gmalivuk wrote: SFX wrote:
Indeed, in fact the "couple of days that dipped below zero" were in reality some of the coldest weather the city of St Louis has ever experienced, certainly the coldest most people who read xkcd ever experienced.
This I will grant you, simply because xkcd readership is disproportionately young and if you're talking about daytime temperatures, and consider that young children are often kept from "experiencing" especially cold weather, 1989 is probably before most of them can remember cold weather.
It's not "me" that is the issue, it's the facts of the weather, and climate, that are so hotly disputed. I'm just pointing out the reality, which is far different than the glib explanation and handwaving away of the record cold, we see in the comic.
Hell, it was cold by Alaskan standards.
The people of Fairbanks, with an average of 16 days a year that never get above -15F, would have to disagree.
It's the wind chill that really matters. The arctic and Alaska rarely have wind after it snows, so even -25 in Fairbanks doesn't feel as cold as -7 with the wind blowing at 30 mph a 8:51 AM in St Louis. Which feels like -32.7 °F, except it's actually far more hideous weather than still air at -25. Yeah, I am actually that guy mentioned in the alt text.
gmalivuk wrote:Which data do you consider to be the St. Louis climate data?
Now there is a really good question. What data actually shows the climate of St Louis, stretching back in time, to that first office at 210 Olive Street? Where are the concurrent observations that started in July 1929, when a weather station was opened at Lambert Field, 15 miles northwest of the downtown office? Where are the changes noted in the St Louis records, when in July 1958, the airport became the only official weather station in St Louis? Were there any obvious changes when in June 1996 the airport, now greatly expanded, began using the new automated only weather data?
It's in the middle of a huge, very busy jetport.
A hundred yards from a busy runway. Which is de-iced, and constantly cleared of snow.
That's the official climate station for St Louis. Which shows, even from the weather yesterday I linked to. While the green areas were 85, the official high was 92 for St Louis. The average temperature (because they use the airport) was four degrees higher for the entire area, Even when it wasn't anywhere close to that, except at the airport, or other industrial areas. They all show 5 to 1o degrees higher maximums than the green areas do. What a surprise.
The actual carefully selected climate stations show a different story of course. But that set only starts in 2005.
gmalivuk wrote:If you're not being intentionally misleading, maybe link to your sources ever?
Speaking of, the source for every image is actually linked to each image. Every image I've used has the source url attached to it. I was going to mention this, since it was obvious you didn't know that. But after I read your request, I saw this nonsense.
Izawwlgood wrote:Again, this is incredibly dishonest and demonstrative of cherry picking.
gmalivuk wrote:Wow, yeah, that is pretty damn dishonest of SFX.
But even so I was going to tell you, because it would make my life easier, but then you did it again.
gmalivuk wrote:Your repeated inability to answer this question makes me suspicious of whatever you will come up with, now that you've had ample time to cherry pick whatever sourse most strongly supports your position that winters aren't getting warmer.
Now take that suspicion, and realize that's how I feel about climatecentral, who did not list the source of their graphs, much less show the entire picture. They cherry pick the time series. They are known for being deceptive as hell about it.
gmalivuk wrote:Could that possibly be because the image supports your argument less if you go back farther?
Oh gosh, that's exactly what I've been pointing out about climatecentral, and their deceptive graphics! It's almost like I was making a point about time periods! But nah, that couldn't be it.
gmalivuk wrote:Yes, when you disregard the cooler 1970s and 80s and start in the abnormally warm 1990s, you do indeed see the trends you want. I've pointed this out to you repeatedly, and yet you still just keep on cherry picking every single graph you post.
Now here's where it gets so interesting. I say, and the data shows it clearly, that in the last few decades, the St Louis winters are trending colder. I say using the seventies as a start point is deceptive. If the winters are getting colder in the last decade, or decades, then using 44 years for the trend is bullshit. especially when that is starting at the coldest period ever. That is a prime example of cherry picking, and being deceptive. Show the entire period, and show the recent trend. People can think as they will, but at least they have the data, not some bullcrap climatecentral slanted view.
Izawwlgood wrote:This is an honest question.
No, it was not. You made that obvious.
Izawwlgood wrote:Your data source does not actually show this.
And there is why arguing on the internet is a joke. Try to laugh bout it.
speising wrote:what those graphs show is that a linear trendline is simply not a useful indicator, when slight variations in period produce wildly different results.
Yes, but that doesn't mean trends don't matter. It's exactly why you have to look at the big picture, if you want to actually know something about it.
Not some tiny little view climatecentral wants to to see. It's why they didn't just provide an actual source (like I did) of where they got the data from.