|
|
Post by flamingGalah on Mar 29, 2018 9:26:47 GMT -5
Not really a fair representation of the actual averages there though, as 13 years is too short a time frame. Would be better to compare to the same time period for Heathrow. Well, 14 years. And I wouldn't object to using 02-15 averages for London either, though London doesn't seem to have warmed all that much, and instead of getting sunnier they seem to have got cloudier instead. I don't think it would've been much of an advantage for London. Well 13/14 years, still isn't a long enough period. There is a reason why the WMO standard is to use a 30 year period. |
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 29, 2018 9:32:24 GMT -5
Well I don't do climate battles involving those Swedish stations, it's always Baba who does  "Rate the climate" is fine, but outright climate battles is a bit... misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Mar 29, 2018 9:38:28 GMT -5
I think 15 year periods are better than 30. 30 years isn't objectively better than 15.
|
|
|
|
Post by Babu on Mar 29, 2018 9:57:40 GMT -5
We're rating climates, not reference periods you idiot. Ok, thank you calling me idiot, my friend but it is elementry one should use the same reference period. So use for London years of 2002-15. And why the records of Lund are since ... 1901 (!)? The records of Lund should be from 2002-2015 period  We're not rating reference periods. The only way to compare Lund and London is to use 2002-2015 for Lund and 1981-2010 for London, unless you can provide me a wiki weatherbox for London using the latter period. Btw, London is using extremes from 1948, and I don't see 1948 data included in their averages. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 10:18:31 GMT -5
30 is definitely better than 15.
|
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on Mar 29, 2018 11:22:33 GMT -5
I'd choose Lund over London for the colder and snowier winters.
And of course 30 years is better than 15. In a 30 year period, you'd catch more of all the variables the climate has potential of bringing, in a 15 year period it's very easy for one weather pattern to dominate. Hell, I even find 30 years too short myself.
Either way whether it's 15 years or 30 years of data, Lund would still be a significantly colder climate, so I don't think in this case it'd make a big difference. Would mean more if it were two climate that were closer to each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 29, 2018 11:40:15 GMT -5
I think 30 years is about right, but prefer more to less when available of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingGalah on Mar 29, 2018 11:47:57 GMT -5
I think 15 year periods are better than 30. 30 years isn't objectively better than 15. Of course a 30 year period is better & the WMO think so too, that's why it is the standard climate reference period for all official weather stations all over the world. The base standard used by the WMO is still actually 1961-1990, the averages get updated every 10 years, but the next official standard to use will be 1991-2020... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 13:07:27 GMT -5
The average highs for Heathrow 2002-2015 are as follows...
Jan: 8.4c
Feb: 8.7c
Mar: 11.7c
Apr: 15.6c
May: 18.1c
Jun: 21.8c
Jul: 23.7c
Aug: 22.9c
Sep: 20.5c
Oct: 16.1c
Nov: 11.7c
Dec: 8.8c
The sun hours have suffered massively.
Jan: 59.6
Feb: 72.9
Mar: 126.1
Apr: 177.8
May: 182.5
Jun: 195.6
Jul: 197.7
Aug: 176.3
Sep: 152.8
Oct: 107.8
Nov: 66.3
Dec: 52.1
|
|
|
|
Post by Steelernation on Mar 29, 2018 14:07:34 GMT -5
30 is better with a similar time frame ex: 1981-2010 vs. 1986-2010.
However, up to date 15 year averages are better than ancient 30 year normals.
2002-2016 will always be better than 1961-1990 IMO although 1981-2010 will always be better than 2002-2016.
|
|
|
|
Post by rozenn on Mar 29, 2018 16:22:04 GMT -5
Why? The records should be from the whole recording period, not just the current normals. Anyway, yeah the reference periods aren't the same, but the two climates are different enough for you to be able to rate them based on this (flawed) data. Edit: fuck, didn't see there was a page 2 to this thread.  Btw, Lund is much better in my books. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Mar 29, 2018 16:30:56 GMT -5
I think the 1851-1880 normals are the best reference period to be used:  |
|
|
|
Post by Lommaren on Mar 29, 2018 16:37:51 GMT -5
I think the 1851-1880 normals are the best reference period to be used: Well at least you maded less subarctic than Umeå jajajajaja bro |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeau on Mar 29, 2018 18:45:17 GMT -5
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 18:46:32 GMT -5
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!! Are you sure? You seem to be in two minds  |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeau on Mar 29, 2018 18:50:21 GMT -5
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!! Are you sure? You seem to be in two minds What two minds, is this joke or I have a bad understanding of your humour? xD |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2018 18:53:43 GMT -5
Are you sure? You seem to be in two minds What two minds, is this joke or I have a bad understanding of your humour? xD 'Twas a joke. A bad one of course, to be expected from me. |
|
|
|
Post by 🖕🏿Mörön🖕🏿 on Mar 29, 2018 21:22:21 GMT -5
Are you sure? You seem to be in two minds What two minds, is this joke or I have a bad understanding of your humour? xD You're hot.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cadeau on Mar 30, 2018 0:46:48 GMT -5
What two minds, is this joke or I have a bad understanding of your humour? xD You're hot. THANK.YOU.SIR! I FEEL SO VERRY VERRY HONORRED  |
|
|
|
Post by alex992 on Mar 30, 2018 14:46:36 GMT -5
I think the 1851-1880 normals are the best reference period to be used: Holy shit. April and May are shockingly cold for that time frame. |
|
"Rate the climate" is fine, but outright climate battles is a bit... misleading.
Btw, Lund is much better in my books.
Lived:
Residence:
