WesternFringe

Yes, I want you to prove it with numbers, rather than emotion

Mean of 136 numbers isn’t skewed easily by a few numbers.

by that slope DCA is getting 3/100 of an inch less per year from 1880 to present. Or 17/100 of an inch more per year since the 1980s to present.

If you call looking at the slope of annual snowfall data recorded from DCA 1880 to present cherry picking or ‘slicing up the data’ lol

Yes, other than panic jumping like Ji, or mansplaining/panicking like PSU, I haven’t seen the data showing we have less snow than the 1880s. Prove me wrong.

I was going by decades. This is weird and confusing

So, less snowfall in 20teens than 1960s. N = 2

My analysis was from 1980s, not 1960s. I edited.

I guess, man. You can keep talking about how 2 and 3 and 4 don’t represent a data set that averages 22, but that doesn’t make it true. The mean, or average, of 135 data points, is generalizable. And represents the population as a whole. Generally speaking, ETA: we are getting more snow per year than when compared to the 1980s etaa: it doesn’t matter whether you like it or agreee, DCA is getting more annual snow now then they were in 1984

So, 7 minimums since the 1920s.

So low amounts of single digit snowfall are common. Got it.

You haven’t shown me data that single digit DCA snowfall is new a phenomenon that didn’t exist before close to 1888. I am all ears.

But tell me annual snowfall is decreasing at DCA since the 1980s and I can call you a liar and back it up with data

You are kind of proving my point by looking so intensively at the last 30 years as if they represent the data set on whole. A running 10 to 20 year data set? It is almost like you want to massage your numbers to show a point. What is wrong with 136 yrs of data points unless it doesn’t show what you want it to show? Lol

We can suck with annual snowfall. And we can suck with almost no snowfall some years. But no one has shown me statistically that we are sucking more than we used to suck. We have always sucked. Prove me wrong, with stats. Tired of hearing the negative Nancies. I grew up in upstate NY where we averaged 65+” ETA: love Bob Chill, bc he is always grounded

I was responding to others, but yes Ji, we can get get back to the ‘fact’ that this winter is over bc you have no blue on your models. Forgive me.

Actually tired of hearing we are failing bc of climate change and not that we are failing (we haven’t failed yet for 22-23) bc of la nina which we all know to be a real thing. eta: obviously, climate change is a real thing, bc the climate has always been changing

Yeah, that is what we have been talking about. Would love to see someone show me that scenario with numbers, and not a “we should see larger events” explanation. Show me the data.

Right. And 136 is big enough ETA: I will exit stage left at this point. I am just saying, I don’t believe the doomsayers in here with regard to future snowfall. DCA is getting more snow than they were in the 1980s. The data show the rate of change since 1880s is low and negligible and likely due to statistical noise, but the human brain likes to find patterns, even when there aren’t any

Just treat it normally. We don’t treat height that way, even though it is bound by zero and the mean is low. eta: in fact, all observable occurrence data is bound by zero. That doesn’t mean we model it’s distribution differently

My whole point is not to be a downer, but the opposite. Stats say these bad years recently are aberrations and that we should have some good years coming soon! Like, good, big years!!

But again, given that you need a sample size of 18+ (30?), how can you say what the median decreasing and the standard deviation even means, when the n = 14?

Also, if you had a decade of 3,4,4,4,4,5,8,20,25,30,40,45 (like we seem to do with Ninas), is 5 inches or does 17.5” encapsulate the decade snowfall better? Not sure, just thinking aloud.

Usually studies with n=18 and higher start to become highly generalizable to the general population and those below it do not (thus my issue with looking at decade median data, especially from recent decades). Even looking at decadal data from 1880s only gives us n=14. That isn’t a generalizable sample size. At least that is what I was taught at University of Virginia when I was getting my doctorate eta: I think looking at the slope of the standard deviation from 1880s might be useful. Definitely more useful than median decadal data