Deck Pic Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 That's what I thought but NCDC says otherwise and indicates it's a smoothed norm. The perplexing thing is the old norm wasn't smoothed as far as I can tell. http://t.co/nVqNUj7 I think that is >90 versus >=90 EDIT: yeah..that's what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think that is >90 versus >=90 EDIT: yeah..that's what it is according to their descriptor file it includes 90 grthNNN = greater than or equal to NNN whole degrees Fahrenheit NNN can be 040,050,060,070,080,090,100 BUT -- NOWDATA has the numbers I/you have either way I'm not sure how we'd have lost 6 90+ in the new norms with a difference of 11 days 90+ (1971-2000 higher) over 30 yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 according to their descriptor file it includes 90 grthNNN = greater than or equal to NNN whole degrees Fahrenheit NNN can be 040,050,060,070,080,090,100 BUT -- NOWDATA has the numbers I/you have either way I'm not sure how we'd have lost 6 90+ in the new norms with a difference of 11 days 90+ (1971-2000 higher) over 30 yrs. Smoothing on certain things is dumb IMO. Of course I don't really know much about higher level stats. If the new number is close to the median I guess it is fine. Is it higher than the median? If so I guess I am ok with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deck Pic Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think the really lean years hurt us and probably got touched less. Their methodology kind of f-ucks us. I think it is the same reason Feb 2003 and 2010 basically got tossed because we couldnt have these really freaky daily and monthly norms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 Smoothing on certain things is dumb IMO. Of course I don't really know much about higher level stats. If the new number is close to the median I guess it is fine. Is it higher than the median? If so I guess I am ok with it. I'm just confused now with two conflicting sets. I don't really think a hard count of days over or under a certain temp should be smoothed so id lean toward an avg. Of course the fact that they don't share their methodology makes it more problematic with smoothed norms. Ill have to look re: median. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted August 2, 2012 Share Posted August 2, 2012 I think the really lean years hurt us and probably got touched less. Their methodology kind of f-ucks us. I think it is the same reason Feb 2003 and 2010 basically got tossed because we couldnt have these really freaky daily and monthly norms. Probably tho I'd hope they toss a yr with 10 as quick as one with 70. Not a huge fan of smoothing other than dailies tho I sorta understand why they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.