Talk:Almería

Comment

• Article has almost no citations and therefore chance information is incorrect. --Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 03:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

autonomous region

From the political point of view, there is a strong populist desire to achieve the status of an "autonomous region" in Spain, in spite of the great efforts of the Andalusian government to disuade the voters.

It's not a joke. In Almeria there is a strong desire of achieve the status of an 'autonomous region', but we don't have a political party that support this idea. Un Almeriense (y mucho) From the political point of view, there is a strong populist desire to achieve the status of an "autonomous region" in Spain, in spite of the great efforts of the Andalusian government to disuade the voters.

It's a joke? 0o (a spaniard).

Actually, not. But it's like Lionese independentism, irrelevant, at its best; at its worse, a joke (another Spaniard) --80.174.209.122 (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1911 Britannica article on Garrucha

GARRUCHA, a seaport of south-eastern Spain, in the province of Almeria; on the Mediterranean Sea and on the right bank of the river Antas. Pop. (1900) 4461. The harbour of Garrucha, which is defended by an ancient castle, affords shelter to large ships, and is the natural outlet for the commerce of a thriving agricultural and mining district. Despite its small size and the want of railway communication, Garrucha has thus a considerable trade in lead, silver, copper, iron, esparto grass, fruit, &c. Besides sea-going ships, many small coasters enter in ballast, and clear with valuable cargoes. In 1902, 135 vessels of 390,000 tons entered the harbour, the majority being British or Spanish; and in the same year the value of the exports reached 478,000, and that of the imports 128,000. Both imports and exports trebled their value in the ten years 1892-1902.

User:FeanorStar7

Disputed: Strong populist desire for autonomy

Having lived in Almería for over 35 years the assertion that there is a strong desire of autonomy apart from the Autonomous region of Andalucia and that the Andalusian Government is doing "great efforts to disuade the voters" is completely unfounded. I have no idea where the author of this article got that information. (posted to main article anonymously by User:81.44.20.160; transferred here by User:Ceyockey 23:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC))

I come here after a few months a find that nonsense comment that there's a strong desire for autonomy. I don't usually delete anything because I feel that's an agressive move. But I do ask the author to delete that because it is completely unfounded and false not a question of opinion.

The first user in this discussion made it even worse when trying to dispute the claim by admitting there's a desire of autonomy but no political party to support it. Well, there's NO party to support that and there's NO desire. It is not a question of debate here in Almería. It is Wikiality, a reality invented by the author of the article, probably a foreigner out of many here in Almeria who bumped into a wrong source.

Info Box Format Problem

On my browers (Internet Explorer 6) at 1280 x 1024 the info box is obscuring some of the article's text. Anyone got any ideas on how to fix this? Greenshed 20:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent Spelling

How about some consistency in the spelling of the place? Is there a stress accent on the "i" or not? Maybe someone can clarify (preferably a native Spanish speaker).Lazzeez (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a Spaniard: yes; in Spanish it's "Almería", but you know, you don't use stress in English... --80.174.209.122 (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Proper names are spelled as they are, if possible. Therefore, this article should stay consistent with its spelling, "Almería." Bluefishe (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

This article is in poor shape, poor spelling, one sentence paragraphs, miniscule lead, looks more like a photo gallery than an article about a provincial capital. I have placed some tags as it needs copy-editing, adherence to WP:MOS and proper referencing to WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"one of the driest cities"

Are there drier cities in Europe than Almeria? Maybe some city in the Kazakh desert which somehow qualifies as Europe? Or somewhere deep in the artic circle?Inactive user 20171 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes it was one in Kazakhstan but it's a city exactly split by the Euroasian border, a part of the city is asian and the other part is european so I don't know exactly what to say. Btw, no one here (counting me) managed to found a place in Europe drier than Cabo de Gata, which has even less rain. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Desert climate

I noticed the claim that Almeria is surrounding by areas with a BWh climate (hot-desert under Koeppen climate classification scheme) is unsourced. Does anyone have any data to support this? I can't find anything - either other wiki pages for towns along this stretch of the Spanish coast - or anything on google (apart from tourism pages touting the area as 'Europe's only desert'. I'm planning to remove this statement for now. Redtitan (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Redtitan, here is the source for BWh climate in Almería with parts of Murcia and Alicante, with the Canary Islands, mostly on the islands of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote.https://digitum.um.es/xmlui/bitstream/10201/2278/1/105410.pdf?sequence=1

Also here: Cabo de Gata-Nĺjar Natural Park registers rainfall of 156 mm which is probably the lowest on the European continent since it is lower than Atyrau and Aktau in Kazakhstan, the border between Europe and Asia. There is no doubt it is a BWh climate.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

El observatorio Faro de Cabo de Gata (36°43′18.8″ N, 2°11′34.69″ W), registrado durante el período 1961-1990, 156 mm de precipitación anual promedio.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Scheridon and Inactive user 20171 were wrong, I found the climate map of mainland Spain showing that Almería and Bardenas Reales are listed in BWk in Spain according to the Köppen–Geiger classification system.2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:B80E:E02D:5CA:C490 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This map is not accurate, because the temperatures in Almería are high enough to consider this climate as BWh (hot desert climate). Scheridon (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

See this description (from the Köppen climate classification):

A third letter can be included to indicate temperature. Originally, h signified low-latitude climate (average annual temperature above 18 °C) while k signified middle-latitude climate (average annual temperature below 18 °C), but the more common practice today, especially in the United States, is to use h to mean the coldest month has an average temperature above 0 °C (32 °F), with k denoting that at least one month averages below 0 °C.

The average annual temperature in Almería is above 19 °C. Thus, BWh. Scheridon (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Scheridon Leave it. This seems like some type of vandalism. The editor above has removed the Spanish and Portuguese Meteorological agency's climatic map of Spain and Portugal, which I substituted it for a user generated map in the Climate of Spain article (I have just reverted his edit). Here are the maps:Iberian Climate Atlas/Macaronesian Climate Atlas which he just removed.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Almería has a mean average of 19.1ºC. So it's a clearly H climate, BWh/BSh. BWk/BSk are for climates with an average under 18ºC. That map of the koppen climates in Spain is just laugheable. It's very unprecise and false. The maps from AEMET are accurate, AEMET is an official meteorologic agency awarded by the NOAA, the other map is usermade... --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please take this to ANI? This individual is either trolling or is deranged.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Inactive user 20171: Inactive user, we can't do nothing, everytime this troll uses a different IP to make those unuseful editions. All we can do is propose the page for protection.

Btw, unregistered troll, AEMET makes the whole map of the Iberian Peninsula and Macaronesia in collaboration with the Portuguese IPMA, the map of "koeppen" in Spain is nothing more than a joke as the climate classification of Köppen has definitions, but not an official map, all of the maps are user made, and they're all wrong. Almería has for more than 50 years a mean temperature above 18ºC, that directly qualifies it as a BSh/BWh climate. But in the unuseful map appears as BWk. Laughable, totally unuseful. Same applies for many cities in Spain which have Mediterranean climate and they appear as BSk. Not only in Spain, in many other places the map is very wrong. You can't put before a map made worldwide with a map made by an official meteorologic agency for the own country. LOL --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB Btw, the only reason I reverted you is because you deleted the bad map from the talk page. We are not meant to delete other people's edits in talk pages.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok @Inactive user 20171: I got it, but really you also deleted an additional comment which I made, but not a problem hahaha! The one which I deleted is that one which was speaking about the Basque Country, Catalonia and Galicia with the senseless discussions which that anonymous user wrote here without any kind of connection to the climate of Almeria. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous user, stop changing this page and the climate page if that map maded by a Wikipedia user can't be more wrong, the city of Almeria has a mean average of 19.1ºC, the city of Alicante 18.3ºC, the city of Murcia 18.6ºC, the city of Las Palmas 21.2ºC, the city of Santa Cruz de Tenerife 21.5ºC (and many more, just putting some examples), how can all of those places appear as BWk/BSk if their annual average is above 18ºC!!!!! AEMET/IPMA list them as BWh/BSh because it is exactly what they are, and the AEMET/IPMA map is based on 1971-2000 averages, which were colder. Stop making such irrelevant/unuseful editions everytime with a different IP because those maps can say everything they want as they're are bad, they're mistaken, they are not good!!! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Which part of there is no official Köppen climate classification map you don't understand? The climate classification tells how to determine a climate, but it doesn't have any official map. That is the met agencies work! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

TechnicianGB Don't bother engaging with this editor. If he continues we will request the article is protected. Someone who is editing this article rambling about climate change and independence of regions of Spain is not engaging constructively. It is either a troll or a mentally unstable person. Inactive user 20171 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

These Koppen climate map files are not user-maded maps, they were uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. the AEMET/IPMA climate map was deleted on May 11, 2017. Kazakhstan is partially in Europe and has a desert climate in it's Asian portions, Since the Ural river divides the two continents, and the Canary Islands, which part of Africa and have a desert climate specially on most of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, but they also belong to Spain, which is a European country anyways. Listen Scheridon, I'm sorry I said a bad word to you, because you should be ashamed of yourself. I wanted to give you 3 reasons there are differences between the Wikipedia-uploaded fair use AEMET/IPMA climate map file and the Wikimedia Commons-uploaded Koppen climate map files: 1. The AEMET/IPMA climate map of Iberia and Macaronesia were on the internet. 2. The 1st Koppen climate map of mainland Spain listed Almeria in BSk. And 3. The 2nd Koppen climate map of mainland Spain lists Almeria and Bardenas Reales in BWk, this climate map is based on the Koppen climate map of the world according to the University of Melbourne 2007 (see image thumb|right|Koppen Climate map of the world), because I've already told you how cold deserts have a little snow and tend to be drier than their hot counterparts, and the cold semi-arid climate tends to be located in the temperate zone while their hot counterparts tend to be located in the tropics, and Europe is the only continent on Earth not to be located in the tropics (not counting Antarctica, which has no countries).2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:8CAC:B219:C9FC:B99F (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm bothering to answer this IP address but prior to reverting I will answer these crazy arguments: 1) It doesn't matter what the climate of the Asian parts of Kazakhstan are. The sentence refers to Almeria being the only place with this climate in EUROPE. 2) Even if it wasn't the case the ASIAN parts of Kazakhstan have a cold desert climate not a hot desert climate. 3) AEMET/IPMA Maps of Iberia and Macaronesia were made by the Portuguese and Spanish meteorological agencies together. HOW IS THIS RELEVANT? 4) The other map you are presenting is user-generated content.It is not based on anything done by the University of Melbourne, I know because I have discussed it with the guy who actually made it. Other annoying arguments made by this IP are that Catalonia will separate from Spain (?!?!) or "we don't care about climate change (!?!?!?)" This is the last time I'm interacting with him.Inactive user 20171 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous user, are you mad? Did you read the Köppen climate classification? Any desertic or semi-arid place with a mean annual average above 18ºC is BSh or BWh. Almería has a mean annual temperature above 19ºC, and more than 50 years ago above 18ºC. THEN how would you say that is a BWk or BSk which mean cold semi-arid or cold desertic climates? Do you got any problem with the common sense?? Stop saying the same stupid things because obviously Köppen didn't made any map and any map is man-made. That global map you talk is tremendously wrong for much places. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be good for all of us to read WP:SYN. It's not up to the editors to make conclusions, but to write down statements already provided by reputable sources. "Common sense" is not a valid source here. --Discasto (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Discasto: i'm talking about common sense because the Köppen climate classification shows how to classify a cold desert/cold semiarid climate from a hot desert/hot semiarid climate, the difference is the last letter which is k/h, k for places where the annual temperature is under 18ºC and h for places where is above 18ºC. So yes, it's perfectly common sense as Almería has an annual temperature of 19.1ºC it surpasses by a notable difference the isotherm of 18ºC which definites a desertic/semiarid climate to be "cold" or "hot". It's not common sense, what do you think? And of course this is what the Köppen climate classification says to determine those climates... --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References in climate section

I find a lot of unsourced statements that require a reference. No need to do original research here, but to find a proper source. If the statements are so "self-explanatory", it will be easy to find sources. Until them, requests for references mustn't be removed. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know which kind of acknowledge have you on the climate but in this case you are wrong. No references needed to calculate the climate, as the Köppen climate classification tells how to classificate a climate. It's the job of an user who wants to know which climate a place has to use that classification and to calculate by the measures they give mixed with the rain and the temperature of that place

And in the official AEMET/IPMA maps of the climate of Iberia and Macaronesia appears in all of the climate zones... As also Almería appears between BWh and BSh, and it also appears on the islands of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote, which are BWh. Is the famous map you want to delete without any reason... Simply because you don't like it. I won't put it again here as you again will blame me for using in many places. But you know which map is and you can check it to see the reference...

Well, in fact I will put the source where those 2 maps are in. Page 15-18 for Iberia and Page 15-19 for Macaronesia... enjoy --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Discasto, but I agree with TechnicianGB. Scheridon (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What is going on in this article?

Is there anyone editing here who is from Almeria or has been to Almeria??? Why are people edit warring in the climate section and inserting patently wrong information. As an Andalusian it seems seriously retarded to me. I just noted someone include a sentence on the Levante wind. The Levante makes weather hot in Cadiz (where I'm from). In Almeria, the eastern wind obviously comes from the sea so it freshens the place up - just take a look at the map. Also why is this one guy editing out it is BWh climate - the limit of BWh is 18 degrees centigrade - Almeria is over 19 (probably more now in past decade). Gaditano23 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in edit history, Spanish wiki and various sources state Tabernas is primarily cold desert climate due to its high altitutde. There is no need to mention Canary Islands, Ceuta, and Melilla since they are clearly not in Europe. Gaditano23 (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gaditano23: Yeah well guess what, since October 9, 2017, you've been blocked for sockpuppetry, personal attacks, and harassment, but for also having the same account as Inactive user 20171 (formerly Asilah1981), because I think your not from Cadiz, you don't live in Barcelona, your not an Andalusian, you didn't even claim to be a Spanish or English speaker, and your nothing but a Catalan and Scottish separatist. This stuff happened in 2016 when TechnicianGB uploaded a file (See the talk page for the Valencia article). I told him to transfer the file to Commons, but he just constantly refused to do so. Now what did I do? I decided to remove this file from all articles and it was deleted on May 10, 2017 and there was even an incident that involved him. I'm just saying that the Canary Islands, Ceuta, and Melilla are part of Spain despite not being part of Europe, coastal parts of Almeria (such as the Cabo de Gata-Níjar Natural Park) have an average temperature of 19.1 °C (66.4 °F) and a rainfall amount of only 154 millimetres (6.1 in), which is notable for being the driest location in Europe, while mountainous areas (such as the Tabernas Desert) have an average temperature of 17.9 °C (64.2 °F) and more than 220 millimetres (8.7 in) of rainfall. Oh, and just for your information, Catalonia passed a Self-determination law and juridical transition law on September 6 and September 8, 2017, there were cases of police brutality during Operation Anubis on September 20, and then unrecognized an independence referendum that occurred on October 1, resulting in Catalonia's unilateral declaration of independence from Spain on October 27, but the Catalan Republic foundation law was not effective and was effectively unenforced under Article 155 of the Constitution of Spain. Spain was in a political crisis from 2017 to 2018, and there was even a Court trial of Catalonia independence leaders in 2019, which led to a series of protests that lasted until 2021. 2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:814:CF2B:55A6:7345 (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't "listen" (well, read more properly said) to your response to Gaditano23 because I have never known that you made such a reply. No one told me about it. And also, I tried to rescue that official climate map yet I was unable to do it so because the same user as proposed it for deletion the last year proposed it this year, I can't upload that file again because I would be facing a block too since it was deleted already.

That image was already in the Commons page, you can check that dispute, I tried it by any means but it was impossible. They still say it's not "free to use" so I can't do nothing about it. --TechnicianGB (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Climate Monthly Record high / record low?

Where is source for this figures. I don't see it in source? Should be provided or column deleted.Gaditano23 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Almería. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908045703/http://saints.sqpn.com/sainti49.htm to http://saints.sqpn.com/sainti49.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721134936/http://www.aytoalmeria.es/ to http://www.aytoalmeria.es/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Almería doesn't seem to have a true desert climate

Looking at the 1981-2010 normals, at a temperature of 19.1°C and considering the high-sun half of the year to be from April to September (The Summer solstice is around June 20th) (19.1 x 20) / 2 = 191 is the threshold for a desert climate. It would only have a desert climate if October counted as a high-sun month, and even then the high-sun to total precipitation ratio would be exactly 30%, which is barely a desert climate. So I think its fair to say Almería has a semi-arid climate close to a desert climate.

It is also worth noting that in AEMET's website [1], Almeria's airport (used in the climate normals), which is more eastern than the city (and closer to Cabo de Gata-Níjar) is put close to a desert climate but precipitation tends to increase along the more western coast to Almeria proving once more it doesn't quite classify as a desert climate.

Want to know your opinions about this. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: that's for Almería Airport, located few kilometers SE from the city itself. I won't say it doesn't represent the city, but there are parts of the city that get slightly less rain. I think it's correct to say the city itself has a BWh climate bordering on a BSh like it was said before. That's why I've just reverted your changes. I also don't agree with another thing you've deleted. Albeit don't properly sourced (I could search for one though) Almería is the only city in mainland Europe that has never registered any freezes (0.2ºC low in 1935 and 0.1ºC low in 2005) this is easily provable by looking at all of the mildest cities with long-term extremes, all have recorded temps of or under 0.0ºC (Lisbon, Sagres, Tarifa, Cádiz, Reggio di Calabria...) unless Almería which remained only +0.1ºC which is still above the freezing mark. I know that Sines doesn't as well, but the extremes data goes back only to 1971 and it doesn't include the 1950s extreme cold spells we had in the Iberian Peninsula and neither the 1960s data (like when it went to -1.2ºC in the center of Lisbon or -1.0ºC in Cádiz, both in 11 February 1956 when it was the only time that Cádiz recorded a freeze for example) whilst in Almería Observatorio (the older station of AEMET which worked from 1933 to 1981, still available in the official site) recorded its lowest in 1935, which was 0.2ºC and it actually was the only place that recorded a low above +1.0ºC that harsh February day in 1956. You can check it in the AEMET website, although I think we've had this talk before. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Check my last changes on the page. I've made another edit trying to reach a point between both of us. It's ok to you? It seems factually accurate by AEMET official sources. You're right, the city itself is located on a BSh area and the threshold is very close to a desert climate but it's still semi-arid, although the eastern outskirts of the city already border the BWh climate area. Check it now and tell me how it looks like for you. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: Claiming something in the lines of "the highest" or "is unique" needs significant backup to be accepted as fact. Who says that Cascais or any city in the southern Mediterranean coast of Spain with significant UHI has recorded any temperature below 0 °C (32 °F)? For someone who agrees Spain has plenty of areas part of zone 11, the two simply don't add up. It is much more correct to write "one of the highest" or "one of the lowest". That claim is much more complex than just looking at values registered in a few stations. Precipitation and insolation are more rudimentary with comparisons, that is why I left it as the "closest city in Europe to a desert climate".

I would take this part: "Almería is unique, for a city in Continental Europe for not having any registered temperature under the freezing mark in its recorded weather history", and change it simply to "Almería has not registered any temperature under the freezing mark in its recorded weather history". Much more encyclopedic and definitely more correct. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: I don't see the relationship with Hardiness Zones at all. That's another subject and it's not always linked to historical lows. Extreme historical lows are extreme historical lows, just as Tarifa or Sagres are 11a or bordering them, but both have had very "extreme" record lows once in the past. About Cascais I'm unsure? But I see a station inserted by you with 1931-1960 IPMA data that says it had 3 freezes in that lapse of time, not sure where that station is located or whatever. Ok lets get back to this topic. In the 1933-1980 period, Almería Observatorio (AEMET) only went twice below 1ºC and it was in 1935 with 0.2ºC and in 1956 with 1.0ºC, both on February. If you look at their December or January extreme lows, they're both of 1.9ºC and 2.0ºC. So taking account of legit official long term extremes, the only place in mainland/continental Europe without having any single freeze is Almería. We also have the 1968-2021 data from the airport here. So this is a real fact as it's based on official data over almost the past 90 years.

There might be heavily influenced microclimate spots that have never went under 0ºC? Probably, I won't deny that. But let's be serious here, as we both have a lot of acknowledge and we have done and we still do constantly research about European climates (moreso about Iberian climates) and just looking at official stations this is the truth. I don't think there is any problem leaving that phrase. Who would actually care? Why would be someone getting offended for knowing that Almería has never recorded any freezing temperature in its whole history and this something unique for Continental Europe? This is not a championship to say who's the warmest nor anything like that, it's just based on an official record. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: As you know, I am not saying Almería has recorded any temperature below 0 °C (32 °F), all I'm saying is that writing it as "the only city" in continental Europe to never record any temperature below freezing requires at least some backup sources. This is Wikipedia after all. For now I won't bother to change it and will leave it as it is, but I won't promise not to change it in the future. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Alboran Island

Article makes no mention of the Alboran Island, administratively part of the Almería municipality. Please fix this. Super Ψ Dro 09:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible Dubious tag

Inland areas of the Almería province are believed to have reached temperatures close to 50 °C (122 °F) in summer (dubious).

Though this sentence is cited, It is called Duboius in a strange manner, Should I tag it?PAper GOL (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Snow in Almeria

The source here [[2]] clearly mentions 3 days of snow in 1926 and that it snowed in 1940,41,45,46 (2 days). It continues to say that these years it did not settle but it snowed. Weatherextremes (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It snowed in 1940,41,45,46 in the province of Almeria. After that part the setence makes it clear that in ALL THAT CASES it settled on the mountains ranges and the snow reached very close to the capital city (Almeria). The 2005 was sleet not snow and AEMET didn't registered any snow in that year. In all other cases they are very dubious and controversial, since the station of AEMET exists since 1933 and only registered snow on 1934 and 1949. Farell37 (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

But check the sentence before. It says it snowed during the years and then in the next sentence it goes to specify that it only SETTLED these years in the mountains but not the city. Weatherextremes (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The setence is about the most notably snows that occured in Almeria province not only in the Almeria city. In setence before the years stated, is not saying that it snowed in Almeria city, but after that, it says that settled in the mountains and reached very close to the city. A note that proofs that is the AEMET station that didn't registered any snow on these years. Farell37 (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It says very clearly En Almeria CAPITAL: la ultima gran Nevada fue el 25 de diciembre de 1926 que duro desda 1.30 a 09.00 horas y de 11.10 a 13.10 horas: hacia 50 anos que no Nevada, si bien el ano anterior, los dias 13 y 26 tambien de diciembre nevo, pero no llego a cuajar. Tambien nevo en los meses de enero de los anos 1945, 1940,1941 y 1946, en este ultimo tambien elm es de diciembre. It clearly describes the city conditions where as the next sentence simply clarifies that on these years SETTLED snow did not reach de city but only the mountains. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Added also extra 3 sources. One more confirming 3 days of snow in 1926. Weatherextremes (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

As per source [3] the meteorological station of José Muñoz Urrea it was located just over 350 meters from the official AEMET station, which came into operation in 1933. [4] AEMET station didn't record any snow on these years that he cited which doubts this data a lot and generates debates. I only saw this now where the original PDF came from. The only year I can believe was 1926, as there was no AEMET meteorological station yet. Farell37 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but your beliefs are irrelevant. This is a RS which clearly mentions all these snow days. Also you keep on saying that AEMET does not recognize these snow days. What does that even mean? The AEMET website clearly provides data only on max snow days per month. There could be dozens of single snow days that are not mentioned. Weatherextremes (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you know it's an RS, when the weather station doesn't belong to any national meteorology institute? Furthermore, in 1922 AEMET already existed, but there was no meteorological station in Almería, which only appeared in 1933. If we follow this logic, there are also reports of temperatures close to 50 ºC in the interior of Almería, above 50 ºC in Seville and are not recognized internationally or by AEMET.

AEMET OpenData only recorded snow in these years: 1934 (4 days), 1935 (1 day in february, which was also recorded the lowest temperature on this station on 9th february 0.2 ºC), 1946 (3 days) and 1949 (2 days). This data is very old and has already been reviewed and corrected before, as successive periods were made based on this data. Saying that this data is not true just because it is simply not available on the official website does not make sense. The site only shows what is most interesting to the public and is most accessible, such as climatological extremes and normal values. Farell37 (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a published journal from a RS source which has been used in the Spanish article of Almeria for many years. Apart from that no one says that the AEMET website is not correct. What I am saying is that single snow days are not even reported in the AEMET website. There could be literally dozens more single snow days which from other RS's like this one we can use to understand more. Weatherextremes (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Not all snow days are on the AEMET website because they only show extreme values and not all past climate data. That's why there's AEMET OpenData if the public wants to see reliable, historical climate data. As I mentioned before, AEMET OpenData only records snow in these 4 years (1934, 1935, 1946 and 1949) while on the website, it only shows 2 years, in which there were the highest number of snow days in 1 month (1934 and 1949). So these 4 years it actually snowed in Almeria because AEMET has these data.

Temperatures below 0 ºC in Almeria have never been recorded at any of the meteorological stations and snow above 0 ºC is a rare phenomenon that occurs in very specific circumstances. What I mean by this is that even though it comes from a supposedly reliable source, there are also other supposedly reliable sources and official newspapers from the city of Seville that say the city has already recorded temperatures of 51 ºC [5] [6] AEMET may even believe that these data were measured, but they are unreliable and were measured a long time ago, when meteorological stations did not have the same rigor as they do now, and that is why AEMET discards this data. If it really snowed in Almeria in all these years mentioned in the source, AEMET would consider this data and even put it in AEMET OpenData (and on its website if there was an extreme snowfall value), not to mention that the 2 stations were very close one from the other, a little more than 350 meters.

Sorry, but this is the same as looking for information from other sources that cite historical temperature or precipitation data without validation or records from the national meteorological institution itself, which is the most reliable source of climate data for each country Farell37 (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it's irrelevant what is the lowest T's ever recorded. Snow can occur in many occasions with much higher Ts we have seen snow with Ts even as high a 5C with the right combination of dew points. The irrelevant Ts in Seville have been rejected officially. Unless we can find a RS that explicitly rules out these single snow days this needs to stay. Also AEMET opendata are raw data not quality reviewed data that's why for example they are totally different from the WMO 1991-2020 timeseries communicated officially by Spain internationally. What we have is what AEMET publicly publish in their website and only max snow days are mentioned which means dozen more snow days may have been recorded and its great we found these from the source on the met observations of Almeria until 1992. In fact any other RS's that will show snow days will need to be added. That's how wiki works. I will gradually continue to add the refs I find. Weatherextremes (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you simply stating that AEMET OpenData data is raw is incorrect. These only reflect recent data, as the periods 1981-2010 were based on the AEMET OpenData date that went through adjustment processes. And I had already said that the 1981-2010 WMO values ​​for Spain are different from what is shown on the AEMET website. To say that AEMET simply communicated data from 1991-2020 to WMO is uncertain and it makes no sense for them to give the supposed data from 1991-2020 to WMO without publishing it on the website itself. Proof of this is that the Seville WMO values ​​from 1981-2010 [7] 08391_1981_2010.csv) that the average annual temperature is 19.4 ºC, while those on the AEMET website show 19.2 ºC. This proves that the older data from AEMET OpenData has gone through correction processes and is not just raw data as you say, as this refers to more recent data. And look, the data from AEMET OpenData gives exactly the annual average of 19.2 ºC during the period 1981-2010. Furthermore, these climate data from 1991-2020 will be updated throughout this decade, as was the case from 1981-2010, the last update was in 2021 and even so, the values ​​are incorrect if they are actually based on AEMET. So, this also applies to other climate data such as snowy days, rainy days, among others.

Refusing AEMET's historical data or simply ignoring and giving more importance to other less reliable sources than AEMET itself is incorrect Farell37 (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

AEMET open data can not be used to bypass the official AEMET stats. In any case the point is this source is a RS and lets hope we can find other stations in Almeria to discuss its climate in depth from RSs. I have already compiled in my sandbox the normals of the IFAPA Almeria station and it might a good idea to add it to the article. More is better from RSs and it will give us better understanding of Almeria's climate. That's how wiki works. Weatherextremes (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not like that just because you want it to be. Clearly they used this data to make climatological normals 1981-2010 and are you going to ignore the fact that the WMO 1981-2010 data is different from what AEMET presents on its OFFICIAL WEBSITE? I had to do the calculations on the AEMET OpenData data from 1981-2010 for Seville and it gave exactly the same average annual temperature that shows on the official AEMET website: 19.2 ºC and what is presented in the WMO 1981-2010 says that Seville had a average annual temperature of 19.4 ºC, which was not true.

And you should not add any more weatherboxes other than those available on the AEMET website. IFAPA uses meteorological stations for other purposes and its main objective is to study fishing and agriculture, not the climate as AEMET intends. Furthermore, this reference period is much shorter than the 30 years that WMO wants. All temperature extremes that you see on the AEMET website are in AEMET OpenData, which demonstrates that it initially has raw records, but goes through correction and validation processes later and is updated.

You are the only person who tries to add other weather stations from less reliable sources than AEMET, and I'm sorry too, but I think you ignore AEMET data. The issue here is not the number of reliable sources that are used, but rather that the most reliable source for the climate of Spanish cities is AEMET, as well as France's Meteo Climat and Greece's NOA. Farell37 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please be mindful of your tone. You are getting way too personal with random accusations. Like I said its irrelevant all the above. What the important matter here is that we are talking with RS's here and the source I have provided is reliable and has been used in the Spanish article of Almeria for many years. In fact it is a wealth for Almeria's climate with more than 100 pages of pure gold rare climatological data that we need to use to enrich the article. Unless you can concretely prove that the ref I provided is not RS there is nothing to discuss really. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

And below the IFAPA data for Almeria which they are also pure gold! It is important to find also other RS for stations in Almeria to enrich the climate of the location for our readers. That's the very essence of wikipedia. I have found a few more which I will review. We can make this article very diverse and full of important new info coming from RS's[8] Weatherextremes (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

My intention was not to be rude, but if I was rude to you, sorry. I wanted to highlight the information so you can see that what I was saying was right, since in my POV, it seemed like you were ignoring this information. Apparently it is irrelevant to you, but this does not mean that the information I said is not correct. Either way, there are no problems.

I know this IFAPA source and it is reliable, but it is important to carefully evaluate the information and the topic that is taken from it. Let's go in parts and I'll try to explain clearly:

1. This source's main objective is to collect climate data for agricultural and fishing purposes, so its data consistency is not the same as AEMET, which has the main objective of consistently studying Spain's climate. IFAPA agroclimatic stations provide information on temperature, humidity, wind direction, wind and precipitation in the form of rain. However, their measurements serve to calculate the essential variable to estimate irrigation needs, and this makes its methodology different from that of AEMET, which explains why IFAPA's values ​​are different.

2. RS's is highly influenced by objectives and theme. That is, there are many reliable sources that provide useful information, but only in your area of ​​expertise. An example of this: both the WMO and WHO are highly reliable sources, but they have different purposes. Climate-related information in the WHO may not be as accurate or reliable as that in the WMO. Wikipedia requires reliable sources or a single highly reliable source on the topic, but using a source that does not focus on the study of Almeria's climate and that has greater importance in relation to AEMET is not something appropriate for Wikipedia.

3. IFAPA has agroclimatic stations, not meteorological stations, which despite having common aspects, are slightly different and present different data. They are used for different purposes and not to assess the long-term climate of a location.

I don't know if I was clear enough, but keep in mind that just saying that it is a reliable source means taking into account what content they focus on and that the information they have about the content they focus on is reliable and not necessarily everything whatever is there. Farell37 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Met stations are met stations regardless of the mission statement of the organization. For example NOA in Greece is an Astronomy organization yet it has more than 500 met stations. We can use many different met stations in wikipedia to enrich the location stats and climate understanding provided these come from RSs. Seeing the source I provided is a true wealth of rare met observations for the area, a published academic article and that it is being used in the Spanish article of Almeria for years I don't see the problem. On the contrary we can even use it to quote even more interesting aspects of the area's climate. Weatherextremes (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Which Spanish article of Almería used or uses IFAPA for many years? As I know the majority, if not all of them, uses the AEMET as is the most RS for climate in Spain. Also, you don't know if these climate data are provisional and corrected by IFAPA. NOA in Greece despite being a astronomic agency, It has the most met stations in Greece and is most RS for climate in Greece, even being an astronomic agency, because Greece doesn't have another big national institute meteorology (meteo.gr only I Guess?)

A published academic article is not the same as national institute meteorology, like AEMET Farell37 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A published academic article is the very definition of a RS here in wiki. HNMS is Greece's national met body and NOA is the oldest research institute in Greece that's why it has more WMO met stations. In any case because I feel we are going into circles, the source of the met observations on Almeria I provided is a RS so it needs to stay. I am in the process of checking academic publications on IFAPA (I have already found a few) and when I am ready I will enrich the article. Weatherextremes (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

IFAPA is not a published academic article. IFAPA is a research and training institution located in Andalusia. This institution is dedicated to conducting research in the agricultural, fishing, food and ecological production areas, in addition to providing specialized training in these areas. The climate data collected from IFAPA stations is intended for agricultural, irrigation, fishing, food and ecological production purposes and is not intended to be used to study the climate and normal climatic values ​​of the region. They need agromet stations because they are essential for irrigation. AEMET, on the other hand, is a national meteorological institution that has meterological stations with the intention of studying the climate of Spain and this is the most reliable source, being more reliable than IFAPA in this aspect. IFAPA data should not be used to study climate and has no such purpose.

Furthermore, you cannot find reliable Spanish newspapers in Andalusia that use IFAPA as the main source of climate data for the autonomous community and Spain. They all use AEMET. You have not yet proven that this is a more reliable source than AEMET and that it is found in the majority of reliable Spanish newspapers. Wiki does not work with the largest number of reliable sources, but with the level of reliability of each source. What you are saying is that IFAPA data is more reliable than AEMET data, which is not true and you cannot prove it.

Until you prove that IFAPA's climate data is better for studying Almeria's climate than AEMET's, you will not add this to the Almeria page and if you do, I will contact an Administrator. Farell37 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry we are talking about an official station from an official organization. Obviously this can go in any article to provide more details on the climate of an area. I do not appreciate the hostile attitude and as I result I have nothing further to discuss. Weatherextremes (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Since when is contacting an administrator an hostile behavior when it is actually the best thing to do when putting less reliable sources over the most reliable source? You haven't presented any counterarguments to what I said so far. Just saying that it is a better source without presenting arguments is not correct. This is not hostile behavior, I never offended you in any moment. Either way, the warning was given. Farell37 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)