|
|
Post by ilmc90 on May 7, 2023 9:59:31 GMT -5
 Impressive mid-month heatwave with two days reaching 91 F but the last couple weeks were wet and below average. Month as a whole was still 5 F above average. US Drought Monitor had the area in the D0 Abnormally Dry category most of the month but that's no longer the case after ample rainfall. |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on May 7, 2023 14:00:10 GMT -5
Well I think using the same por for averages and records is bullshit and I feel like I’m talking in circles with you. Take a look at this graph:  The warmest month pre 1933 would be the coldest month post 1993. So you’re really going to tell me those years are relevant to our current climate? Every month would be above average. I didn’t say I expected you to use smoothed normals, I expect you to use 1991-2020 normals. If you use the raw data for 91-20, that’s great. And Fort Collins isn’t smoothed at all, the normals are the raw data, if I lived somewhere with smoothed normals I might not use them. I agree! That’s why 1910 shouldn’t be included in modern averages and 1910 should be compared to 1881-1910 normals instead. Why shouldn’t it? March is only the 5th cold esta month here yet it’s the snowiest month, you’re saying that shouldn’t be true. And Birmingham has had 4 years with snow in March, 6 in February and 7 in January in the 1991-2020 period so it’s perfectly reasonable for it to be the snowiest month. Better not to manipulate the averages so it makes sense to you. Anyway im done with this debate, obvious your not going to change your mind and we’re just repeating the same points over and over. |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on May 7, 2023 16:49:08 GMT -5
Well I think using the same por for averages and records is bullshit and I feel like I’m talking in circles with you. Take a look at this graph: -image snipped- The warmest month pre 1933 would be the coldest month post 1993. So you’re really going to tell me those years are relevant to our current climate? Every month would be above average. Fort Collins appears to have had a much stronger warming trend than my climate - here, a quick look at the data shows that year-to-year variability is more significant than the overall warming trend, and we are still capable of strong negative anomalies compared to full-POR averages (e.g. April 2018, which narrowly avoided being the coldest on record). To illustrate, all of your top 10 warmest years have been since 2003 - my top five still contains 1931, 1878, and 1921. The earlier years are therefore certainly more relevant here than by you, at the very least - and I still think there's value in saying, for example, "this month was cooler than the 1991-present average, but warmer than the full-POR average". Mostly correct - your temperature averages don't appear to be smoothed at all, while your precipitation and snowfall averages are smoothed slightly, just cross-referencing your normals as shown on Wikipedia with the raw averages for 1991-2020 on NOWData. And okay, if you want me to use 1991-2020 averages, fine, but you won't catch me then referencing anything that happened prior to 1991 - that's old, ancient history, irrelevant to the modern climate. Nothing newer than 2020 counts either. So then, allow me to say that it has never hit 100 F in June or August here, and that the record high for April 12 is a mere 73 F. At least we agree that it makes more sense to compare 1910 to 1881-1910 than to 1991-2020! That's a small victory. Let's investigate this one further...the March snowfall normal is almost entirely created by the freak 1993 event; 84% of all March snowfall since 1991 in Birmingham was in 1993. January and February have recorded at least 1" of snow in that period five times each; March, only two. Over the entire POR, December has recorded at least 1" of snow in 10 different years; January, 26; February, 12; and March, nine. All I'm getting at is how ridiculous it is for one event to completely skew the normals in a certain direction. I never said the coldest month of the year has to be the snowiest, or that it's inherently implausible for March to be the snowiest month on average anywhere. In fact, the snowiest month of the year on average in Rapid City, SD is April. I just expressed surprise, given that Birmingham's March has almost identical mean temps to my May which averages a mere tenth of an inch of snowfall - and, lo and behold, using a proper period of record that isn't hopelessly skewed by the extreme event of 1993, the actual snowiest month on average is January, which is also the coldest. Is that why you responded, but removed my name from the quotes, thinking I wouldn't see it and therefore that you could get the last word in? You're a fucking coward. |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on May 7, 2023 18:34:22 GMT -5
I just expressed surprise, given that Birmingham's March has almost identical mean temps to my May which averages a mere tenth of an inch of snowfall - and, lo and behold, using a proper period of record that isn't hopelessly skewed by the extreme event of 1993, the actual snowiest month on average is January, which is also the coldest. Is that why you responded, but removed my name from the quotes, thinking I wouldn't see it and therefore that you could get the last word in? You're a fucking coward. lol no, it’s just easier to respond by putting quotes and copying in your text, I just forgot to tag you. Never crossed my mind that you wouldn’t see it. Snowfall is more likely to be skewed than temperature or precipitation and is unavoidable in places with little snow. But based on the number of years with snow, January-March are roughly equal for snowfall. I’m ok to have it slightly skewed for the much more representative temperature. Chances are the warming climate means less frequent snowfall in the winter months so that’s why the last 30 years have a pretty similar number of years with snow. That’s moronic. Don’t know why it’s so hard to comprehend that records represent what is possible and therefore what has been recorded while averages represent typical conditions, therefore they should be up to date. Just because you can’t expect it to have a 27 f average or whatever (didn’t look that up) it was in the 1900s doesn’t mean temps that were possible then aren’t possible now. Seems like Madison has less of a warming trend than many places but there should still be a standard normal period. No one said you can’t say “this was a below average month but warmer than the full por” but pretending the full por average is what the climate actually averages nowadays is misleading. Another problem with using the full por is that there’s a non-standard period of record. Some places might have data 1870-2023, others 1890-2023, others 1940-2023 or 1980-2023. If you’re worried about excluding decades than many stations have tons of years not included that some do. That’s a great way to make even nearby stations completely not comparable. |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on May 8, 2023 8:27:43 GMT -5
I just expressed surprise, given that Birmingham's March has almost identical mean temps to my May which averages a mere tenth of an inch of snowfall - and, lo and behold, using a proper period of record that isn't hopelessly skewed by the extreme event of 1993, the actual snowiest month on average is January, which is also the coldest. Is that why you responded, but removed my name from the quotes, thinking I wouldn't see it and therefore that you could get the last word in? You're a fucking coward. lol no, it’s just easier to respond by putting quotes and copying in your text, I just forgot to tag you. Never crossed my mind that you wouldn’t see it. Snowfall is more likely to be skewed than temperature or precipitation and is unavoidable in places with little snow. But based on the number of years with snow, January-March are roughly equal for snowfall. I’m ok to have it slightly skewed for the much more representative temperature. Chances are the warming climate means less frequent snowfall in the winter months so that’s why the last 30 years have a pretty similar number of years with snow. I prefer to have things as minimally skewed by outlier events as possible, which is an advantage of a longer POR like we've discussed. Again, just like we've discussed already (it really does seem like we're talking in circles), if pre-1991 data are viewed as too old to be relevant to the modern climate, then that same standard ought to be consistently applied. It's possible we haven't seen the full range of what's climatically possible even in a 150-year period of record. And considering your emphasis on what the climate is now as opposed to some decades ago, that line of thought should surely exclude old extreme events that no longer seem possible (like the -36 F in Green Bay in 1888 compared to how the coldest it's been in even my parents' lifetime is -28 F). Either old stuff is relevant, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose. I still think using an abbreviated POR is misleading. What if the 2000s-2020s ends up being an anomalously warm period, and the 2030s and 2040s are distinctly colder? Then the 2001-2030 normals will certainly be too warm to describe the actual climate accurately. Use the years that all the stations you're comparing have in common. If station 1 has an 1892-2023 POR and station 2 has a 1957-2023 POR, focus on 1957-2023. I've noticed a lot of stations that start in 1998, so comparing to a station like that should start with 1998 - and the very existence of "1991-2020 normals" for those locations is preposterous. |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on May 8, 2023 13:33:30 GMT -5
Again, just like we've discussed already (it really does seem like we're talking in circles), if pre-1991 data are viewed as too old to be relevant to the modern climate, then that same standard ought to be consistently applied. It's possible we haven't seen the full range of what's climatically possible even in a 150-year period of record. And considering your emphasis on what the climate is now as opposed to some decades ago, that line of thought should surely exclude old extreme events that no longer seem possible (like the -36 F in Green Bay in 1888 compared to how the coldest it's been in even my parents' lifetime is -28 F). Either old stuff is relevant, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose. It’s like beating a dead horse with this, records and averages show two different things. I’m done debating this point as we’re just saying the same things. The 2030s and 2040s almost certainly won’t be distinctly colder. They’ll most likely be warmer than the 2020s and will make using old data in normals even less relevant. So now I have to manually go through the data every time I want two compare places? Fuck that, I want to look at two weather boxes and be able to directly compare. And you can’t compare to other countries that have much less easily accessible yearly data than Nowdata. I agree with you, I don’t think places that started in 1998 or 2005 should have 91-20 normals, if it’s less than the standard period it should just be raw data with the years they have and say so. But obviously as there’s more weather stations over time, every year you go back there’s fewer and fewer stations so very few places are comparable to 1869-present Madison. Maybe 90% of stations have 1991-2020 data but much fewer have 1950-present and much fewer than that have 1900-present and very few have 1870-present. |
|
|
|
Post by jgtheone on May 9, 2023 6:56:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on May 9, 2023 7:27:47 GMT -5
Again, just like we've discussed already (it really does seem like we're talking in circles), if pre-1991 data are viewed as too old to be relevant to the modern climate, then that same standard ought to be consistently applied. It's possible we haven't seen the full range of what's climatically possible even in a 150-year period of record. And considering your emphasis on what the climate is now as opposed to some decades ago, that line of thought should surely exclude old extreme events that no longer seem possible (like the -36 F in Green Bay in 1888 compared to how the coldest it's been in even my parents' lifetime is -28 F). Either old stuff is relevant, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose. It’s like beating a dead horse with this, records and averages show two different things. I’m done debating this point as we’re just saying the same things. You said you were done with this discussion the other day, yet you keep responding and saying the same shit. You aren't going to convince me of something no matter how many times you keep saying "nuh uh". Did you not notice the word "if"? It was intended solely as a hypothetical - not a prediction. It's no different from using the markedly cold 1961-1990 normals on a period much warmer than that. That's a failing of other countries' met services for not making their data easily accessible - ideally, every country would do what's in the interest of access to information and make it available, so as to render this point moot. I still think a 30-year normal period is far too short - perhaps a 50- or 70-year normal period (just pulling numbers out of my hind end) would be better for the purposes of comparison, considering most countries have data from prior to 1973, don't they?, and a longer POR would still reduce the chance of one anomalous year or decade skewing the averages. I'm glad we agree here - I'm at least getting somewhere with you. |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on May 9, 2023 10:03:38 GMT -5
You said you were done with this discussion the other day, yet you keep responding and saying the same shit. You aren't going to convince me of something no matter how many times you keep saying "nuh uh". That's a failing of other countries' met services for not making their data easily accessible - ideally, every country would do what's in the interest of access to information and make it available, so as to render this point moot. I still think a 30-year normal period is far too short - perhaps a 50- or 70-year normal period (just pulling numbers out of my hind end) would be better for the purposes of comparison, considering most countries have data from prior to 1973, don't they?, and a longer POR would still reduce the chance of one anomalous year or decade skewing the averages. Well you kept responding with the same shit so I was going to respond too. And it’s the same point you fail to understand and that counters your argument so why wouldn’t I repeat it. So you admit 1961-1990 with a median year of 1975 is bad but 1869-2023 with a median year of 1946, nearly 30 years earlier isn’t? And hypotheticals aren’t a good way to make an argument when we already have lots of data. Notice you didn’t say anything about comparing with other places in the US and how you’d have to manually go through the data every single time you wanted a comparison. And some countries weren’t even around before 1990, even if it is a failing it’s still important to have a standardized data set which is why countries that haven’t updated from 1961-1990 or 1981-2010 are dumb. 50 years is better than 70 which is way better than 150 but I’ll still go with 30 years. What about places like Svalbard that have warmed so much that even the 1991-2020 normals aren’t that accurate and they get 70 straight above average months? You’re not “getting somewhere” as far as convincing me you’re right but yes, there are some things we agree on. |
|
|
|
Post by fairweatherfan on May 9, 2023 18:53:04 GMT -5
 Pretty typical April. First 80F+ temperature of the year, latest since 1999. Departures from 1991-2020 averages: High: -2.2F Mean: -1.3F Low: -0.3F Precipitation: -0.48 in |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on May 9, 2023 22:30:41 GMT -5
You said you were done with this discussion the other day, yet you keep responding and saying the same shit. You aren't going to convince me of something no matter how many times you keep saying "nuh uh". That's a failing of other countries' met services for not making their data easily accessible - ideally, every country would do what's in the interest of access to information and make it available, so as to render this point moot. I still think a 30-year normal period is far too short - perhaps a 50- or 70-year normal period (just pulling numbers out of my hind end) would be better for the purposes of comparison, considering most countries have data from prior to 1973, don't they?, and a longer POR would still reduce the chance of one anomalous year or decade skewing the averages. Well you kept responding with the same shit so I was going to respond too. And it’s the same point you fail to understand and that counters your argument so why wouldn’t I repeat it. There's a difference between not understanding something, and thinking the person saying it is full of shit. I think you're full of shit. And incidentally, I've even said this before too - so who failed at basic reading comprehension now, hmmm?You're missing the point - I'm blasting the 1961-1990 period as being anomalously cold and unrepresentative of the current climate. 1869-2023 is the full period of record: it contains anomalously cold and anomalously warm periods that cancel each other out, and that's how we get the long-term average. Actually, you know what? You're right. The climate everywhere has warmed up so much that nothing that happened before 1991 is representative of the current climate at all. In fact, it's warmed up so much that the warmest year on record in Sioux City, IA and Saginaw, MI was 1931. In Pittsburgh, it's 1921 - and the seven warmest years on record were all pre-1940. Gosh! It doesn't get more convincing than that. Well for places in the US, for which the data are easily accessible through NOWData, it is in the interest of precision and accuracy to manually go through the data. So what if you have to open up two additional tabs and take two minutes or so to look at some numbers? This is a weather forum - effort posts on weather- and climate-related matters ought to be the norm. Meanwhile, you said you were done with this discussion - if that were in fact the case, you wouldn't be continuing to respond, forcing me to continue constructing effort posts to try to prove your premise flawed. Name a country that doesn't have a single currently active station that predates 1990. And hopefully, we can agree that having outdated data from 1961-1990 or 1981-2010 is preferable to having no data at all - and it's not as though any given place's climate is 40 F warmer now than it was 20 years ago or anything else ridiculous, so it's not as though any comparison would be wholly inaccurate. Well, 20 years is better than 30, and 10 is better than 20. Why don't we just use 2011-2020 normals? 2010 is ancient history; the climate was so much colder when I graduated from high school! How far back does Svalbard's POR go? If it does indeed go back only to 1975 as indicated in the box on Wikipedia, then nearly half of the 1961-1990 data period would be fake data. If the warming between 1961-1990 and more-modern averages is as pronounced as depicted, that's striking, and certainly an outlier on the global scale, but I'm not convinced. |
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on May 9, 2023 23:01:00 GMT -5
There's a difference between not understanding something, and thinking the person saying it is full of shit. I think you're full of shit. And incidentally, I've even said this before too - so who failed at basic reading comprehension now, hmmm?Well I think you’re full of shit. I know I’m right so im not gonna say oh yeah I agree with you that im full of shit. Yeah I don’t think it is. For most places it’s between the early 1900s and the 2000s. Maybe in Madison it was anomolously cold but that’s not the general trend. What a stupid argument. In like 5th grade math we learned that things are more variable with a small sample size, ie. when it’s 1 or 2 years out of 100 it’s easy to get one that bucks the trend and is record warm. But when you take 30 year averages and compare them, that’s a much larger sample size and you’re going to see a clear warming trend. Or look at a trend line using the whole dataset. And coincidentally Pittsburgh airport starts in 1948 so likely the old station was just in a warmer spot. 8/9 warmest years at Pittsburgh airport are since 1990. The average person isn’t doing that, they probably don’t even know nowdata exists. That’s an insane amount of effort and complexity when you can just use a standard period for averages. And what if you wanted to find day the warmest place in colorado? You’d have 10s of contenders, all with different periods of record. There’s a reason things are often standardized. I thought that would meant you would stop responding as well and the debate would be over as clearly neither of us will change our mind. But I wasn’t going to let your wrong points stand there and not respond. Never said that. In fact I distinctly said I thought less than 20 years was too short. I have an issue with short term averages like that that can be highly variable and easily skewed, just like I have an issue with very long term averages. Longyearbyen has data back to 1957 link |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on May 10, 2023 8:07:06 GMT -5
There's a difference between not understanding something, and thinking the person saying it is full of shit. I think you're full of shit. And incidentally, I've even said this before too - so who failed at basic reading comprehension now, hmmm?Well I think you’re full of shit. I know I’m right so im not gonna say oh yeah I agree with you that im full of shit. I expected as much - in which case, this point has devolved to "no u!" flame-throwing, which is just about the least effective form of argument. Let's compare mean annual temp for 1931-1960 versus 1961-1990 for several other cities chosen at random scattered across the country. Sioux City, IA: 49.1 F vs 48.5 F Philadelphia, PA: 55.0 F vs 54.3 F Chattanooga, TN: 60.8 F vs 59.3 F (!) Waco, TX: 67.1 F vs 66.8 F Needles, CA: 72.3 F vs 73.2 F Seattle, WA: 53.2 F vs 53.2 F I made sure each location had records going back to at least 1931, and no more than maybe two of each month missing in either time period. You can see clearly that for the eastern half of the United States, 1961-1990 was cold. In Chattanooga in particular, 1961-1990 was even more than a degree colder than 1901-1930 (mean annual temp 60.4 F). It's not just a Madison thing. (Although it should be noted that Madison is the location that prompted this debate in the first place - and our averages are: 1871-1900, 45.7 F; 1901-1930, 45.8 F; 1931-1960, 46.9 F; 1961-1990, 45.4 F; 1991-2020, 47.2 F; full POR, 46.1 F. In other words, the most recent of these 30-year periods was the warmest, but it was directly preceded by the coldest, making a comparison between 1961-1990 and 1991-2020 a bit disingenuous without the additional context of 1869-1960.) Duh, no shit. But you're missing my point - which is that in a lot of these places, year-to-year variation is more significant than the overall warming trend (also shown by my Madison example from earlier, whereby the warmest Jan, Feb, May, and Dec are all pre-1900; the coldest July was as recent as 2009, and three of the five warmest years on record are pre-1950). Then it's a fair bit disingenuous for NWS to include both stations under the same "Pittsburgh Area" moniker on NOWData, yes? If "the average person probably doesn't even know NOWData exists" (which I can confirm to be the case), then the average person isn't really relevant here. At the same time, weather history isn't a particularly frequent topic of conversation with laypeople, and an average person with no particular interest in weather isn't going to be very knowledgeable about it by any standard. Case in point: the fact the "stupid shit people say about the weather" thread on this very forum is 20 pages long and counting, and the fact quite a few people around here seemed to think we just had "a cold winter" when January was one of the top 10 warmest on record. That's not how debates work. You can't just shout "WE'RE DONE!" and expect that to resolve the argument to either party's satisfaction - you didn't really win, per se, considering you ended it artificially, while the other party certainly lost, as far as not being able to get the last word in. Arguments continue until one party has conceded in full, whether by being proved incorrect or by running out of supporting evidence and reasoning; both parties have mutually agreed to put it aside; or a third party (such as, in the case of an online argument like this, a forum moderator) intervenes and says "all right you kids, cut it out". This is the crux of the argument - and I still hold firmly to my belief that even a 30-year period is too short and can be easily skewed by anomalous periods, as shown above and in previous posts. In which case, fair point. However, it should be noted that the rate at which Svalbard is warming is an anomaly compared to the rest of the world. Also note that I have never been opposed to a more-recent 20-30 year POR being used in conjunction with the full POR - but both should always be available, and in locations such as my own where year-to-year variation is more significant than the overall warming trend, IMO the latter should by all means take precedence. Especially if we're comparing one place to itself, to show how the climate has evolved over time. |
|
|
|
Post by AJ1013 on May 10, 2023 8:08:27 GMT -5
FFS how is this argument still going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on May 10, 2023 11:29:48 GMT -5
Let's compare mean annual temp for 1931-1960 versus 1961-1990 for several other cities chosen at random scattered across the country. Sioux City, IA: 49.1 F vs 48.5 F Philadelphia, PA: 55.0 F vs 54.3 F Chattanooga, TN: 60.8 F vs 59.3 F (!) Waco, TX: 67.1 F vs 66.8 F Needles, CA: 72.3 F vs 73.2 F Seattle, WA: 53.2 F vs 53.2 F Didn’t realize that but looks like you’re right 1961-1990 was anomalously cold in the east (not in the west though). But wouldn’t you agree that if it was a colder than normal 30 years it’s not relevant to the averages today? It would be one thing if there was no trend and the warm and cold periods directly canceled each other out but there is a trend so you can’t make that argument. No I’m not. Individual years are such a small sample size while averages are made up of 30 years. The fact that there’s still a trend despite individual years being record warm in the past or record cool nowadays shows that the overall warming trend is more significant I agree The average person is relevant because they’ll want to look at two places to see which is warmer, which isn’t stupid. That’s the extent that most people use weather stats, so if you’re just looking to compare places, you should have a standard period so you can directly compare. I think if an anomalous trend lasts that long, then it becomes expected and should be the average. Of course it’s an anamoly but it shows that while a 30 year normal is relevant anywhere, there are many places where a long term average isn’t relevant at all, like Svalbard or Fort Collins or Phoenix. Or they end when it’s clear neither side is going to be convinced, a which it’s pointless to continue. At that point, no one wins, it’s just a stalemate and shows neither person was convincing enough to change the other’s mind. In this case, it seems we both have fundamentally different ideas of what ah average is supposed to represent—I think they represent typical conditions and you think they represent everything that has ever been recorded. |
|
|
|
Post by Cheeseman on May 11, 2023 8:11:51 GMT -5
Let's compare mean annual temp for 1931-1960 versus 1961-1990 for several other cities chosen at random scattered across the country. Sioux City, IA: 49.1 F vs 48.5 F Philadelphia, PA: 55.0 F vs 54.3 F Chattanooga, TN: 60.8 F vs 59.3 F (!) Waco, TX: 67.1 F vs 66.8 F Needles, CA: 72.3 F vs 73.2 F Seattle, WA: 53.2 F vs 53.2 F Didn’t realize that but looks like you’re right 1961-1990 was anomalously cold in the east (not in the west though). But wouldn’t you agree that if it was a colder than normal 30 years it’s not relevant to the averages today? It would be one thing if there was no trend and the warm and cold periods directly canceled each other out but there is a trend so you can’t make that argument. I would say that the anomalously cold 1961-1990 period isn't necessarily relevant to what can be expected today, but is certainly relevant to the overall climate, which is measured over a longer period of time. As useful as it is to be able to say how a given month or year compares to recent averages (e.g., a month that's 4 F colder than modern averages is going to feel like an abnormally chilly month), it's also IMO useful to keep that full-POR average in mind, to point out that, say, this month that was 0.8 F below the recent average was still 1.0 F above the long-term average and that sensationalism about it being "the coldest ever" is exaggerated. (I'm not referring to any specific months or locations here, just using examples.) I disagree - and ultimately it comes down to how you want to interpret the data. If a year in the 1930s that was the warmest on record at the time would now be the coldest in some 30 years, as in your example from your own location, then I'd say the overall trend is more significant. But that's not the case here or in other places I've mentioned. Does the average person even care beyond "Florida's warm, so that's where I'm going to go for a week off in the winter"? You, as a weather enthusiast, would likely be surprised at how climatically illiterate (or at least uninformed) the majority of people are. For example, the common stereotype of London or Seattle's climate is that typical November conditions last year-round in those places. I disagree, as shown in how quickly the 1961-1990 normals became outdated when it became clear that that was indeed an anomalously cold period. I think you nailed it here - and it does seem clear to me at this point that neither of us is going to be convinced by the other's point. And I'd say we at least each still learned something - I learned how rapidly Fort Collins has warmed up in recent decades, and you learned how anomalously cool the 1961-1990 period was for the eastern part of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeau on Jun 11, 2023 10:45:21 GMT -5
Paris, Île-de-France, France April 2023 Average: High 15.6°C / Low 7.5°C / Mean 11.5°CHighest: 22.9°C [28th] Lowest: 2.8°C [4th] Lowest High: 9.1°C [2nd] Highest Low: 15.0°C [28th] Precipitation: 65.7 mmPrecipitation Days: 10 Sunshine Hours: 151.9 hours Sunshine Percentage: 36.9% Early April: High 15.1°C / Low 6.7°C / Mean 10.9°C / Precipitation 8.9 mm / 69.4 sunshine hours Mid April: High 14.7°C / Low 7.0°C / Mean 10.9°C / Precipitation 31.9 mm / 52.6 sunshine hours Late April: High 16.9°C / Low 8.8°C / Mean 12.8°C / Precipitation 24.9 mm / 29.9 sunshine hours  - Seoul, South Korea April 2023 Average: High 19.0°C / Low 8.8°C / Mean 13.8°CHighest: 28.4°C [19th] Lowest: 3.1°C [8th] Lowest High: 9.7°C [6th] Highest Low: 14.5°C [20th] Precipitation: 96.9 mmPrecipitation Days: 10 Snowfall: 0.0 cm Snowy Days: 0 Average Relative Humidity: 60% Average Dew Point: 4.6°C Average Wind Speed: 2.5 m/s Sunshine Hours: 182.3 hours Sunshine Percentage: 46.2% Early April: High 19.1°C / Low 7.9°C / Mean 13.5°C / Precipitation 59.9 mm / 79.5 sunshine hours Mid April: High 18.8°C / Low 9.1°C / Mean 13.8°C / Precipitation 9.5 mm / 45.9 sunshine hours Late April: High 19.0°C / Low 9.4°C / Mean 14.1°C / Precipitation 27.5 mm / 56.9 sunshine hours  - Tokyo, Japan April 2023 Average: High 21.7°C / Low 11.9°C / Mean 16.3°CHighest: 26.8°C [21st] Lowest: 6.6°C [9th] Lowest High: 16.0°C [24th] Highest Low: 17.9°C [21st] Precipitation: 90.0 mmPrecipitation Days: 8 Snowfall: 0 cm Snowy Days: 0 Average Relative Humidity: 62% Average Wind Speed: 3.5 m/s Sunshine Hours: 197.2 hours Sunshine Percentage: 50% Early April: High 20.9°C / Low 10.5°C / Mean 15.1°C / Precipitation 15.0 mm / 68.0 sunshine hours Mid April: High 22.8°C / Low 12.1°C / Mean 16.9°C / Precipitation 47.5 mm / 71.7 sunshine hours Late April: High 21.4°C / Low 13.1°C / Mean 16.9°C / Precipitation 27.5 mm / 57.5 sunshine hours  |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeau on Jun 11, 2023 10:45:37 GMT -5
â–Ľ <Monthly Climate Anomaly over Japan>
â–Ľ <Time Series of Temperature Anomaly>
â–Ľ <Time Series of 10days Precipitation Amount Ratio and Sunshine Duration Ratio>
â–Ľ <10-day Mean Sea Level Pressure>
â–Ľ <10-day Mean 850hPa Temperature>
â–Ľ <10-day Mean 500hPa GeoPotential Height>
â–Ľ <10-day Mean Outgoing Longwave Radiation>
|
|
|
|
Post by srfoskey on Sept 2, 2023 16:37:31 GMT -5
April 2023 had near-normal temperatures and precipitation; however, the Norman area was threatened by tornadoes the evening of April 19th. My part of Norman was under intermittent tornado warnings for about three hours that evening.  www.weather.gov/oun/events-20230419 |
|
Lived:
Residence:
