answer YES to, the more likely the topic being examined is a pseudoscience. The quotes by Ring that follow each question support this assertion. I have written more than a dozen books on the weather some of which have reached best-seller status in my country. My Weather mailing list is about Ring also claims to have monthly columns in farming magazines, local newspapers and regular radio and TV Spots. My work is out there, for the layman to read.

    Ken Ring's weather predictions are featured regularly on radio and in magazines and newspapers, in New Zealand and Australia Print media willing to regularly carry our work are Dominion Post, Herald on Sunday, Auckland Sunday Star Times I do regularly submit articles to the Herald, Metro and the Listener My work I am claiming my method has use and could be explored, but not by scientists My work is not intended for city-based academics Does the discoverer say that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work?

    The Moon and acquiring any further knowledge about it is still actively suppressed Why it is embraced in eastern countries but not in the west Also suppressed is any discussion about it, on NZ weather forums or in the newspapers. How it works is really rather logical but scientists seem to have a vested interest in not stating it. Possible reasons for this political manoeuvring will soon become clearer. Perhaps the universities, the media and the government, in other words The Establishment, do not want another viewpoint popularised.

    Much science has become quackery They have abandoned open mindedness, suppressed debate, become arrogant and persecutory. The reason they DON'T look into it is both religious and political.

    Virgo - Heaven's Little Helpers (August 23 - September 22)

    I do regularly submit articles to the Herald, Metro and the Listener, but I am largely ignored. Media here won't publish my warnings because the metservice have too great a hold on what gets to editors. Meteorology is so bound up with milking money from the public I believe they don't want people to work this all out for themselves. I think there is much suppression of new research for political reasons.

    It is easier to suppress than to rewrite textbooks. The scientific community don't allow debate Any competition is seen as a threat to their livelihoods. Is the scientific effect involved always at the very limit of detection? We can't see a high AIR tide because we haven't yet invented an instrument to detect it.