SNE End of May, into Summer Thread

[forkyfork]

80 at 8 am here in the tropics

[CoastalWx]

After this stretch of wx, looks nice from Thursday on. More seasonable wx...cool nights..mild days.

[moneypitmike]

Normal high at ORH yesterday was 69, start from there, then factor in the normal low, you guys have been well above normal, much more so than anyone else.

Not sure what the relevancy is of that other than saying we XX degrees warmer than the normal at ORH. We're asking about where your gettingn your norms for GC.

Again, I'm not debating whether we were above normal yesterday (or for the season). But you throw out these specific departures when you don't have a norm to reference. Orh (a 90-minute drive from here) is not a reference point you should use. Nor is CEF, AQW, ORE, or BAF. You should leave it as "above normal" otherwise you're speaking nonsense that you can't back up.

[Mr Torchey]

Not sure what the relevancy is of that other than saying we XX degrees warmer than the normal at ORH. We're asking about where your gettingn your norms for GC.

Again, I'm not debating whether we were above normal yesterday (or for the season). But you throw out these specific departures when you don't have a norm to reference. Orh (a 90-minute drive from here) is not a reference point you should use. Nor is CEF, AQW, ORE, or BAF. You should leave it as "above normal" otherwise you're speaking nonsense that you can't back up.

I would imagine that your normal high and low is less than orh, orh had a high of 79 yesterday as did you, they were a +10, so I think its safe to say your departure was between a +11-15?? I think that makes sense, either way it was greater than any of the major 4 in sne, and orh is the highest so far this month out of the big 4.

What was your exact, departure, perhaps snowman21 can dig that up.

[CoastalWx]

You guys are nuts..lol. It's all relative. Of course people in MWN can say "hey..no torch here.." and be 55F, yet +15 above normal. The good folks in GC were way above normal. Agree with LL here.

[Brian5671]

Torchy end to May for sure. Roger Smith must be beating his chest right now...any thoughts for next weekend and beyond?

[moneypitmike]

Not sure what the relevancy is of that other than saying we XX degrees warmer than the normal at ORH. We're asking about where your gettingn your norms for GC.

Again, I'm not debating whether we were above normal yesterday (or for the season). But you throw out these specific departures when you don't have a norm to reference. Orh (a 90-minute drive from here) is not a reference point you should use. Nor is CEF, AQW, ORE, or BAF. You should leave it as "above normal" otherwise you're speaking nonsense that you can't back up.

You guys are nuts..lol. It's all relative. Of course people in MWN can say "hey..no torch here.." and be 55F, yet +15 above normal. The good folks in GC were way above normal. Agree with LL here.

Scott--are you suggesting that I'm arguing with being above normal? If so, you've missed the point. The point is Joe's tossing around the notion that we're 14* above normal (not sure if that was the number he used). He doesn't have a reference point to give that departure, so he should just say "another above-normal day".

[CoastalWx]

Torchy end to May for sure. Roger Smith must be beating his chest right now...any thoughts for next weekend and beyond?

Actually looks seasonable to possibly cool at times. The we may warm up a bit near the second weekend and beyond, but it's not an epic torch pattern yet.

[CoastalWx]

Scott--are you suggesting that I'm arguing with being above normal? If so, you've missed the point. The point is Joe's tossing around the notion that we're 14* above normal (not sure if that was the number he used). He doesn't have a reference point to give that departure, so he should just say "another above-normal day".

Not at all, but I think you can easily say you were +10 to +15. Look at all the stations around you. Bennington VT +15. Pittsfield +15. There is no way somehow GC was a cool pocket. It's meteorologically impossible. If anything..you were right there with Pittsfield or even better. I don't get why you guys out there are so afraid of admitting that. TORCH!

[Baroclinic Zone]

Not at all, but I think you can easily say you were +10 to +15. Look at all the stations around you. Bennington VT +15. Pittsfield +15. There is no way somehow GC was a cool pocket. It's meteorologically impossible. If anything..you were right there with Pittsfield or even better. I don't get why you guys out there are so afraid of admitting that. TORCH!

I will agree with you Scott. It was definitely above normal temperature wise but it did not "feel" that way.

[weatherMA]

I agree with Scott and LL. MPM is rediculous ...he may have been +13, not +14, but the point is he was +12 to +15 range.

[Ginx snewx]

Can not understand why folks can not grasp the idea that the Berks are a cool spot relative to others.. As Bob stated it felt cooler when he was there. I know I have camped there many times, the difference at elevation in a forested area is very significant than even slightly lower areas. sure, the air mass was above normal but you can not compare Pittsfield or Bennington to Shelburne

[moneypitmike]

I agree with Scott and LL. MPM is rediculous ...he may have been +13, not +14, but the point is he was +12 to +15 range.

That's more palatable than saying "you were 14* above normal" when the normal hasn't been defined. I'm not sure why I'm being called out for looking for accuracy in statements. I haven't been arguing that it's been above normal (neither now or over the past year) I'm merely questioning the reference point. Jeesh.

I'm done. At least until Joe tells me I had another departure of 12*.

65.7/65, gross.

[Baroclinic Zone]

Can not understand why folks can not grasp the idea that the Berks are a cool spot relative to others.. As Bob stated it felt cooler when he was there. I know I have camped there many times, the difference at elevation in a forested area is very significant than even slightly lower areas. sure, the air mass was above normal but you can not compare Pittsfield or Bennington to Shelburne

I was in Otis, MA and the temperature was actually about the same as it was at home in Taunton. The campground was at about 1500' by the Otis Reservoir. The air felt drier imo while I was there. 78-79F was the temperature the 3 day we were there. That has to be 10-15F above normal.

[Damage In Tolland]

A torch for this time of year in GC is highs 77-82. No if's and 's or but's about it.

[HIPPYVALLEY]

Can not understand why folks can not grasp the idea that the Berks are a cool spot relative to others.. As Bob stated it felt cooler when he was there. I know I have camped there many times, the difference at elevation in a forested area is very significant than even slightly lower areas. sure, the air mass was above normal but you can not compare Pittsfield or Bennington to Shelburne

I can drive 5 minutes up my street into Colrain and often find 6 - 10 degree differences in the summer. My house is often 3 - 5 degrees cooler than downtown Greenfield.

I agree that temps were well above average everywhere but W Ma and S. Vt have countless micro climates that sometimes have drastic differences in temp and precip. In the summer sometimes Greenfield will be raining off and on all day and up the road at MPM's house it's dry the sun is breaking through.

[Baroclinic Zone]

That's more palatable than saying "you were 14* above normal" when the normal hasn't been defined. I'm not sure why I'm being called out for looking for accuracy in statements. I haven't been arguing that it's been above normal (neither now or over the past year) I'm merely questioning the reference point. Jeesh.

I'm done. At least until Joe tells me I had another departure of 12*.

65.7/65, gross.

Not sure why you need a reference point. You know what your climate is there. There was no inaccuracy in LL posts either, so I'm not sure he deserves any heat either.

In all honesty the ribbing from both sides is annoying that this point. It's tiresome.

I was feeling that DP yesterday morning as we packed up to leave. Luckily the temps. were not too high that early so it was manageable.

[snowman21]

Here are today's normals for 1000+ ft elevations centered around western Mass. This is a pretty good sampling of stations in the region, so one would have to feel pretty confident about estimating the normal high to be 69 or 70 with the normal low in the mid-40s, maybe even 43 or 44 for the typically colder more protected spots.

ID     ST  STATION               ELEV  HI  LO
---------------------------------------------
ASHM3  MA  ASHFIELD              1340  70  45
BALV1  VT  BALL MTN LAKE         1130  70  46
BLAM3  MA  BORDEN BROOK RSVR     1110  70  48
CMMM3  MA  CUMMINGTON HILL       1610  69  50
DFCV1  VT  DANBY FOUR CORNERS    1326  70  46
DLTM3  MA  DALTON                1212  71  46
DMRN6  NY  DANNEMORA             1340  69  49
GRAN6  NY  GRAFTON               1560  70  49
HNKV1  VT  HANKSVILLE            1083  70  46
LNBM3  MA  LANESBORO             1236  71  47
LPLN6  NY  LAKE PLACID 2 S       1940  70  43
LXDM3  MA  LENOX DALE            1004  72  46
POWV1  VT  POWNAL 1 NE           1110  70  47
PSF    MA  PITTSFIELD WB AP            70  47
RDSV1  VT  READSBORO 1 SE        1120  70  46
SLNV1  VT  SOUTH LINCOLN         1341  68  46
SVYM3  MA  SAVOY                 1928  67  47
WORM3  MA  WORTHINGTON           1285  69  46
WOTM3  MA  WEST OTIS             1295  70  47

[moneypitmike]

66/65 here at the Pit right now at 9:20. Official stations "nearby" for 9:00am. obs.

ORE- 71* (30 miles)

ORH- 70* (50 miles?)

AQW- 80* (25 miles)

BAF - 73 (35 miles)

CEF - 74 (35 miles)

I guess somewhere you can determine what the "normal" temp is for here. Good luck.

[moneypitmike]

Here are today's normals for 1000+ ft elevations centered around western Mass. This is a pretty good sampling of stations in the region, so one would have to feel pretty confident about estimating the normal high to be 69 or 70 with the normal low in the mid-40s, maybe even 43 or 44 for the typically colder more protected spots.

ID	 ST  STATION			   ELEV  HI  LO
---------------------------------------------
ASHM3  MA  ASHFIELD			  1340  70  45
BALV1  VT  BALL MTN LAKE		 1130  70  46
BLAM3  MA  BORDEN BROOK RSVR	 1110  70  48
CMMM3  MA  CUMMINGTON HILL	   1610  69  50
DFCV1  VT  DANBY FOUR CORNERS	1326  70  46
DLTM3  MA  DALTON				1212  71  46
DMRN6  NY  DANNEMORA			 1340  69  49
GRAN6  NY  GRAFTON			   1560  70  49
HNKV1  VT  HANKSVILLE			1083  70  46
LNBM3  MA  LANESBORO			 1236  71  47
LPLN6  NY  LAKE PLACID 2 S	   1940  70  43
LXDM3  MA  LENOX DALE			1004  72  46
POWV1  VT  POWNAL 1 NE		   1110  70  47
PSF	MA  PITTSFIELD WB AP			70  47
RDSV1  VT  READSBORO 1 SE		1120  70  46
SLNV1  VT  SOUTH LINCOLN		 1341  68  46
SVYM3  MA  SAVOY				 1928  67  47
WORM3  MA  WORTHINGTON		   1285  69  46
WOTM3  MA  WEST OTIS			 1295  70  47

Thanks for posting that. Based on that 'eye-balled' average of 70*, I was 9 above that. I envy those lows--I never get there, ftl.

[Typhoon Tip]

NAM's recent cycles are apparently missing the llv resolution regarding this cold side of the eastern New England stationary boundary.

Not sure what that will mean for convection later - if there's even a trigger - but sat shows a remarkably sharp delineation between sun/heat and murky ****

[HIPPYVALLEY]

71/60 Cloudy (of course).

[ski MRG]

21/19, SN+, wind NE34 mph . If this temp talk persists I'm going to file a formal complaint.

[Typhoon Tip]

ALB: 291351 CLR 9 82 72 1807

BOS: 291354 OVC002 0.25 BR 62 59 1214 …And this type of conditions includes me, although it is 69 here in Westborough. Anyway, I hate you all until this unforeseeable force that is doing this on purpose goes away.

Ha ha - I guess I’m okay with not sweating my **** off but, this may hinder our convective chances, which I would like to see. But then again, convection? In eastern New England?

[snowman21]

Thanks for posting that. Based on that 'eye-balled' average of 70*, I was 9 above that. I envy those lows--I never get there, ftl.

The lows would be a problem for your normals, but there are ways to estimate even with little station history. The latest set of normals included stations that did not have the full 30 years of data (ASOS sites which are only 10-15 years old), so estimation and extrapolation techniques were used for those cases. Some of the methods have been published in various climatology journals, and can work with as little as a few years worth of data, though the more the better obviously. A crude approximation involves calculating your monthly average highs and lows, then subtracting those from the average monthly highs and lows from the nearest four stations over the same time period to create offsets to their normals.

[moneypitmike]

NAM's recent cycles are apparently missing the llv resolution regarding this cold side of the eastern New England stationary boundary.

Not sure what that will mean for convection later - if there's even a trigger - but sat shows a remarkably sharp delineation between sun/heat and murky ****

So does this.

[moneypitmike]

The lows would be a problem for your normals, but there are ways to estimate even with little station history. The latest set of normals included stations that did not have the full 30 years of data (ASOS sites which are only 10-15 years old), so estimation and extrapolation techniques were used for those cases. Some of the methods have been published in various climatology journals, and can work with as little as a few years worth of data, though the more the better obviously. A crude approximation involves calculating your monthly average highs and lows, then subtracting those from the average monthly highs and lows from the nearest four stations over the same time period to create offsets to their normals.

Thanks.

[Typhoon Tip]

Ah, I see what's causing this retarded arrival in eastern zones... Those nice training overnight convective pulses through central NE created a cold pool that moved discerned S along the nearby coastal waters from ME to Cape Cod. High res loop shows this pretty clearly. It doesn't appear that air mass backed inland per se, but it is created a kind of llv block, preventing the the SSW flow from otherwise making to the coast per modeling.

It's an interesting ob actually, and shows how to bust 101. It probably does clear eventually but it may take some time to erode this gunk.

[Damage In Tolland]

Ah, I see what's causing this retarded arrival in eastern zones... Those nice training overnight convective pulses through central NE created a cold pool that moved discerned S along the nearby coastal waters from ME to Cape Cod. High res loop shows this pretty clearly. It doesn't appear that air mass backed inland per se, but it is created a kind of llv block, preventing the the SSW flow from otherwise making to the coast per modeling.

It's an interesting ob actually, and shows how to bust 101. It probably does clear eventually but it may take some time to erode this gunk.

Wrong thread

[HoarfrostHubb]

Ah, I see what's causing this retarded arrival in eastern zones... Those nice training overnight convective pulses through central NE created a cold pool that moved discerned S along the nearby coastal waters from ME to Cape Cod. High res loop shows this pretty clearly. It doesn't appear that air mass backed inland per se, but it is created a kind of llv block, preventing the the SSW flow from otherwise making to the coast per modeling.

It's an interesting ob actually, and shows how to bust 101. It probably does clear eventually but it may take some time to erode this gunk.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul...

If anything, couldn't this help us later in the day, instead of wasting convective chances at 11AM?

I know Blizz, wrong thread