Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You do understand that the WMO actually get their datasets straight from the official sources right? It is not some hodge podge site like Wunderground and Inaccuweather.
Still doesn't make it more authentic than the official sources doesn't it? BOM counts all years of data. And as well it should. It can't be wrong. What makes the WMO more accurate by NOT doing so now?
Btw, climate hasn't changed dramatically in 150 years, if not by 1C at least. I'd agree with you if they were using 1000 years worth of climate data (say we kept records since then) because I'm sure a lot has changed since then. 150 years, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed's Mountain
Dude, climate's a moving target. It doesn't change daily but is does change as decades pass. A thirty year snapshot is more indicative of the current climate.
Again, a moving target in a thousand years, not much in 200 years. In the period of 200 years there will be hotter and cooler years, but no dramatic differences. Try 500-1000 years and that's when say, a drier climate starts to be wetter and vice versa.
Btw, climate hasn't changed dramatically in 150 years, if not by 1C at least. I'd agree with you if they were using 1000 years worth of climate data (say we kept records since then) because I'm sure a lot has changed since then. 150 years, not so much.
You will never know if it's changed in 150 years or not if you don't separate it out.
Smushing all data together diminishes its value. It's just not a very smart thing to do.
Smushing all data together diminishes its value. It's just not a very smart thing to do.
Alright, then let's have somebody go to Wikipedia and put in the 1981-2010 data for the climate boxes of Sydney, Melbourne and the other cities having 50+ years worth of weather information.
You click on a city's climate on BOM the default is always on 'ALL YEARS OF DATA' - how could an official source site be wrong or 'dumb' (as you said, "not a very smart thing")? Most of other climate sites link to BOM'S 'all years of data' - They don't choose a timeframe (i.e. 1970-2010, etc).
Alright, then let's have somebody go to Wikipedia and put in the 1981-2010 data for the climate boxes of Sydney, Melbourne and the other cities having 50+ years worth of weather information.
You click on a city's climate on BOM the default is always on 'ALL YEARS OF DATA' - how could an official source site be wrong or 'dumb' (as you said, "not a very smart thing")? Most of other climate sites link to BOM'S 'all years of data' - They don't choose a timeframe (i.e. 1970-2010, etc).
Are you for real or just trolling? You're basing your opinion on on a website interface and what people choose to link to?
I suggest you read this page, especially this part:
Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals, and are generally used as reference values for comparative purposes. The period is long enough to include the majority of typical year to year variations in the climate, but no so long that it is significantly influenced by longer-term changes in climate. In Australia, the current reference climate normal is generated over the 30-year period 1 January 1961 to 31 December 1990.
Not only that, he still seems incapable of understanding that the averages on the WMO site are the correct 1981-2010 datasets from the official met agency in each country.
Btw, climate hasn't changed dramatically in 150 years, if not by 1C at least. I'd agree with you if they were using 1000 years worth of climate data (say we kept records since then) because I'm sure a lot has changed since then. 150 years, not so much.
It may have changed by about 1C. Certainly the 19th century had a higher frequency of cold spells in eastern North America and western Europe than the 20th century (see CET record). For comparisons, the biggest issue is a different period of record. If some decades were globally colder than others, a station using a different period containing colder decades might get somewhat skewed. Using the same period for all stations to compare removes that effect, even if it's usually rather small. It's what is normally done.
Are you for real or just trolling? You're basing your opinion on on a website interface and what people choose to link to?
Don't be so obtuse.
The default interface is always the 150 years of data because that's what they want you to see. That's the official data of weather records - starting from over 100 years ago, or when records began. Don't blame me.
See for yourself (NOTICE where you're taken after you click on Sydney's BOM data on Google search):
Now, yes, they say the 30 years are their 'normals'. Well, they too have to fix their climate presentation and make the 30 years the default interface.
And what trolling? Why are you so arrogant? Are you suffering from Canada's seasonal depression or something? I hate idiots like yourself who jump into crazy assumptions.
For my part, I like to see the "whole range" - the official 30-year current normals, 5-year rolling averages where possible and all-period averages (at the very least)
The default interface is always the 150 years of data because that's what they want you to see. That's the official data of weather records - starting from over 100 years ago, or when records began. Don't blame me.
See for yourself (NOTICE where you're taken after you click on Sydney's BOM data on Google search):
Now, yes, they say the 30 years are their 'normals'. Well, they too have to fix their climate presentation and make the 30 years the default interface.
And what trolling? Why are you so arrogant? Are you suffering from Canada's seasonal depression or something? I hate idiots like yourself who jump into crazy assumptions.
The only crazy assumption around here is to assume that an interface created by some website monkey should have some kind of validity with respect to climate normals. Did you read any of what I quoted or linked to? Let me condense it down for you--emphasis mine:
"Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals"
Oh, and let's do a quick search and see what some other sources have to say:
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recommends that countries prepare climate normals for the official 30-year normals periods ending in 1930, 1960 and 1990, for which the WMO World Climate Normals are published. In addition, WMO recommends the updating of climate normals at the end of every decade as provided here for 1981 to 2010.
Data gathered over the 30-year period from 1961 to 1990 are currently used to define the latest global “Normals” used for climate reference. At the end of 2020, the 1991 – 2020 will be used as the next reference time frame replacing the 1961-1990 values.
And sorry, I thought you were trolling because I assumed you were being slow in the uptake intentionally. I guess I was wrong on that.
The only crazy assumption around here is to assume that an interface created by some website monkey should have some kind of validity with respect to climate normals. Did you read any of what I quoted or linked to? Let me condense it down for you--emphasis mine:
"Statistics calculated over standard periods (commonly a 30 year interval) are often called climate normals"
Oh, and let's do a quick search and see what some other sources have to say:
And sorry, I thought you were trolling because I assumed you were being slow in the uptake intentionally. I guess I was wrong on that.
Thank you for these sources - I actually understand and acknowledge their point. I also get the whole 'climate normals' thing. And it wasn't the point here...
I just thought that the BOM website made the default interface that way (all years of data) because they think it's the most accurate or genuine presentation of a city's climate.
In all honesty, I do prefer a 1981-2010 normals. What I said is that, I don't think the climate changes dramatically in a hundred years or so (there will always be hotter and colder periods in that timeframe).
And speaking of that 'website monkey' (guessing it's the person who runs the BOM site), shouldn't he make the default timeframe be the period between 1981-2010? That's the only thing baffling me - why their default interface is based on the older records and why Wikipedia climate boxes are linked to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
