June 2017 Discussion

[Hoosier]

This has been trimmed compared to last week, though my area is one of the areas still in D0, which is consistent with what I have been saying about being in a relative minimum in precip lately.

Also, not in our area, but patches of D3 now in the northern Plains.

 

[hawkeye_wx]

Again, clouds and showers really took a bite out of the expected warmth.  There's not as much instability here for tonight's convection as there could have been.  The SPC has taken the northern half of Iowa out of the slight risk.  One more good rainfall would be nice before we enter another dry pattern.

[cyclone77]

MLI got 89'd today lol.  Hit 88 here.  Dews above 70 so it feels sort of grungy out there.  HRRR looks nice for some decent 'vection later this evening.  Looking forward to the light show.

[Powerball]

DTW got 89'd as well.

That should help make up for the intra-hour 80*F day that michsnowfreak was irritated about. 

[michsnowfreak]

On 6/21/2017 at 4:26 PM, Stebo said:

Monroe is on the water, and DTW actually closely matches YIP which is 7 miles away. DET is also close to the water comparatively to DTW. I don't know why this is such a big deal that DTW is warmer but we have this discussion every year it seems.

You dont seem to get my point, I just want to know what changed. It isnt about deurbanization of DET or who is on the water or what not, I want to know why DTW is a warm spot now and it did not used to be. I personally think they had to have moved the thermometer. If you move the thermometer to the wooed area on the south side of the airport the annual temp would drop 2-3F, a muted ARB if you will. Im sure concrete nearby doesnt help but the area itself is still rural, though Bill Deedler states UHI has caused a huge increase in DTW lows since the 1990s. From the 1960s-1990s, SE MI had about 15 reporting stations on a regular basis (in the climate summary at months end). On average, in the 1960s DTW ran colder than 9 of the 14 other stations, and that number moved to colder than 5 of 14 in the 1970s-1990s. Now all of a sudden, as the # of stations has skyrocketed to near 50, DTW runs colder than just 1 (Im sure once in a while it may be 2 or 3, would need to study). Just like the already cold 1970s had temps taken at a radiational magnet, the already warm 1950s had temps taken in a very urban city. So again, temps at reporting sites need to be taken somewhat with a grain of salt.

 

 

[Stebo]

Just now, michsnowfreak said:

You dont seem to get my point, I just want to know what changed. It isnt about deurbanization of DET or who is on the water or what not, I want to know why DTW is a warm spot now and it did not used to be. I personally think they had to have moved the thermometer. If you move the thermometer to the wooed area on the south side of the airport the annual temp would drop 2-3F, a muted ARB if you will. Im sure concrete nearby doesnt help but the area itself is still rural, though Bill Deedler states UHI has caused a huge increase in DTW lows since the 1990s. From the 1960s-1990s, SE MI had about 15 reporting stations on a regular basis (in the climate summary at months end). On average, in the 1960s DTW ran colder than 9 of the 14 other stations, and that number moved to colder than 5 of 14 in the 1970s-1990s. Now all of a sudden, as the # of stations has skyrocketed to near 50, DTW runs colder than just 1 (Im sure once in a while it may be 2 or 3, would need to study). Just like the already cold 1970s had temps taken at a radiational magnet, the already warm 1950s had temps taken in a very urban city. So again, temps at reporting sites need to be taken somewhat with a grain of salt.

 

 

The thermometer hasn't moved at DTW, the only thing that has changed is there is less open area around DTW. The exact opposite has happened at DET as noted by me and Powerball. As for moving the thermometer to near the wooded area to the south end of the airport, that isn't representative of the city either, the city is populated with shopping centers and open concrete along with dense suburbs. If anything the observing station is more representative of where people live compared to the actual city which is more wide open. To be honest, I don't get your point of wanting to drive down the temperatures when there is no reason to.

[michsnowfreak]

Wicked sky with tonights storm. Picked up 0.49" of rain today (0.29" with tonights storm) which sadly nearly doubled my monthly total. Sitting at 1.04" in June IMBY.

 

 

[Spartman]

5 hours ago, hawkeye_wx said:

Again, clouds and showers really took a bite out of the expected warmth.  There's not as much instability here for tonight's convection as there could have been.  The SPC has taken the northern half of Iowa out of the slight risk.  One more good rainfall would be nice before we enter another dry pattern.

Same here. Underachieved a bit, only topping at 83 while overachieving a bit yesterday topping at 86. No matter what, Cindy's remnants will make this month another wetter than average one in a row. So far this year, the only drier than average month is this past February.

At DAY, we hit 90 degrees 5 times last June. This June (through the end of the month next Friday), only once. Almost got shut out for this month. Next month could be another story.

[stormtrackertf]

Was lucky enough to get a bit over one inch today IMBY. Much needed soaking for sure. Basically tripled what we had gotten up to this point.

[michsnowfreak]

14 minutes ago, Stebo said:

The thermometer hasn't moved at DTW, the only thing that has changed is there is less open area around DTW. The exact opposite has happened at DET as noted by me and Powerball. As for moving the thermometer to near the wooded area to the south end of the airport, that isn't representative of the city either, the city is populated with shopping centers and open concrete along with dense suburbs. If anything the observing station is more representative of where people live compared to the actual city which is more wide open. To be honest, I don't get your point of wanting to drive down the temperatures when there is no reason to.

I know for a fact that the thermometer hasnt been completely stationary since 1966, Im just not sure how minimal any moves were. And I did NOT say it should be moved to a wooded area to drive the temps down, I said IF it was moved temps would be 2-3F lower. Surrounding areas that are more populated than DTW have a lower temp, but obviously its a no brainer that more wooded is colder, more urban is warmer. The downsloping at YIP always makes them warmer, but much more populated Dearborn is always colder. So ill leave it at this. For speculated but unknown reasons, temp patterns at DTW have shown a warming trend compared to surrounding areas, regardless of airmass, not seen in decades past. The. End.

[Stebo]

Just now, michsnowfreak said:

I know for a fact that the thermometer hasnt been completely stationary since 1966, Im just not sure how minimal any moves were. And I did NOT say it should be moved to a wooded area to drive the temps down, I said IF it was moved temps would be 2-3F lower. Surrounding areas that are more populated than DTW have a lower temp, but obviously its a no brainer that more wooded is colder, more urban is warmer. The downsloping at YIP always makes them warmer, but much more populated Dearborn is always colder. So ill leave it at this. For speculated but unknown reasons, temp patterns at DTW have shown a warming trend compared to surrounding areas, regardless of airmass, not seen in decades past. The. End.

Since 1966, no but it didn't move far. Originally it was closer to the old executive terminal, it was moved about 50 yards southwest in the early 90s when ASOS was installed. It has not moved since then. You seem very angry about this when it doesn't matter in any grand scheme. The differences from other sites are minimal and well within tolerance of each other. This isn't some sort of grand conspiracy or something, no one is fudging the numbers. The numbers are exactly what comes out and it is marginally warmer here than other places.

[michsnowfreak]

27 minutes ago, Stebo said:

Since 1966, no but it didn't move far. Originally it was closer to the old executive terminal, it was moved about 50 yards southwest in the early 90s when ASOS was installed. It has not moved since then. You seem very angry about this when it doesn't matter in any grand scheme. The differences from other sites are minimal and well within tolerance of each other. This isn't some sort of grand conspiracy or something, no one is fudging the numbers. The numbers are exactly what comes out and it is marginally warmer here than other places.

climate buff questioning something (and getting words put in my mouth too) = very angry. got it!

[UMB WX]

I love your passion, snow freak.   I hope you get your answer someday and I do believe you're on to something being off/different/bogus

[Stebo]

17 minutes ago, michsnowfreak said:

climate buff questioning something (and getting words put in my mouth too) = very angry. got it!

The problem is, there is nothing causing it other than slightly less forestation in the area around the airport, nothing else has changed including the location of the thermometer. This gets brought up by you fairly regularly and you just don't buy the explanations. There really is nothing more that can be explained here.

 

2 minutes ago, UMB WX said:

I love your passion, snow freak.   I hope you get your answer someday and I do believe you're on to something being off/different/bogus

Question, what would be bogus about the data other than it isn't some sort of cold narrative.

[UMB WX]

I'm not a dog in this fight.   

 

Good night

[Stebo]

4 minutes ago, UMB WX said:

I'm not a dog in this fight.   

 

Good night

If that is the case then don't insinuate something that isn't there. There is nothing bogus about the numbers coming from this airport, we do outstanding quality control and do not change anything do with the climatic data unless extreme circumstances are presented. 99% of the time that is wind data being erroneous, the temperature data almost never touched unless the sensor suffers an outage which is extremely rare.

[Hoosier]

3 hours ago, michsnowfreak said:

I know for a fact that the thermometer hasnt been completely stationary since 1966, Im just not sure how minimal any moves were. And I did NOT say it should be moved to a wooded area to drive the temps down, I said IF it was moved temps would be 2-3F lower. Surrounding areas that are more populated than DTW have a lower temp, but obviously its a no brainer that more wooded is colder, more urban is warmer. The downsloping at YIP always makes them warmer, but much more populated Dearborn is always colder. So ill leave it at this. For speculated but unknown reasons, temp patterns at DTW have shown a warming trend compared to surrounding areas, regardless of airmass, not seen in decades past. The. End.

Where is the sensor located in Dearborn? 

[Chicago Storm]

88 at ORD and 89 at MDW on Thursday.

Slightly too much cloud cover one of the limiting factors from adding another 90+ day.

[Stebo]

35 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Where is the sensor located in Dearborn?

There is no official observing site in Dearborn, at least not one that is associated with an airport as there isn't an airport in Dearborn. Also Dearborn would be colder than DTW for a couple of reasons, one it is closer to the water not only the Detroit River but also Lake St Clair compared to DTW's ASOS location to Lake Erie. Two it is more forested than the airport and has the River Rouge running through it with a bit of a valley, not much but it is enough to show up in elevation on topographic maps. Valleys as we know tend to be cooler especially at night in the winter, see Ann Arbor or Aurora IL for example.

[Hoosier]

2 minutes ago, Stebo said:

There is no official observing site in Dearborn, at least not one that is associated with an airport as there isn't an airport in Dearborn. Also Dearborn would be colder than DTW for a couple of reasons, one it is closer to the water not only the Detroit River but also Lake St Clair compared to DTW's ASOS location to Lake Erie. Two it is more forested than the airport and has the River Rouge running through it with a bit of a valley, not much but it is enough to show up in elevation on topographic maps. Valleys as we know tend to be cooler especially at night in the winter, see Ann Arbor or Aurora IL for example.

Thanks

All this shows is that there are many factors that go into temperatures...higher populated areas will tend to run warmer when all else is equal, but the problem is that all else isn't equal. 

[Stebo]

7 minutes ago, Hoosier said:

Thanks

All this shows is that there are many factors that go into temperatures...higher populated areas will tend to run warmer when all else is equal, but the problem is that all else isn't equal. 

Yeah, actually a not too often used site is VLL, which is Birmingham-Troy airport, it is in a densely populated area in Central Oakland County and it actually runs pretty close to DTW most days. For today for example, DTW 89/63, VLL 88/63. We have to look at what areas are similar, you just can't compare to DET for a multitude of reasons. It wouldn't make sense with YIP so close anyways. Maybe all these years we thought it was hot, when in reality it is closer to the truth and backed up by DTW's numbers albeit DTW being a tick cooler.

[hawkeye_wx]

I picked up 0.59" from a decent line of storms tonight.  A station less than a half mile to my nw received 0.93" as a couple initial cells barely scraped by me.

My June total is up to 2.37".  There is one more chance of good storms next Wednesday/Thursday, but our June avg is nearly 5 inches so it'll be tough to reach that.

[smoof]

Pretty serious flooding going on around here, I dumped 4.1" out of my new rain gauge an hour ago since it only goes to 5". I just set it up today since the hrrr was calling this run after run all day (actually underestimated the totals massively). Some of the stronger returns missed me early on in this event, There are reports of over 6" from mount pleasant and areas east of there, I wouldn't doubt somebody is at 8" already, and the radar is lighting up like crazy AGAIN in that area. Somebody might make a serious run at 10".

[smoof]

5.1" total here now, half the yard underwater and water flowing over the road and driveway (it does that every 5-10yrs with a real good soaker or rapid spring melt off situation).

[Trent]

It's insane the amount of rain central Michigan has received the past week. MBS airport in Saginaw has already recorded over 9.2" of rain this Month (smashes the old record of 6.92"). I'm sure some areas are probably near a foot of rain.

1 hour ago, smoof said:

5.1" total here now, half the yard underwater and water flowing over the road and driveway (it does that every 5-10yrs with a real good soaker or rapid spring melt off situation).

 

[Harry Perry]

Impressive the contrast of precipitation over the area. My location recorded 0.00" for precip. in the last 48 hours while areas 10-15 minutes away recorded well over an inch to as much as 9" in central Michigan. 

 

Will definitely be going to Menards to get that sprinkler today. 

[Stebo]

8 hours ago, smoof said:

Pretty serious flooding going on around here, I dumped 4.1" out of my new rain gauge an hour ago since it only goes to 5". I just set it up today since the hrrr was calling this run after run all day (actually underestimated the totals massively). Some of the stronger returns missed me early on in this event, There are reports of over 6" from mount pleasant and areas east of there, I wouldn't doubt somebody is at 8" already, and the radar is lighting up like crazy AGAIN in that area. Somebody might make a serious run at 10".

Incredible stuff, having lived there for 5 years, a lot of these places I know it takes an insane amount of water to flood them. Here is a story from 9/10 news about the flooding situation: http://www.9and10news.com/story/35732726/heavy-rain-causes-flooding-in-mount-pleasant

[Chinook]

On an interesting side note, the PW values in northern Ohio this morning are about the highest you ever get in that part of the country. Model soundings showed 2.14" of precipitable water at Toledo at 12z.

[Stebo]

Here is a huge picture collection of the flooding in Mount Pleasant: http://media.themorningsun.com/2017/06/23/mid-michigan-flood/

The Chippawa River is expected to crest a foot below the Sept 1986 record, and for anyone who was around back then, they know that was one of the worst flooding events to ever hit this state.

[cyclone77]

0.42" from the line of storms early this morning.  1.98" for June.  The grass that was fried a short while back has come back quite a bit.