Climate battle - Invercargill, NZ vs. Victoria, BC

[RWood]

Originally Posted by koyaanisqatsi1

Readings of 0.01-0.09 merits nothing to me at all.
As for for the Invercargill statistic - I was right all along - with 11 days recording NIL even with the 0.01-0.09 group being attached, making a grand total of 19 so the 1968 total has been written off

You were right in the sense that the true nil count exceeded 1968 - that wasn't being disputed. It's the counts under your revised but unannounced reinvention of mathematical and meteorological terminology that were in dispute. But I'm not going to waste time trying to convince somebody that rigorous scientific practices matter - it should be self-evident. A casual reader could get an incorrect impression from this sort of thing.

[koyaanisqatsi1]

Originally Posted by koyaanisqatsi1

Readings of 0.01-0.09 merits nothing to me at all.
As for for the Invercargill statistic - I was right all along - with 11 days recording NIL even with the 0.01-0.09 group being attached, making a grand total of 19 so the 1968 total has been written off

Another excellent example - last 5 days saw no sun at all - from personal eyes - yet the airport site managed to see somewhat 0.05 - to 1.0 hours - very horrid indeed...

[koyaanisqatsi1]

Also Invercargill has recorded just 38 hours of sun ending 9am 16th so...

[Kris36]

Victoria any day. Invercargill's weather is the pits. I'd take the substantially more sunshine and less rain of Victoria, which coincidently seems to have data comparable to Christchurch (cold frosty winters, but low rainfall, and warm summers)