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.
Waycross, GA has warmer highs but cooler lows and is NE of Valdosta....
and Lake City, FL is just south of Valdosta, is the opposite, has cooler highs but warmer lows.
Waycross, GA has warmer highs but cooler lows and is NE of Valdosta...
I think that Waycross data is probably wrong. Its present weather (got past the October 20 2022 frost threat, and got a January 28 last frost this year instead of a spring equinox one when warmer places in both cases got colder) is not consistent with the Wikipedia data, and its Wikipedia data (-6C in October for southern Georgia for just one example?) is very suspect given the latitude and elevation.
If you ask me, the weather-us data is more likely to be correct: https://www.weather-us.com/en/georgi...ycross-climate
Like Lake City it gives warmer lows than Valdosta's airport which is consistent with ie the January 28 vs spring equinox frost they had this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTB365
and Lake City, FL is just south of Valdosta, is the opposite, has cooler highs but warmer lows.
There are no studies on it like with Tallahassee, but I suspect Lake City is a little less artificially cold than Valdosta and Tallahassee due to possibly moister soil that would lead to both cooler highs and warmer lows in the artificial clearings.
@Ed, that's not exactly how it works I'm afraid. The farmer's crop-growing location will get however cold as it will and that may or may not kill the crops at times, whether the official weather station is an artificial cold hole or not will not affect that in the least.
@Ed, that's not exactly how it works I'm afraid. The farmer's crop-growing location will get however cold as it will and that may or may not kill the crops at times, whether the official weather station is an artificial cold hole or not will not affect that in the least.
Do you think the temperature should be measured the same way everywhere?
Do you think the temperature should be measured the same way everywhere?
No, because the natural environment of everywhere is different. The standards should be the same (measured somewhere representative of the natural environment), but because of environmental variations the ways the temperatures are measured to be in accordance with this will vary, and as a result showcase the differences in each environment type.
Measuring the temperature the same way everywhere, on the other hand, does not account for environmental variations and consequently leads to obvious nonsense like ludicrously reduced or even reversed discrepancies between the Great Lakes and Southeast US. This clearly isn't good.
Clearly it's not correct for weather station standards to give the readings artificially high diurnal ranges+cold lows - and they most definitely do, as proven by 3 studies and multiple independent third-party observations. Something has to be done, and what I proposed is the solution as far as I am aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed's Mountain
Everybody has to play by the same rules.
Not necessarily. I 100% agree with you that there should be a common principle to be played by with no or few exceptions (which is representativity of the natural environment at the weather station), but for adherence to that principle the rules with which to implement it have to be applied on a case-by-case basis - which, again, is the whole point of the common principle to showcase the differences each type of environment makes to the climate.
If you fail to account for this variation, you end up missing the whole point of why each environment has different effects on the climate, leading to nonsense like the mentioned Great Lake/Southeast US reduced and reversed discrepancies. Don't see how you can advocate for standards that do this.
Or another way to put it: why should readings markedly different from the natural environment, and that don't make sense when compared to other environments, be favored over fully representative readings for all?
Last edited by Can't think of username; 08-26-2023 at 03:06 PM..
Why don't I give a pertinent-to-this-thread-example of the trouble with no pine forest around Southeast US stations? It's not only the reduced/reversed temperature discrepancies with far colder places but also the diurnal range.
As can be seen here, Valdosta airport has a near identical diurnal range to El Paso, a dry BWh climate, despite its much higher moisture/humidity - yet clearly it isn't logical for Southeast US Cfa climates to be on the level of BWh climates for diurnal range.
And in fact this is exactly the result of having the same rules for everywhere: Valdosta airport has the same sky exposed sandy soil as El Paso's natural environment due to those poor standards (read: giving Valdosta an El Paso environment), as opposed to its pine forest natural environment, hence catching up to El Paso for diurnal range.
Considering this, and the discrepancy reduction/reversing, I can't see a single reasonable argument to not put the weather stations for Southeast US places like Valdosta in the pine forest where they belong. The purpose of having a Valdosta weather station is not to get the message across that Valdosta is basically just a wet El Paso!
Last edited by Can't think of username; 08-26-2023 at 08:26 PM..
The common principle is to measure the AIR TEMPERATURE and to do so in a fashion that is reproducible everywhere.
As I've explained several times, doing that misses the point. The fashion in which it is done is not what should be reproduced everywhere, that would be the principle of environmental representativity the fashion follows.
Reproducing the fashion everywhere will, again, artificially alter the natural environment of the area and give us nonsensical whack readings because of that failure to adhere to the basic fact that every different type of environment has a different effect on the climate. This can't possibly be advocated for by any reasonable standard.
Quote:
We don't want to measure the temperature of a tree,
Which is why we don't put the thermometer on the tree. We put it in the woods so we can measure the natural environment's tree-influenced air temperature, it doesn't get any more complicated than that.
Quote:
a football stadium,
Those readings are actually almost 100% certain to be underreading compared to the natural environment. They only barely overtake those of a paltrily-forested location with very little of the cold air drainage of its counterpart - I'm pretty sure I said that it at least one other thread already.
Quote:
or of a loft condominium.
What condominium?
Quote:
We want the AIR TEMPERATURE. And we want it in a way that allows us to compare point A with point B.
Which is not mutually exclusive of representativity of the natural environment. For example, if El Paso is point A and Valdosta is point B, they are perfectly comparable with an out-in-the-open-thermometer in point A and forested thermometer in point B because both maximally represent the environment.
I mean, come on. You can't claim it's reasonable to compare point A and point B if all this thick forest in point B showcasing vast inherent differences from point A:
This requires the same standards be used everywhere.
Only to the point of equal representation of the environment. As I showed in the literal comment right above you, homogenizing things to the point you are saying misses the whole point and leaves us with illogical nonsense that can't possibly be reached without being artificial - it should be very evident from my example as well.
Valdosta. Is. Not. A. Wet. El. Paso.
Quote:
Until you grasp this simple point there's really no point in talking about anything else.
No disrespect intended but I don't see a point in continuing this discussion anymore either. After multiple different explanations in multiple different threads it still doesn't seem like you have been able to grasp the problem with homogenizing and altering very different environments just for questionable standards.
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.
