WesternFringe
-
Posts
1,017 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by WesternFringe
-
Talk about cherry picking, lol. Across many cities, we recently had our 4th best of the last 11 decades for snowfall, if we want to look by decade (which I don’t think is very smart).
-
I guess. I think perspective is king and the proper perspective is the whole data set, not our limited lifetimes.
-
I have been here, with no one showing me statistical analysis of DCA getting less snowfall on average other than noise since 1888. I can show you the equation of the line of best fit. Where have you been? ETA: teach me all you know about linear regression, SnowenOutThere. I will wait while you Google.
-
Since 1984, DCA has averaged 0.17” more snow more per year annually. I didn’t go by decades. Nor did I change my analysis based on that. That is a lie. I went by year markers until present with all of my analysis.
-
Yes, I want you to prove it with numbers, rather than emotion
-
Mean of 136 numbers isn’t skewed easily by a few numbers.
-
by that slope DCA is getting 3/100 of an inch less per year from 1880 to present. Or 17/100 of an inch more per year since the 1980s to present.
-
If you call looking at the slope of annual snowfall data recorded from DCA 1880 to present cherry picking or ‘slicing up the data’ lol
-
Yes, other than panic jumping like Ji, or mansplaining/panicking like PSU, I haven’t seen the data showing we have less snow than the 1880s. Prove me wrong.
-
I was going by decades. This is weird and confusing
-
So, less snowfall in 20teens than 1960s. N = 2
-
My analysis was from 1980s, not 1960s. I edited.
-
I guess, man. You can keep talking about how 2 and 3 and 4 don’t represent a data set that averages 22, but that doesn’t make it true. The mean, or average, of 135 data points, is generalizable. And represents the population as a whole. Generally speaking, ETA: we are getting more snow per year than when compared to the 1980s etaa: it doesn’t matter whether you like it or agreee, DCA is getting more annual snow now then they were in 1984
-
-
So, 7 minimums since the 1920s.
-
So low amounts of single digit snowfall are common. Got it.
-
You haven’t shown me data that single digit DCA snowfall is new a phenomenon that didn’t exist before close to 1888. I am all ears.
-
But tell me annual snowfall is decreasing at DCA since the 1980s and I can call you a liar and back it up with data
-
You are kind of proving my point by looking so intensively at the last 30 years as if they represent the data set on whole. A running 10 to 20 year data set? It is almost like you want to massage your numbers to show a point. What is wrong with 136 yrs of data points unless it doesn’t show what you want it to show? Lol
-
We can suck with annual snowfall. And we can suck with almost no snowfall some years. But no one has shown me statistically that we are sucking more than we used to suck. We have always sucked. Prove me wrong, with stats. Tired of hearing the negative Nancies. I grew up in upstate NY where we averaged 65+” ETA: love Bob Chill, bc he is always grounded
-
I was responding to others, but yes Ji, we can get get back to the ‘fact’ that this winter is over bc you have no blue on your models. Forgive me.
-
Actually tired of hearing we are failing bc of climate change and not that we are failing (we haven’t failed yet for 22-23) bc of la nina which we all know to be a real thing. eta: obviously, climate change is a real thing, bc the climate has always been changing
-
Yeah, that is what we have been talking about. Would love to see someone show me that scenario with numbers, and not a “we should see larger events” explanation. Show me the data.
-
Right. And 136 is big enough ETA: I will exit stage left at this point. I am just saying, I don’t believe the doomsayers in here with regard to future snowfall. DCA is getting more snow than they were in the 1980s. The data show the rate of change since 1880s is low and negligible and likely due to statistical noise, but the human brain likes to find patterns, even when there aren’t any
-
Just treat it normally. We don’t treat height that way, even though it is bound by zero and the mean is low. eta: in fact, all observable occurrence data is bound by zero. That doesn’t mean we model it’s distribution differently
