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.
The evidence arguably supports this assertion in the case of 2004 (even though it rained on the same day), but not so much for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2005.
I was too young to remember so I just put them down because it says like -2c with snow.
Like I said tutiempo is notoriously inaccurate. A max of 1.7C means that any precip may have been in the form of rain if it fell during the day when it was above freezing and not during the minimum at night right? Furthermore, how much was on the ground? Was it by the definition that NOAA uses?
So how is that so obvious?
You also included 1999 as one of your "white Christmas'". Please explain how you figured that one out.
1995 was definitely a white Christmas here in Glasgow, so I can believe that there was also snow on the ground in Belfast and a greater chance of snow in the countryside.
The evidence arguably supports this assertion in the case of 2004 (even though it rained on the same day), but not so much for 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2005.
So basically 4 of the 8 "white Christmas'" that he claims may have had snow on the ground. Now the question is, was it enough to meet NOAA's qualifications for a white Christmas which was my initial question to begin with.
I don't even get why on earth he would use 1999 as evidence. Just look at the temperature.
So basically 4 of the 8 "white Christmas'" that he claims may have had snow on the ground. Now the question is, was it enough to meet NOAA's qualifications for a white Christmas which was my initial question to begin with.
I don't even get why on earth he would use 1999 as evidence. Just look at the temperature.
I chose that because it has 4c and snow. I live higher than airport, further north and in the countryside.
So basically 4 of the 8 "white Christmas'" that he claims may have had snow on the ground. Now the question is, was it enough to meet NOAA's qualifications for a white Christmas which was my initial question to begin with.
I don't even get why on earth he would use 1999 as evidence. Just look at the temperature.
UK weather stations either don't keep data about snow, or it is very poor. I'm sure that we had over 1 inch here on Christmas Day 1995 (5.6cm according to weatherspark).
Looking at the Belfast records from weatherspark, it looks like they had 1cm at the time when the snow was recorded. But the poster doesn't live in Belfast. The snow totals on weatherspark are extremely unreliable, though and records snow as lying in Belfast in June and October of 1999. So the snow data from that site ought to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I chose that because it has 4c and snow. I live higher than airport, further north and in the countryside.
So is that graphic from turiempo what you call evidence?
Back to my original question which you gave a to, and called me an ignoramus. Which of those years had 2.5cm/1 inch of snow on the ground on Christmas Day as defined by NOAA which you claim to be using as "white Christmas".
Are you ok kid? If you don't record that data, then how can you say that your definition is the same as NOAA's, and how can you prove it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac15
Actually no it isn't you ignoramious.
And of those 8 out 17 years which you claim to have seen a "white Christmas", in reality, it would be more like 4 of those years, possibly less if there wasn't 2.5cm/1 inch+ of snow on the ground right?
That would drop your percentage of of "white Christmas" from the 47% you claim down to below 25%, probably well below.
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.