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.
Yes, Wikipedia is written by random online users, but the information on Wikipedia also contain citations to actual scholarly sources as well. You can see such sources used by clicking on the numbers throughout the text surrounded by brackets ([]).
It's still funny. Because there is nothing at all to ensure that those sources are accurate. I have been a high school teacher and a university professor. I can tell you that just because a random person cites a source, does not in any way mean it is accurate. Generally speaking, students who are conscientious and knowledgeable about their subject will cite properly, but students who are not will just make things up. The kind of people who use Wikipedia are often people who are careless and not careful scholars at all (otherwise they wouldn't use Wikipedia). If you actually wanted to be accurate, cite the course yourself directly (which should mean you actually read it - not the Wikipedia page, which is the same as reading someone's blog in terms of being factual).
Or don't cite a source, because you're on City-Data and no one requires you to be a scholar. You ca say anything you want, and just saying it is enough.
But it is just hypocritical and funny to write on an anything-goes place like City-Data and then try to gain credibility for what you're saying by citing Wikipedia, another anything-goes online website. You might as well say "8 out of 10 dogs in my neighborhood agree." That's how much information on Wikipedia is worth.
Just saying. I see this all the time, and the more people see others post this stuff, the more they forget that Wikipedia is by definition a public forum with no actual regulation before information is posted from random user to public online page. It is laughable that half the pages have disclaimers that information or citations "may be incomplete or inaccurate" but the pages are still up anyway. You can't publish a scholarly book or article like that, you have to actually cite all complete sources, and then somebody vets the citations to be sure all are exactly accurate and the conclusions you're drawing by using them are justifiable. Wikipedia just lets you sign in and post, and it's not even hacking to change or add information that is totally fictional and just included for the purposes of amusement.
People have discredited Wikipedia over and over again. As an example, a student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry. If you have ever watched the Daily Show, they encourage users to change Wikipedia pages all the time just for entertainment. Wikipedia is a joke. And a well-known joke. Don't support your words with a source that people openly laugh at if you want to be taken seriously, is all I'm saying. It is enough to just speak from your own experience. Or actually read a book or scholarly article if you want to sound smart.
Without getting into the argument, which has been dragged to death in multiple threads over the course of years, the reason the whole "Miami is tropical" argument is constantly disputed is because it depends on what definition of the word "tropical" you are using. There are multiple recognized definitions of "tropical" (No, resist the immediate urge to look on Wikipedia for those definitions!), and one of them is describing things that fall within the boundaries of latitude between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn lines surrounding the Equator. Miami obviously is not included therein. But there are other definitions of the word "tropical" that can legitimately be used. However, most of Miami-Dade is technically subtropical because it has the ability to reach freezing temperatures even once a year (and because it is adjacent to the Tropic latitude zones, not in them). The ability to grow some tropical (but not ultratropical) plants does not change that fact. Monroe County, on the other hand, has never reached freezing. But it has far less rainfall than Miami-Dade, so it is not necessarily more "tropical" even though you can grow ultratropics here. The fact is, true ultratropical plants need intervention by humans to survive their entire lifespan in either county, with supplemental heat, or water, and none of them just grow here naturally.
So your OP made me laugh because you state Miami is classified as a tropical climate as if it is a fact, but if you ask any environmental scientists who work in Miami, they will disagree with you. They refer to most of it as subtropical. But believe whatever you want. You're the sort of person who reads Wikipedia and thinks it's fact anyway, so anything can be a "fact" if you just believe it hard enough, right? For scholars "facts" and "made-up junk" are two different things. For Wikipedia, they're all one and the same.
I've never seen a summer as dry as this one. I've lived here for over 35 years. Tallrick, do you remember any other summer like this one? Even when we do get rain it isn't the typical afternoon thunderstorms. We've been getting showers at night. We've had a few in the afternoon this week, but really quick storms.
In 1986 I remember that there were no thunderstorms the entire summer. It only rained lightly and enough to maintain lawns but never enough to flood. That winter it was quite cold and the dry season led to a pushing of the "xeriscape" trend.
I've read that this is the driest 'rainy season' in 60 years down here.
This is typical Key Largo weather, maybe since I moved north the trend followed me. The rains were coming on strong until I took time to fix the roof at my mom's house. Then the rain stopped. Hope it's not my fault..LOL!
It's still funny. Because there is nothing at all to ensure that those sources are accurate. I have been a high school teacher and a university professor. I can tell you that just because a random person cites a source, does not in any way mean it is accurate. Generally speaking, students who are conscientious and knowledgeable about their subject will cite properly, but students who are not will just make things up. The kind of people who use Wikipedia are often people who are careless and not careful scholars at all (otherwise they wouldn't use Wikipedia). If you actually wanted to be accurate, cite the course yourself directly (which should mean you actually read it - not the Wikipedia page, which is the same as reading someone's blog in terms of being factual).
Or don't cite a source, because you're on City-Data and no one requires you to be a scholar. You ca say anything you want, and just saying it is enough.
But it is just hypocritical and funny to write on an anything-goes place like City-Data and then try to gain credibility for what you're saying by citing Wikipedia, another anything-goes online website. You might as well say "8 out of 10 dogs in my neighborhood agree." That's how much information on Wikipedia is worth.
Just saying. I see this all the time, and the more people see others post this stuff, the more they forget that Wikipedia is by definition a public forum with no actual regulation before information is posted from random user to public online page. It is laughable that half the pages have disclaimers that information or citations "may be incomplete or inaccurate" but the pages are still up anyway. You can't publish a scholarly book or article like that, you have to actually cite all complete sources, and then somebody vets the citations to be sure all are exactly accurate and the conclusions you're drawing by using them are justifiable. Wikipedia just lets you sign in and post, and it's not even hacking to change or add information that is totally fictional and just included for the purposes of amusement.
People have discredited Wikipedia over and over again. As an example, a student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry. If you have ever watched the Daily Show, they encourage users to change Wikipedia pages all the time just for entertainment. Wikipedia is a joke. And a well-known joke. Don't support your words with a source that people openly laugh at if you want to be taken seriously, is all I'm saying. It is enough to just speak from your own experience. Or actually read a book or scholarly article if you want to sound smart.
This worthless screed of yours does not change the fact that actual scholarly sources are indeed cited in the Wikipedia pages I provided. Yes, Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but, in this case, the information in the article is legit, given the legit sources being referenced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarfishKey
Without getting into the argument, which has been dragged to death in multiple threads over the course of years, the reason the whole "Miami is tropical" argument is constantly disputed is because it depends on what definition of the word "tropical" you are using. There are multiple recognized definitions of "tropical" (No, resist the immediate urge to look on Wikipedia for those definitions!), and one of them is describing things that fall within the boundaries of latitude between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn lines surrounding the Equator. Miami obviously is not included therein. But there are other definitions of the word "tropical" that can legitimately be used. However, most of Miami-Dade is technically subtropical because it has the ability to reach freezing temperatures even once a year (and because it is adjacent to the Tropic latitude zones, not in them). The ability to grow some tropical (but not ultratropical) plants does not change that fact. Monroe County, on the other hand, has never reached freezing. But it has far less rainfall than Miami-Dade, so it is not necessarily more "tropical" even though you can grow ultratropics here. The fact is, true ultratropical plants need intervention by humans to survive their entire lifespan in either county, with supplemental heat, or water, and none of them just grow here naturally.
Yes, freezing temps have happened in Miami; it still doesn't dispute the fact that the climate, overall, and in the long-term, is tropical. Are you going to say that Tampico, Mexico, is not tropical, just because it froze in its history?
Ultra-tropical plants are very tender plants; some can't even survive temps below 60F. That means that that equatorial areas, essentially, are the only areas of the globe that can grow such plants. So, just because Miami can't grow some of these ultra tropicals doesn't mean that the city is not tropical, as many areas within the tropics are unable to sustain such ultra-tropicals as well. Miami is at the margin of this tropical zone, of course it will see greater temp variations, including in cold, than areas deeper into the tropics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarfishKey
So your OP made me laugh because you state Miami is classified as a tropical climate as if it is a fact, but if you ask any environmental scientists who work in Miami, they will disagree with you. They refer to most of it as subtropical. But believe whatever you want. You're the sort of person who reads Wikipedia and thinks it's fact anyway, so anything can be a "fact" if you just believe it hard enough, right? For scholars "facts" and "made-up junk" are two different things. For Wikipedia, they're all one and the same.
Well, the climatologists classify Miami, and the rest of South Florida, as tropical, and use stringent terms to do so, one of which is having all 12 months of the year above 18C (which South Florida accomplishes). Take it up with Koppen, or Trewartha if you disagree.
In 1986 I remember that there were no thunderstorms the entire summer. It only rained lightly and enough to maintain lawns but never enough to flood. That winter it was quite cold and the dry season led to a pushing of the "xeriscape" trend.
I don't remember but I had a 1 yo and moved residences so I must've been preoccupied.
I hope this isn't going to be another Miami is/isn't tropical/subtropical thread. We already have several of those.
It's still funny. Because there is nothing at all to ensure that those sources are accurate. I have been a high school teacher and a university professor. I can tell you that just because a random person cites a source, does not in any way mean it is accurate. Generally speaking, students who are conscientious and knowledgeable about their subject will cite properly, but students who are not will just make things up. The kind of people who use Wikipedia are often people who are careless and not careful scholars at all (otherwise they wouldn't use Wikipedia). If you actually wanted to be accurate, cite the course yourself directly (which should mean you actually read it - not the Wikipedia page, which is the same as reading someone's blog in terms of being factual).
Or don't cite a source, because you're on City-Data and no one requires you to be a scholar. You ca say anything you want, and just saying it is enough.
But it is just hypocritical and funny to write on an anything-goes place like City-Data and then try to gain credibility for what you're saying by citing Wikipedia, another anything-goes online website. You might as well say "8 out of 10 dogs in my neighborhood agree." That's how much information on Wikipedia is worth.
Just saying. I see this all the time, and the more people see others post this stuff, the more they forget that Wikipedia is by definition a public forum with no actual regulation before information is posted from random user to public online page. It is laughable that half the pages have disclaimers that information or citations "may be incomplete or inaccurate" but the pages are still up anyway. You can't publish a scholarly book or article like that, you have to actually cite all complete sources, and then somebody vets the citations to be sure all are exactly accurate and the conclusions you're drawing by using them are justifiable. Wikipedia just lets you sign in and post, and it's not even hacking to change or add information that is totally fictional and just included for the purposes of amusement.
People have discredited Wikipedia over and over again. As an example, a student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry. If you have ever watched the Daily Show, they encourage users to change Wikipedia pages all the time just for entertainment. Wikipedia is a joke. And a well-known joke. Don't support your words with a source that people openly laugh at if you want to be taken seriously, is all I'm saying. It is enough to just speak from your own experience. Or actually read a book or scholarly article if you want to sound smart.
Without getting into the argument, which has been dragged to death in multiple threads over the course of years, the reason the whole "Miami is tropical" argument is constantly disputed is because it depends on what definition of the word "tropical" you are using. There are multiple recognized definitions of "tropical" (No, resist the immediate urge to look on Wikipedia for those definitions!), and one of them is describing things that fall within the boundaries of latitude between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn lines surrounding the Equator. Miami obviously is not included therein. But there are other definitions of the word "tropical" that can legitimately be used. However, most of Miami-Dade is technically subtropical because it has the ability to reach freezing temperatures even once a year (and because it is adjacent to the Tropic latitude zones, not in them). The ability to grow some tropical (but not ultratropical) plants does not change that fact. Monroe County, on the other hand, has never reached freezing. But it has far less rainfall than Miami-Dade, so it is not necessarily more "tropical" even though you can grow ultratropics here. The fact is, true ultratropical plants need intervention by humans to survive their entire lifespan in either county, with supplemental heat, or water, and none of them just grow here naturally.
So your OP made me laugh because you state Miami is classified as a tropical climate as if it is a fact, but if you ask any environmental scientists who work in Miami, they will disagree with you. They refer to most of it as subtropical. But believe whatever you want. You're the sort of person who reads Wikipedia and thinks it's fact anyway, so anything can be a "fact" if you just believe it hard enough, right? For scholars "facts" and "made-up junk" are two different things. For Wikipedia, they're all one and the same.
omg you literally wrote the same paragraph 5 different times
well, the climatologists classify miami, and the rest of south florida, as tropical, and use stringent terms to do so, one of which is having all 12 months of the year above 18c (which south florida accomplishes). Take it up with koppen, or trewartha if you disagree.
bam.
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.
