3 ms·
Even without the 38" year the average rainfall still makes the argument work; quoting a 4" deficit and singling out the highest year is disingenuous. The lowest
by Tloewald 11y ago
Even without the 38" year the average rainfall still makes the argument work; quoting a 4" deficit and singling out the highest year is disingenuous. The lowest year was also an outlier.
- airza 11y agoHere is the data that I used, the author's is something rather similar: http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.htm You can add the following values (from http://ggweather.com/ca2013rain.htm http://ggweather.com/ca2013rain.htm and similar URLS): 2012-2013: 5.85 2013-2014: 6.08 (I actually missed these in my original napkin math, but they make my argument even better, so...) My point was that if in the original data set, the only way that you get those favorable numbers is if you start at the present and arbitrarily go back until you hit a very high number. Any other averaging of rainfall from the present to a year in the last 20 years looks absolutely horrendous.