If you are enjoying the damp, dank start to spring then get ready (Pittsburgh: buy, parking)

[mike02]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Not to add more confusion, but I believe it was Fiddlehead who once posted some North American maps of solar radiation received at different parts of the year, and they were a little bit different still. Some possible reasons for the variation include different time periods and different things being measured (e.g., different thicknesses of cloud will let in different amounts of solar radiation, and I suspect latitude might make a noticeable difference as well).

I think the general lesson from all this is that we should be careful about overreading the significance of small differences in these statistics.

THANK YOU!!!!! I wish I read this before I went on a rant! But if anyone wants to see my analysis, read it and comment

[BrianTH]

Here is Fiddlehead's post:

//www.city-data.com/forum/17305926-post269.html

Some interesting stuff in there. The City of Chicago was lower in all three maps--that might have something to do with the relative thickness of cloud cover when it occurs, and maybe latitude. New York and Boston were lower in July only--I wonder if that is some kind of summer Atlantic haze thing.

[mike02]

Nice work BrianTH. Here's a page that talks about David Lawrence and the days of the steel industry. It highlights that the city of Pittsburgh received 1/3 as much sunshine as other areas in Allegheny Co. during the winter and that sunshine levels increased 39% in the late 1940s. A source to back up my "steel industry effect" claim. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. But, then again I guess I will be accused of making excuses and being in denial.

http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker....rkerId=1-A-32E

[BrianTH]

I think we are well into the territory where only stats geeks and weather nerds will care, but it is a bit unfortunate that these interesting (to me) issues have gotten caught up in the general Dismalists versus Not-That-Badists debate.

[hempfield mania]

Originally Posted by mike02

Nice work BrianTH. Here's a page that talks about David Lawrence and the days of the steel industry. It highlights that the city of Pittsburgh received 1/3 as much sunshine as other areas in Allegheny Co. during the winter and that sunshine levels increased 39% in the late 1940s. A source to back up my "steel industry effect" claim. Anyways, I'll leave it at that. But, then again I guess I will be accused of making excuses and being in denial.

http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker....rkerId=1-A-32E

Who is the wikipedia/google queen now, beeotch?

Besides, I never did look at it when I posted. Somewhat of an amatuer weather buff. I just didn't want to use big words to confuse that peanut in your skull.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

jesus... people in this city take weather to a whole other level of seriousness..

[Mugatu]

Looks like the OP was correct. Wetter-than-normal year in Pittsburgh region to get worse

Interesting spring this year.

[XRiteMA98]

I am actually waiting for a 24 hrs period of time without rain to stain my deck. I don't think this is going to happen very soon because the next 10 days there's rain and then it's begining of June and arts festival when it always rains.

[Craziaskowboi]

Originally Posted by Mugatu

Looks like the OP was correct. Wetter-than-normal year in Pittsburgh region to get worse

Interesting spring this year.

Basically, 2011 is to Pittsburgh what 1993 was to St. Louis, and what late 2009/early 2010 was to Atlanta. The storm track is directly overhead.

[mike02]

Originally Posted by hempfield mania

Who is the wikipedia/google queen now, beeotch?

Besides, I never did look at it when I posted. Somewhat of an amatuer weather buff. I just didn't want to use big words to confuse that peanut in your skull.

I apologize for claiming you used wikipedia, which is the only source that backed up your claim (I don't know why it is on wikipedia, because there's no link to it). And I used an actual source to back up my claim. I never said anything is wrong with google, it's a freaking search engine! I wouldn't just post something and claim it is fact without finding a source. Hence, google. It was no blog or some unreliable source. If I couldn't find a source to back it up, I would say "maybe."

In my field of work, we don't just assume by looking at stats. If I did, I would be fired. Anyways, this goes beyond people's minds. People like to attack by using the data without really reading it carefully and taking into account other variables. But that is too complex. It's much more convenient to assume. Fine then assume all you want. The word "maybe" is much more appropriate for those assumptions, not "it is" as if you're referring to a fact (unless you can read a source correctly).

MOVING ON - I think this spring is downright miserable (like in many other cities of course). I'm hoping this trend ends soon. It's now a real Debbie Downer .