September 2016 Discussion/Obs

[JerseyWx]

1 hour ago, Morris said:

Who thinks it's an error?

Newark minimum supposedly 58, but the lowest hourly was 63.

My guess is an error.  That means between hours it would have to drop 5 degrees, and then rise back up, correct?  

[Morris]

25 minutes ago, JerseyWx said:

My guess is an error.  That means between hours it would have to drop 5 degrees, and then rise back up, correct?  

Yes

[bluewave]

The drought keeps rolling along as we warm up and continue with below normal rainfall.

 

 

[forkyfork]

this is the 2010's version of edouard in 1996. i remember it clearly because it was my first hurricane watch as a wx enthusiast. the setup wasn't all that dissimilar either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Edouard_(1996)

"One computer model predicted the hurricane would strike near Atlantic City, New Jersey with winds of over 111 mph (178 km/h) on Labor Day. This caused Cape May County officials to contemplate ordering an evacuation for the busiest tourist weekend of the year, though an evacuation never occurred.^[3] Due to the possibility for a landfall on the East Coast of the United States, officials at the National Hurricane Center issued Tropical Storm and Hurricane Watches and Warnings from Cape Lookout, North Carolina to Eastport, Maine at various times."

[tdp146]

 

this is the 2010's version of edouard in 1996. i remember it clearly because it was my first hurricane watch as a wx enthusiast. the setup wasn't all that dissimilar either

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Edouard_(1996)

"One computer model predicted the hurricane would strike near Atlantic City, New Jersey with winds of over 111 mph (178 km/h) on Labor Day. This caused Cape May County officials to contemplate ordering an evacuation for the busiest tourist weekend of the year, though an evacuation never occurred.^[3] Due to the possibility for a landfall on the East Coast of the United States, officials at the National Hurricane Center issued Tropical Storm and Hurricane Watches and Warnings from Cape Lookout, North Carolina to Eastport, Maine at various times."

I mentioned this in the other thread, but the swell and and especially the severe east to west rip reminded me of Eduard as well.  Both storms passed by nearly the same location at cat 1 strength and sent a heavy ESE swell I to the beach.  On Sunday, you could watch guys paddle out Into the surf and you would literally have to run down the beach from east to west to keep up with them. At long beach, guys would start at the edge of one jetty and couldn't paddle out to the break before they were almost pulled into the next jetty and would have to come back in. Last time I remember seeing a rip like that was Eduard. 

[bluewave]

No surprise to see the warmth and WAR pattern continue coming off the warmest Western Atlantic summer SST pattern on record.

That is some bathtub out there where the ridge keeps rebuilding keeping it warm here.

 

 

[Brian5671]

Looks like another dry and warm September on tap.  Amazing with the quiet decade in the tropics how quiet Septembers have been around here in the rainfall dept.

[SACRUS]

 

Looks like another dry and warm September on tap.  Amazing with the quiet decade in the tropics how quiet Septembers have been around here in the rainfall dept.

Sun out herewith clearing over the area as Hermine drifts away

 

 

 

[Rtd208]

Eventually this quiet weather pattern that we have been in over the last several months is going to come to an end, its just a matter of when. Hopefully once this quiet weather "breaks" it will become quite active storm wise as mother natural always balances things out at some point and we usually wind up going from one extreme to the other.

[mjr]

A recent blog post by one of the Senior Forecasters on the Accuweather Professional website commented on the number of 90+ days thus far in 2016. Some of the figures listed wereBOS 20 NYC 19 PHL 40 DCA 50. No mention was made of the fact that the NYC number reflected readings taken in the middle of a swamp and that other NYC area locations (not heavily influenced by sea breezes) ranged between 29 and 35. This was not some lightweight pretty face TV weather entertainer but rather a top meteorologist at Accuweather presenting these numbers without mention of any extenuating circumstances. Naturally the general public, including many people with an in depth knowledge of weather, will look at these numbers as an accurate reflection of reality and not as the distortion that it actually is. Some of them may wonder why the NYC number is not between BOS and DCA as opposed to being less than BOS but, given the respectability of the source, they will accept these numbers as accurate.

The argument that the NWS is respecting 140+ years of historical significance does not hold water since for most of this period the readings were taken at a different location with fewer distortions. The recent readings actually disrespect the majority of the historical record. Similarly for the argument that the reading just represents one of many microclimates within NYC, one could relocate the thermometer to the bottom of Central Park lake and it would also technically represent a microclimate. While this may seem absurd, the current location is so distorted that it really is not that much different. It represents itself and nothing else.

I find it interesting that during the winter of 2015 (not the 2016 blizzard), Upton, days after the fact, increased the NYC snow totals of three events based on totals at surrounding areas plus radar observations. These adjustments were only by fractions of an inch but indicated that in this regard they were willing to go to great lengths to maintain an accurate historical record. In light of this, it seems ridiculous that they would allow the NYC thermometer situation to persist since I would think that  a difference of 10-15 90 degree days in 2016 is far more significant than an inch or two of snow.

Unfortunately, NYC is the official New York City station and as such it is what much of the world looks at concerning the weather in New York City. As evidenced by the Accuweather blog, these observations are looked at with an uncritical eye even by the most competent meteorologists and as such distort the picture of NYC weather presented to the general public as well as distorting the historical record.

[Morris]

35 minutes ago, mjr said:

A recent blog post by one of the Senior Forecasters on the Accuweather Professional website commented on the number of 90+ days thus far in 2016. Some of the figures listed wereBOS 20 NYC 19 PHL 40 DCA 50. No mention was made of the fact that the NYC number reflected readings taken in the middle of a swamp and that other NYC area locations (not heavily influenced by sea breezes) ranged between 29 and 35. This was not some lightweight pretty face TV weather entertainer but rather a top meteorologist at Accuweather presenting these numbers without mention of any extenuating circumstances. Naturally the general public, including many people with an in depth knowledge of weather, will look at these numbers as an accurate reflection of reality and not as the distortion that it actually is. Some of them may wonder why the NYC number is not between BOS and DCA as opposed to being less than BOS but, given the respectability of the source, they will accept these numbers as accurate.

The argument that the NWS is respecting 140+ years of historical significance does not hold water since for most of this period the readings were taken at a different location with fewer distortions. The recent readings actually disrespect the majority of the historical record. Similarly for the argument that the reading just represents one of many microclimates within NYC, one could relocate the thermometer to the bottom of Central Park lake and it would also technically represent a microclimate. While this may seem absurd, the current location is so distorted that it really is not that much different. It represents itself and nothing else.

I find it interesting that during the winter of 2015 (not the 2016 blizzard), Upton, days after the fact, increased the NYC snow totals of three events based on totals at surrounding areas plus radar observations. These adjustments were only by fractions of an inch but indicated that in this regard they were willing to go to great lengths to maintain an accurate historical record. In light of this, it seems ridiculous that they would allow the NYC thermometer situation to persist since I would think that  a difference of 10-15 90 degree days in 2016 is far more significant than an inch or two of snow.

Unfortunately, NYC is the official New York City station and as such it is what much of the world looks at concerning the weather in New York City. As evidenced by the Accuweather blog, these observations are looked at with an uncritical eye even by the most competent meteorologists and as such distort the picture of NYC weather presented to the general public as well as distorting the historical record.

The real reason is that the NWS is full of snow weenies. That's why they adjusted it to the correct number.

[SACRUS]

Today's Highs

PHL: 91
TTN: 88
ACY: 88
EWR: 87
New Bnswk: 87
LGA: 86
TEB: 86
JFK: 86
NYC: 85
ISP: 79

[ForestHillWx]

Couldnt the adverse argument also be made regarding some of the recording sites being situated near tarmacs in the concrete jungles of the northeast? How can we accurately compare average temps today to temps 140 years ago when the bulk of the area was rolling countryside? 

[mjr]

You certainly make a valid point about rolling countryside 140 years ago. One thing I can argue is that back then, I would guess that was true of mostly all stations so that a comparison among different locations was valid. For the past 50 years or so, virtually all stations have been located at airports. Since, among other things, the data are used to compare climate characteristics across different geographical areas (number of 90 degree days in different cities across the US), it would seem that you would want to make every effort to eliminate local distortions...like having the NYC thermometer located in a swamp.  

[bluewave]

10 hours ago, ForestHillWx said:

Couldnt the adverse argument also be made regarding some of the recording sites being situated near tarmacs in the concrete jungles of the northeast? How can we accurately compare average temps today to temps 140 years ago when the bulk of the area was rolling countryside? 

The problem isn't concrete tarmac vs park space for measuring temperature. It's that the NYC ASOS violates the official NWS/FAA sitting criteria since it's in the shade

instead of open sunlight. The old sensor I believe was on the top of castle so it got more 90 degree days than under a canopy of trees.

 

Keep any grass and vegetation within 100 feet (30 meters) of the sensor clipped to height of about 10 inches (25 centimeters) or less.

 

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/directives/ND/ND6560-20b.PDF

 

 

Recent photos as of 2013

 

http://www.weather2000.com/ASOS/NYC_ASOS.html

 

http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/Knyc

[CIK62]

Isn't there a transition period when a location is changed?   Measurements kept for both spots so that statiscal quirks can be revealed.  Any significant differences would be shown that way.

Worst case---rebuild previous station and compare.  Stop guessing.

[bluewave]

8 minutes ago, CIK62 said:

Isn't there a transition period when a location is changed?   Measurements kept for both spots so that statiscal quirks can be revealed.  Any significant differences would be shown that way.

Worst case---rebuild previous station and compare.  Stop guessing.

Yes. NYC saw the greatest drop in 90 degree days compared to the other local ASOS sites since the 1980's.

90 degree days

 

EWR 

84-93....300

94-03....253

04-13....276

84-93 to 04-13 change....-8.0%

 

NYC

84-93...199

94-03...160

04-13...155

84-93 to 04-13 change...-22.2%

 

LGA

84-93...167

94-03...186

04-13...225

84-93 to 04-13 change...+25.8%

 

JFK

84-93...102

94-03...102

04-13...122

84-93 to 04-13 change...+16.4%

 

[uncle W]

when NYC went aos the number of 90 degree days went down compared with LGA...

[dWave]

11 hours ago, ForestHillWx said:

Couldnt the adverse argument also be made regarding some of the recording sites being situated near tarmacs in the concrete jungles of the northeast? How can we accurately compare average temps today to temps 140 years ago when the bulk of the area was rolling countryside? 

Nearly all temps are recorded at airports, so I think its better to keep uniform across cities for comparison sake. When DCA, PHI, BOS, etc are at airports comparing regional differences is thrown off by NYC being in a wooded, shaded section of Central Park.  

End of the day,  NWS isnt going to do anything about it, they have basically said so already.  It accurately reflects its location, a canopy of trees in a park. Its up to the media to highlight other climate sites more and legitimize them in the public's eye. I've lived in DC and while DCA is the official reporting station for the District they seem to put nearly equal weight to BWI and Dulles readings. The NY media need to do the same thing. Especially when the divide is significant. 

If DC had their station under a bunch of trees in the middle of Rock Creek Park they would have no where near 50 90 degree days.

DCA is basically equivalent to LGA in NY..small waterfront airport a few miles from heart of the city.

[NycStormChaser]

14 hours ago, mjr said:

A recent blog post by one of the Senior Forecasters on the Accuweather Professional website commented on the number of 90+ days thus far in 2016. Some of the figures listed wereBOS 20 NYC 19 PHL 40 DCA 50. No mention was made of the fact that the NYC number reflected readings taken in the middle of a swamp and that other NYC area locations (not heavily influenced by sea breezes) ranged between 29 and 35. This was not some lightweight pretty face TV weather entertainer but rather a top meteorologist at Accuweather presenting these numbers without mention of any extenuating circumstances. Naturally the general public, including many people with an in depth knowledge of weather, will look at these numbers as an accurate reflection of reality and not as the distortion that it actually is. Some of them may wonder why the NYC number is not between BOS and DCA as opposed to being less than BOS but, given the respectability of the source, they will accept these numbers as accurate.

The argument that the NWS is respecting 140+ years of historical significance does not hold water since for most of this period the readings were taken at a different location with fewer distortions. The recent readings actually disrespect the majority of the historical record. Similarly for the argument that the reading just represents one of many microclimates within NYC, one could relocate the thermometer to the bottom of Central Park lake and it would also technically represent a microclimate. While this may seem absurd, the current location is so distorted that it really is not that much different. It represents itself and nothing else.

I find it interesting that during the winter of 2015 (not the 2016 blizzard), Upton, days after the fact, increased the NYC snow totals of three events based on totals at surrounding areas plus radar observations. These adjustments were only by fractions of an inch but indicated that in this regard they were willing to go to great lengths to maintain an accurate historical record. In light of this, it seems ridiculous that they would allow the NYC thermometer situation to persist since I would think that  a difference of 10-15 90 degree days in 2016 is far more significant than an inch or two of snow.

Unfortunately, NYC is the official New York City station and as such it is what much of the world looks at concerning the weather in New York City. As evidenced by the Accuweather blog, these observations are looked at with an uncritical eye even by the most competent meteorologists and as such distort the picture of NYC weather presented to the general public as well as distorting the historical record.

It's not in a swamp, it's in a park. 

[NJwx85]

16 minutes ago, Snow88 said:

Tropics look active. Any chance of a storm hitting land?

Not with the current setup over the Western Atlantic. Persistent trough on the models near 60W will recurve any CV storms that develop out there.

[Dan76]

4 hours ago, Snow88 said:

Tropics look active. Any chance of a storm hitting land?

We can't even get rain here let alone a trop storm...LOL

[Morris]

Newark hit 90. Park 88.

[Brian5671]

1 hour ago, Dan76 said:

We can't even get rain here let alone a trop storm...LOL

Agree.  A survey of the 12z models today shows little rain for the area over the next 7-10 days...just a series of fast moving cold fronts coming through, each one with scattered showers.

[doncat]

Another 90 degree high here today.

[dmillz25]

28 minutes ago, doncat said:

Another 90 degree high here today.

Same here

[winterwarlock]

  93 in warlocks crib today

[bluewave]

Probably going to need some direct or indirect help from the tropics if we are going to avoid closing out the year with another precip deficit.

2016 Precip deficits to date for local stations:

NYC...-6.74

LGA...-7.01

JFK...-5.77

ISP...-8.51

BDR...-4.19

EWR...-8.14

[dWave]

hit 90 today

[Morris]

Last year today, was the hottest day of the summer.