Astrological Meteorology

I was tempted to send for a CD on the subject but at $75 for 1 and a beginners introductory course at that I thought I's see if there was anything online I could get for a lot less than fifty quid. …

There is a chap in New Zealand called Ken Ring. He got into hot water from some self styled experts.
This thread was posted to sci,geo,earthquakes a month back:

A magnitude 7 earthquake located between the south and north island hit at 10.36 pm on Tuesday 3rd July. It was 230 km deep and lasted up to 50 seconds. It was felt by most of New Zealand.

A long discussion ensued about the relative values of values. The database in New Zealand being set some orders of magnitude higher than the overall average used by the NEIC.

Eventually the thread was subverted by an idiot or maybe someone with Aspergers?
He has this fixed rote he need to post belittling other posters over the fact the earth rotates once a day…
It's a long story but an extremely short one.

And I kept well out of it.

However I was motivated to join it all recently with some stuff about an Astrometeorologist:

On Wednesday, 4 July 2012 02:45:09 UTC+1, Brian wrote:
> Zombie Hampster <Z…> disappeared up his anus:
> > On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:04 GMT, Brian <bcl…> wrote:

> >> A magnitude 7 earthquake

> > It was only 6.2.

> No it was reported on the news as a magnitude 7 earthquake. This occurred on 3rd July 2012 and has nothing to do with past magnitude 6 earthquakes. It was also reported at Geonet as a Magnitude 7 earthquake

Here is where I joined in:

Read this tirade:

Originally posted by some Kiwi journalist nipple-bonce:

The New Zealand media have done a remarkably good job of covering the Christchurch earthquake. (Date? Magnitude?)

TV, newspapers and radio have all struck the difficult balance between the country’s desperate need to understand what happened on the 22nd and how people are coping with the right that each victim the quake has to privacy in such a terrible time. (Note how desperate and terrible things are.)

The media have also shown great restraint with respect to one particular story. Ken Ring, the astrological weather forecaster, claims to have predicted the earthquake. (Dates? Magnitude?)

I think Ring, with all his calculations and post-hoc explanations, is the very embodiment of what Richard Feynmann called ’cargo cult science’ – someone who does some of the things scientists do, but fails in the most defining characteristic by not honestly testing his theories against data.

Cargo cult: Chindits cleared a patch of forest creating a temporary dropzone.
PNG forest dwellers thought:
We'll have a go at this; see if the fools make a mistake. We can always plant something for the harvest if not.

Later, according to white supremacists, the idea was considered pathetic, cavemanesque imaginings. Australia and New Zealand, the well known haven for white criminals and racists (ie Civilization) seem particularly intent on perpetuating the story of the foolish and the fatuous.

I’ve had a little fun at his expense before but, really; as much as it makes me sad that we live in a world in which Ken Ring can sell his weather forecasts and appear as an ’expert’ on anything in the media, the worst thing his almanac does is take money from people.

Note the word: "sell". I got his book for nothing. The up-to-date version doesn't cost as much as it costs to self publish a book in Britain.

In the wake the earthquake, Ken Ring has done something much more serious. While thousands of people are devastated by a natural disaster, and terrified about what might happen next, Ken Ring claims to have predicted the earthquake of the 22nd and that a much worse one is due in March. So, let’s do what Ring fails to and test his methods against reality.

If Ring had really made an isolated and specific prediction that a destructive earthquake would strike Christchurch on February the 22nd then he might be worth listening to. His claim revolves around this post from his website a little more than a week before the event. Here’s the quotes he’d like you to pick out from that post:

"The window of 15-25 February should be potent for all types of tidal action, not only kingtides but cyclone development and ground movement.

Over the next 10 days a 7+ earthquake somewhere is very likely."

Well we have a date and a magnitude. That's a first for NewZealanders. A nation notionally related to a blind, once extinct, flightless, midget, ratite.

All evidence to the contrary… not.

You might quibble that the Christchurch quake, at magnitude 6.3, was about 5 times less powerful than the M7 event he’d predicted – but I don’t think anyone in Christchurch wants to argue about how strong their quake was.

Well they aught to. Unless they want more than Ken Ring to make them look like dodos. So let's quibble about magnitudes shall we… Oh wait…

On the face it, it really does look like an amazing coincidence:

Ring predicted a quake and it happened. But there is more to it than that, I’ve been through his site and Ring has also predicted earthquakes for, at least, the 24th of September, the 1st and 7th of October the first week in November, the 20th to the 27th of January, the 1st to the 5th and 19th to the 25th of March and the 17th of April.

(So again we have dates. But no magnitudes.)

In fact, in one post, giving him the +/- one day he needs in order to claim he predicted the February 22nd quake, he paints more than half of the time between the start of January and the end of March as earthquake risk:


4 thoughts on “Astrological Meteorology

  1. On Aug 4, 3:19 am, Brian <bcl…> wrote: > 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). 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 sh that works for Rupert Murdoch. > 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. That was the time to sell up and relocate. > 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, as 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. 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 North Atlantic. 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? > 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 list on a calendar all the date ranges for his earthquake > then there are not many days that the earthquake would not occur on. 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 increase 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? > 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. 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.> However he does better on his weather predictions and according to > New Zealand farmers he has been accurate in his weather predictions. 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

  2. Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    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 […] there is a stage or two missing in the algorithm.

    Where're those stages, then… huh.Any idea?

  3. Originally posted by Theremd:

    Where're those stages, then… huh.Any idea?

    Yes I know where they are. They are hidden in the Orient by Further Research. That's a place just out of reach of Casual Observation and almost within the grasp of Passing Interest but only likely to be discovered by Hard Work once it has got to God's Blessing.Originally posted by Weatherlawyer:

    But a lot of weather forecasts are made from consulting previous records.

    I mean that it is standard practice to use computer model runs or even the data that went into them, to find similar weather patterns in the past. If the meteorologist was good enough and could remember where they were filed, in the days before computer databases, then he could look the weather up for the dates in question and compare what happened next in the several occasions offered.With modern computing (and they have some of the world's state of the art computers in Meteorological offices) they can drum up oodles of data (maybe too much?) and thus make much more informed choices and rub their magic lanterns accordingly.It still falls apart when unlooked for data intrudes.Unlooked for data includes stuff such as earthquakes as well as the stuff they might ignore or take notice of but not understand the value of: major storms in other countries.As far as modern meteorology is concerned, a developing storm a world away will have no intrinsic effect on what is happening locally.Yet it is unusual to have a tropical storm without a blocking effect and a significant cyclonic situation in the NE North Atlantic At The Same Time!As far as I know I am the only person who has ever made that connection. At least the only person alive today who putting the idea out on the 'Net.Originally posted by A History and Test of Planetary Weather
    Forecasting (PDF):

    P 18:In "On the Stellar Rays", Al-Kindi rationalized astrology and its alleged effects on the Earth. Not since Ptolemy had an astrologer attempted to explain the linkages between the heavens and Earth in a theory. In Aristotle’s model the operations of the higher realms constituted one type of mechanism which differed from that which operated in the distinct lower, sublunar realm, the “energy” of the former being transferred down to the later via the ether. The basic Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model of astrology theorized that planetary motions keep the four elements in a constant state of change and in doing so produce variations of hot, cold, dry and wet which then operate on substances in the sublunary region.

    They must have been trying to analyse weather fronts. Doing so without thermometers and barometers would have been impossible, except that they also had results from harvests to work with. I don't think grain prices figure prominently in today's meteorology, (though the Met Office has been forced into bed with Climatology since that bloody fool Blair ran riot in Britain.)

    The result is physical change in the sublunary region and therefore planetary motions are the ultimate causes of phenomena on Earth. With astrological theory, Al-Kindi offered a single mechanism, involving rays that are propagated along straight lines from the planets to the Earth. His physics is a living continuum rather than a series of bounded spheres, rays (forces) link the various components of nature together, a celestial harmony. He wrote that every planet or star has its own nature which is projected in rays to specific objects under its influence but combinations with other rays from other stars or planets is also possible.

    How is that so different from interference of geo-phenomena at different parts of the planet during any so called "spell"?Actually, it sounds more like he had an idea similar to what might be tidal forces affecting the magnetosphere of the solar system. That is the only mechanism I can come up with that could possibly induce an affect on the earth at planetary distances.

    Rays from the centre of stars or planets vary in strength according to their angle to the horizon but can be fortified by the rays of other planets or stars. Astrological horoscopes consider planetary strength is related to latitude, declination, angularity, etc.

    That's as far as I got with that… so far. One nugget in more than 18 overwrought pages. (But a nugget no less.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s