BucksCO_PA Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 3 hours ago, bluewave said: Central Park is wrong since the old sensor used to be out in the open instead of under the trees before the 1990s. Deep shade with leaf transpiration can shave at least 2-3° off the high temperature on sunny days. That’s why the highs used to be much warmer at Central Park before the overgrowth in the 1990s. A sensor on the Great Lawn in Central Park would be at least 2-3° warmer than under trees. https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KNYC Recent temp analysis over the past year does not support this narrative. In actuality the daytime high temps at Central Park when compared to surrounding stations are solidly within the ASOS target in terms of mean error & SD. Over the past 28 days the average day time temp error at Central Park is only 0.3 degrees too cool. The issue, if there really is one, would be the night time average error running solidly cool however that's not far fetched considering the comparison to many highly urbanized sensors vs. the heavily wooded park array. 52 week day time trends are consistent You posted a 9yr old pic of the Central Park ASOS from 2013 showing the surrounding vegetation, it should be noted that despite that growth they had no problems recording triple digits during 2010-2012 including a 104 & 103 day. Very comparable to the triple digit readings at PHL & LGA during that time. Now when you cross the Hudson you really encounter a site that currently has significant day time temp issues on the warm side. I would think the warm bias at Newark is so obvious even Stevie Wonder could see it but apparently that's not the case..... The same data & charts for Newark, in this case the day time temps over the past 14 are well outside the ASOS target. Significant warm average day time temp error. The is how you turn 92 into 96 degrees LOL. Over the past 28 days the day time error is a ridiculous 2.7 degrees too warm which is so bad you have the unacceptable error range note. Finally the 52 week trend, something sure changed during the winter however the sensor has reverted back to it's customary nuking of day time temps. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Morning thoughts… Today will mostly sunny and warmer. High temperatures will reach the lower and middle 80s in most of the region. Likely high temperatures around the region include: New York City (Central Park): 83° Newark: 89° Philadelphia: 88° Tomorrow and Friday will be very warm days. Normals: New York City: 30-Year: 83.4°; 15-Year: 83.6° Newark: 30-Year: 85.7°; 15-Year: 86.0° Philadelphia: 30-Year: 86.8°; 15-Year: 87.2° Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 6 hours ago, BucksCO_PA said: Recent temp analysis over the past year does not support this narrative. In actuality the daytime high temps at Central Park when compared to surrounding stations are solidly within the ASOS target in terms of mean error & SD. The error solidly emerged back in the 1990s when the ASOS was installed under the trees. Temperature analysis over the last year is irrelevant since the issue has been ongoing. So we have to use an analysis going back to the 1951-1980 climate period when the sensor was out in the open and not in the deep shade. The Central Park equipment was out in the sun and away from the deep shade during the 1951-1980 climate era. So we can compare how the high temperatures during the summer have changed between EWR, NYC, and LGA since then. The tree growth over the equipment has trimmed 2° off the NYC summer high temperatures relative to EWR and LGA. This has resulted in many lost recent heat records for NYC as the record warmth dramatically increased since 2010. Central Park should be averaging 10 more annual 90° days instead of just 1 if it was out in a grassy clearing away from the deep shade and cooling foliage. 2010-2021 summer high temperature warming over 1951-1980 NYC 1951-1980……83.0……2010-2021….83.5…..+0.5….should be closer to 85.5 or +2.5 away from the shade EWR…83.4…..85.7…+2.3 LGA….82.0…..84.6...+2.6 90° days change NYC….18……19……+1…should be +10 and 28 days a year of 90° EWR….23....33…….+10 LGA…..15…..26…….+11 The NYC Central Park minimum JJA average temperature rise between 1951-1980 and 2010-2021 actually matches the other stations. So this is how we can see that the dense foliage is blocking the sun during the daytime. I included all our major weather stations in the analysis below. It’s interesting that the stations on the Long Island Sound saw the greatest minimum temperature increase. So LGA and BDR are our only stations with a 3° low temperature increase. 1951-1980 to 2010-2021 JJA average temperature increase NYC….max….+0.5….min +2.3 EWR….max…+2.3…..min…+2.3…identical to NYC Central Park LGA…..max….+2.6….min….+3.2 JFK……max....+2.2…min….+2.4 ISP…….max…..+2.7….min….+2.7……records start in 1964 BDR…..max…..+2.1…..min……+3.1…similar to LGA We can clearly identify the mid 1990s into the early 2000s as the period when the trees began to cover the Central Park equipment. From the 1950s through the early 1990s, NYC would record 90 degree days in reasonable agreement with either EWR or LGA. Then NYC fell far behind during the 2000s when tree growth caused the high temperature readings to become unreliable. Sample years for 90 days since 1955 1955 EWR…32 NYC….25 LGA…..29 1966 EWR….33 NYC….35 LGA….25 1977 EWR….26 NYC….23 LGA…..14 1980 EWR…27 NYC…32 LGA….22 1983 EWR…40 NYC…36 LGA….31 1988 EWR….43 NYC….32 LGA…..26 1991 EWR…41 NYC…39 LGA….34 1999 EWR….33 NYC….27 LGA….26 2005 EWR….37 NYC….23 LGA…..30 2006 EWR…..27 NYC…..8 LGA……22 2010 NYC…54 NYC….37 LGA….48 2016 EWR….40 NYC…..22 LGA…..32 2020 EWR….31 NYC….20 LGA…..34 2021 EWR….41 NYC…..17 LGA…..25 Yes. The most among the major sites like NYC, EWR, and LGA. Central Park would regularly tie or lead for the most 90° days from the 1930s to 1980. But the tree growth over the equipment has prevented it from happening since 1980. If the station was properly maintained, NYC could have lead the area or tied for the most 90° days several years since then. Years when Central Park lead or tied for most 90° days 1936 NYC….26 EWR….22 1937 NYC…22 EWR…22 1939 NYC…24 EWR…24 1941 NYC…29 EWR…27 1953 NYC….32 EWR….32 1962 NYC….18 EWR….14 1966 NYC…35 EWR….33 1967 NYC…..9 EWR….7 1969 NYC….16 EWR…15 1970 NYC…29 EWR….29 1976 NYC…15 EWR..15 1980 NYC…32 EWR…27 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 6 hours ago, BucksCO_PA said: https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KNYC Recent temp analysis over the past year does not support this narrative. In actuality the daytime high temps at Central Park when compared to surrounding stations are solidly within the ASOS target in terms of mean error & SD. Over the past 28 days the average day time temp error at Central Park is only 0.3 degrees too cool. The issue, if there really is one, would be the night time average error running solidly cool however that's not far fetched considering the comparison to many highly urbanized sensors vs. the heavily wooded park array. 52 week day time trends are consistent You posted a 9yr old pic of the Central Park ASOS from 2013 showing the surrounding vegetation, it should be noted that despite that growth they had no problems recording triple digits during 2010-2012 including a 104 & 103 day. Very comparable to the triple digit readings at PHL & LGA during that time. Now when you cross the Hudson you really encounter a site that currently has significant day time temp issues on the warm side. I would think the warm bias at Newark is so obvious even Stevie Wonder could see it but apparently that's not the case..... The same data & charts for Newark, in this case the day time temps over the past 14 are well outside the ASOS target. Significant warm average day time temp error. The is how you turn 92 into 96 degrees LOL. Over the past 28 days the day time error is a ridiculous 2.7 degrees too warm which is so bad you have the unacceptable error range note. Finally the 52 week trend, something sure changed during the winter however the sensor has reverted back to it's customary nuking of day time temps. There is an important difference between what the charts are measuring and the point @Bluewave et al., have been making. The charts measure daytime and nighttime temperatures, not high and low temperatures. There could be a 2-degree error during a one-to-two hour period with all the other hours having small errors. The daytime error would then be small. The issue raised concerns high temperatures (mainly during late spring to early fall). At present, Central Park’s hourly temperatures diverge from local and Micronet temperatures around 18z until near 20z (one can see it on the most recent daily chart shown on the Gladstone website). That time shifts a little as the season progresses hinting at shadowing during a small part of the day. However, that’s typically when some of the day’s highest readings occur. Thus, the issue noted in discussions here and by local meteorologists. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 7 hours ago, SnowGoose69 said: Yeah I forget when they moved it. My guess is probably 1996. I was also told once snow measurements prior to the 93-94 winter are questionable (yeah we know they are questionable after too lol) but the reason told to me was they used to measure somewhere downstairs from the NWS office up til 92-93 and the measurements were likely too low most times I think we can all agree Central Park, Newark and LGA have issues...The NWS was at Rockerfeller Plaza...Did they measure there?...in the 1890's snow was measured in lower Manhattan...some of those totals were higher than Central Park especially the 1892-93 and 1893-94 winters...more snow fell in 1892-93 than 1995-96...some big descrepancies with snow totals from lower Manhattan and Central Park... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CIK62 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 The last 2 days of June are averaging 79degs.(69/89) or +4. Month to date is 71.0[-0.8]. June should end at 71.6[-0.4]. Reached 83 here yesterday. Today: 80-85, wind n. to w. to s. and breezy, some clouds, 69 tomorrow AM. NBM for Thurs, Fri, Sat is: 88,90,85, with 0.4" rain Sat. PM into Sunday. The first 10 days of July (GFS) are averaging 80(70/90) or +4. 68*(77%RH) here at 7am. 71* at 10am. 75* at Noon. 76* at 1pm. down to 74* about 2pm. 75* at 3pm. 78* at 6pm. Reached 80 at 7pm. 72* at 10pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 9 minutes ago, uncle W said: I think we can all agree Central Park, Newark and LGA have issues...The NWS was at Rockerfeller Plaza...Did they measure there?...in the 1890's snow was measured in lower Manhattan...some of those totals were higher than Central Park especially the 1892-93 and 1893-94 winters...more snow fell in 1892-93 than 1995-96...some big descrepancies with snow totals from lower Manhattan and Central Park... While the snowfall since 2003 has been very impressive, the old method of measurement undercounted snowfall totals. So we need to adjust the earlier snowfall era measurements higher to match the current methodology. The 1888 blizzard total was based on the liquid equivalent and not an actual snow depth measurement. https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm. You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day. That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements. As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms! Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow. This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated. So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples. Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch). But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears. https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/US-Snowfall-1900-2019-Decade-Decade-Look As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm. At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947. Another example: The great Blizzard of March 1888 brought Central Park 2.10” of melted precipitation, resulting in the official 21.0” snowfall reported. Since temperatures during the height of the blizzard were in the low teens, it is likely that the ratio was much greater than 10 to 1, and thus the actual snowfall considerably more than the 21.0” officially reported. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 2 minutes ago, bluewave said: While the snowfall since 2003 has been very impressive, the old method of measurement undercounted snowfall totals. So we need to adjust the earlier snowfall era measurements higher to match the current methodology. The 1888 blizzard total was based on the liquid equivalent and not an actual snow depth measurement. https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm. You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day. That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements. As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms! Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow. This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated. So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples. Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch). But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears. https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/US-Snowfall-1900-2019-Decade-Decade-Look As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm. At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947. Another example: The great Blizzard of March 1888 brought Central Park 2.10” of melted precipitation, resulting in the official 21.0” snowfall reported. Since temperatures during the height of the blizzard were in the low teens, it is likely that the ratio was much greater than 10 to 1, and thus the actual snowfall considerably more than the 21.0” officially reported. all the big storms from my youth were measured when the snow ended...the 26" in 1947 must have been over 30" if measured today...the Feb 1978 storm was 17.7" falling on a trace of leftover snowcover...the total snow depth after the storm was 18"...Jan 12-13th 1964 had 12.5" measured...the snow depth after the storm was 13"...no snow on the ground when it started...many more examples of this in the 60's and 70's... 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Newark NJ's 18" storm on Feb 11, 1994 is wrong...no other sight had over 13"...the snow depth was 18" after the storm ended...there was 8 or 9 inches on the ground when it started...The real total should be 9 or 10 inches... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 On 6/29/2022 at 12:08 AM, BucksCO_PA said: The same data & charts for Newark, in this case the day time temps over the past 14 are well outside the ASOS target. Significant warm average day time temp error. The is how you turn 92 into 96 degrees LOL. Those charts that you posted don’t go into any detail on how or what an ASOS target is. The record heat at the end of May matched the NYC micronet readings. You realize that the other ASOS stations around NYC like LGA and JFK have been subject to cooler sea breezes. Interior Brooklyn and Queens stations have had highs in line with Newark when the wind flow made comparisons valid. The only station in the region with consistent quality control issues is NYC. May 31st warmest day of year highs were in line with the 98° at Newark when the limited ASOS network missed the warm spots around NYC metro. The charts you posted lacked the data from a much wider network. Your sample size was too limited to be a valid comparison of our local temperature distribution. So the Newark temperatures have been an accurate measurement from one of the warmest parts of the area. https://www2.nysmesonet.org/networks/nyc 13th St./16th / Alphabet City 99 67 85 99 67 78 27 0.00 16 9:05pm 7 11:20am 26.9 160 Ave. / Howard Beach 96 68 81 96 68 88 32 0.00 28th St. / Chelsea 96 70 85 96 70 73 29 0.00 25 11:45am 10 11:45am 25.0 Astoria 97 64 84 97 64 82 30 0.00 18 10:15pm 9 10:15am 26.0 Bensonhurst / Mapleton 97 71 84 97 71 81 31 0.00 25.0 Bronx Mesonet 94 63 82 94 63 79 32 0.00 24 11:50pm 15 11:25pm 29.2 Brooklyn Mesonet 93 67 82 93 67 82 32 0.00 26 10:45am 16 10:40am 27.1 Brownsville 100 69 84 100 69 77 27 0.00 Corona 99 66 84 99 66 80 28 0.00 E 40th St. / Murray Hill 96* 70* 85* 96* 70* 70* 30* 0.00 Fresh Kills 97 69 85 97 69 82 29 0.00 22 10:05am 12 9:50am 0.0 Glendale / Maspeth 96 65 83 96 65 81 30 0.00 Gold Street / Navy Yard 96 66 84 96 66 78 30 0.00 23 10:30am 13 10:50am 26.6 Lefferts / South Ozone Park 98 68 83 98 68 80 29 0.00 Manhattan Mesonet Elevation 311 ft rooftop 93 65 82 93 65 79 31 0.00 27 1:45am 17 10:10am 27.6 Newtown / Long Island City 96 65 84 96 65 80 28 0.00 25 11:25am 14 9:55pm 25.3 Queens Mesonet 93 64 81 93 64 87 32 0.00 26 10:25am 15 10:45am 26.1 Queensbridge / Dutch Kills 98 66 85 98 66 75 28 0.00 23.7 Staten Island Mesonet 95 69 84 95 69 80 30 0.00 29 10:10am 17 10:20am 28.4 TLC Center 94 65 83 94 65 78 30 0.00 24 10:20pm 10 10:05pm 28.0 Tremont / Van Nest 99 63 85 99 63 81 28 0.00 18 10:15pm 8 12:45am 27.0 Data for May 31, 2022 through May 31, 2022Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. State Name Station Type Highest Max Temperature NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 98 NJ CALDWELL ESSEX COUNTY AP WBAN 95 CT NEW HAVEN TWEED AP WBAN 95 NY JFK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WBAN 94 CT MERIDEN MARKHAM MUNICIPAL AP WBAN 94 NY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT WBAN 93 NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 93 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Down to 55 overnight and back up to 72. On the way for a nice stretch of summer weather and the seasons first hat trick (heatwave) for many as height rise and ridge builds over the east coast 6/29 - 7/2). Another gorgeous day dry , sunny and warm and while most places will be capped below 90, in the upper 80s, there is an outside chance of a 90 in the warm spots to start the mini heatwave. By tomorrow Thu (6/30)many spots will reach 90, maybe even the park. Heat peaks on Friday (7/1) with 850 temps pushing near 20C (>18c) and mostly sunny skies. Could challenge some records (see above). Lots of mid / upper 90s. Saturday starts hot and pending on storms should reach low 90s, if front is delayed more mid 90s. Storms come through satruday (7/2) ( night (could be a nice soking for the vegetables/tomatoes) and into Sunday (7/3). Looks like we could clear out by the late afternoon (3PM). The fourth of July ridge rebuilds with a push near 90, great day on tap. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, uncle W said: Newark NJ's 18" storm on Feb 11, 1994 is wrong...no other sight had over 13"...the snow depth was 18" after the storm ended...there was 8 or 9 inches on the ground when it started...The real total should be 9 or 10 inches... Yeah that total always baffled me. I have no idea how they managed to come up with that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormlover74 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 9 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said: Yeah that total always baffled me. I have no idea how they managed to come up with that one Clearly someone measured and forgot snow was already on the ground from the prior storm Tuesday . With some melting and compaction it was probably still a foot or so and there was some sleet and freezing drizzle in between 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 2 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said: Clearly someone measured and forgot snow was already on the ground from the prior storm Tuesday . With some melting and compaction it was probably still a foot or so and there was some sleet and freezing drizzle in between Yeah there was basically sleet/freezing rain from late evening on the 8th into very early AM on the 9th then it was sunny that day and the 10th. I believe EWR never flipped to sleet on the 11th while most of the south shore of Queens/Bklyn/LI did by 12-1pm that day...even so LGA and NYC I think only recorded like 10-12 inches and there was no notable banding with that storm so EWR seeing that much more is certainly a mistake of some kind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Newark NJ Feb 1994...no hourly precip for some reason...the 2.06" precip total on the 11th is suspect too... IPS-83214A3A-D583-4075-9331-CE59C7FFBAAC.pdf (noaa.gov) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriPol Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Quiet storm season so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 37 minutes ago, uncle W said: Newark NJ Feb 1994...no hourly precip for some reason...the 2.06" precip total on the 11th is suspect too... IPS-83214A3A-D583-4075-9331-CE59C7FFBAAC.pdf (noaa.gov) The 1983 precipitation totals still haven’t been corrected for NYC. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/nyregion/city-s-rain-83-record-is-in-doubt.html The heavy rains that pounded New York City during 1983 may not have broken the annual rainfall record here, after all, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The only thing broken for certain, it said, was the official rain gauge in Central Park. To no one's surprise, the Weather Service announced on Nov. 15 that the year's drenching rains in Manhattan had surpassed a record of 67.04 inches, set in 1972. As of early yesterday, additional rains were said to have brought the year's total to 80.56 inches. But the Weather Service's data acquisition division in Garden City, L.I., suspected something was amiss because the Central Park readings were much higher than official measurements at Kennedy International, Newark International and La Guardia Airports. So the gauge at Belvedere Castle in the park was taken apart. It was found to be leaky. A faulty weld apparently was allowing water to seep in the side and be measured with rain entering the calibrated opening. No one knows how much rain fell in the park in 1983. But the Weather Service said that an official estimate based on nearby readings would be made and that ''it likely will be close to the record, either just above or just below.'' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormlover74 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 28 minutes ago, TriPol said: Quiet storm season so far. Like ridiculously so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 15 minutes ago, bluewave said: The 1983 precipitation totals still haven’t been corrected for NYC. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/nyregion/city-s-rain-83-record-is-in-doubt.html The heavy rains that pounded New York City during 1983 may not have broken the annual rainfall record here, after all, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The only thing broken for certain, it said, was the official rain gauge in Central Park. To no one's surprise, the Weather Service announced on Nov. 15 that the year's drenching rains in Manhattan had surpassed a record of 67.04 inches, set in 1972. As of early yesterday, additional rains were said to have brought the year's total to 80.56 inches. But the Weather Service's data acquisition division in Garden City, L.I., suspected something was amiss because the Central Park readings were much higher than official measurements at Kennedy International, Newark International and La Guardia Airports. So the gauge at Belvedere Castle in the park was taken apart. It was found to be leaky. A faulty weld apparently was allowing water to seep in the side and be measured with rain entering the calibrated opening. No one knows how much rain fell in the park in 1983. But the Weather Service said that an official estimate based on nearby readings would be made and that ''it likely will be close to the record, either just above or just below.'' they took the record away and erased all the 1983 rainfall totals...years later they reinstated the data... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STORMANLI Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 4 hours ago, uncle W said: Newark NJ's 18" storm on Feb 11, 1994 is wrong...no other sight had over 13"...the snow depth was 18" after the storm ended...there was 8 or 9 inches on the ground when it started...The real total should be 9 or 10 inches... Was this the storm that it was suggested that the SWE was reverse-engineered - to use a term- to get the 18" total? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACRUS Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 Noonish roundup EWR: 84 NYC: 82 ACY: 82 PHL: 82 New Brnswck: 82 BLM: 81 TEB: 81 JFK: 80 TTN: 80 ISP: 79 LGA: 79 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongBeachSurfFreak Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Stormlover74 said: Like ridiculously so Starting to get pretty dry on the uws, we missed out on the good rains the other day only recording .30” at the meso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 3 hours ago, bluewave said: The 1983 precipitation totals still haven’t been corrected for NYC. https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/nyregion/city-s-rain-83-record-is-in-doubt.html The heavy rains that pounded New York City during 1983 may not have broken the annual rainfall record here, after all, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The only thing broken for certain, it said, was the official rain gauge in Central Park. To no one's surprise, the Weather Service announced on Nov. 15 that the year's drenching rains in Manhattan had surpassed a record of 67.04 inches, set in 1972. As of early yesterday, additional rains were said to have brought the year's total to 80.56 inches. But the Weather Service's data acquisition division in Garden City, L.I., suspected something was amiss because the Central Park readings were much higher than official measurements at Kennedy International, Newark International and La Guardia Airports. So the gauge at Belvedere Castle in the park was taken apart. It was found to be leaky. A faulty weld apparently was allowing water to seep in the side and be measured with rain entering the calibrated opening. No one knows how much rain fell in the park in 1983. But the Weather Service said that an official estimate based on nearby readings would be made and that ''it likely will be close to the record, either just above or just below.'' Upon a review, the 1983 record was upheld. I emailed NCEI about the record back in 2018 and then posted the response here: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said: Upon a review, the 1983 record was upheld. I emailed NCEI about the record back in 2018 and then posted the response here: Still seems like a pretty big outlier given the other amounts in the 5 boroughs. Data for January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. State Name Station Type Total Precipitation NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 80.56 NY WESTCHESTER CO AP WBAN 74.15 CT STEVENSON DAM COOP 73.78 CT ROUND POND COOP 73.66 NY DOBBS FERRY-ARDSLEY COOP 73.30 NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 72.70 CT STAMFORD 5 N COOP 72.08 CT MOUNT CARMEL COOP 71.64 CT DANBURY COOP 71.49 NJ CANOE BROOK COOP 71.37 NJ LITTLE FALLS COOP 70.60 NJ GREENWOOD LAKE COOP 69.58 NJ RINGWOOD COOP 69.57 NY NEW YORK LAUREL HILL COOP 69.50 NY WEST POINT COOP 69.49 CT SAUGATUCK RESERVOIR COOP 69.41 CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 69.20 NY PLEASANTVILLE COOP 68.99 NJ CRANFORD COOP 68.91 NJ MIDLAND PARK COOP 68.90 NJ MAHWAH COOP 68.62 CT NORWICH PUBLIC UTILITY PLANT COOP 68.36 NJ ESSEX FELLS SERVICE BLDG COOP 68.03 CT COCKAPONSET RANGER STA COOP 67.62 NJ WOODCLIFF LAKE COOP 67.02 NJ WANAQUE RAYMOND DAM COOP 66.77 NY WESTBURY COOP 66.37 CT NORWALK GAS PLANT COOP 66.31 NY PATCHOGUE 2 N COOP 66.18 NY NY WESTERLEIGH STAT IS COOP 66.06 NJ LODI COOP 66.05 NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 65.50 NY NEW YORK AVE V BROOKLYN COOP 65.00 NY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT WBAN 60.84 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkyfork Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 ewr snuck in a 90 today 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted June 29, 2022 Author Share Posted June 29, 2022 Japan had some of the most extreme June heat this year in the Northern Hemisphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rtd208 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 High for the day was 88 here. Current temp 84/DP 62/RH 47% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doncat Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 7 hours ago, uncle W said: they took the record away and erased all the 1983 rainfall totals...years later they reinstated the data... Same discussions every year lol...CPK too cool, EWR too warm and what to do about 1983. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle W Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 87/64 today...79 now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted June 29, 2022 Share Posted June 29, 2022 5 hours ago, bluewave said: Still seems like a pretty big outlier given the other amounts in the 5 boroughs. Data for January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending. State Name Station Type Total Precipitation NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 80.56 NY WESTCHESTER CO AP WBAN 74.15 CT STEVENSON DAM COOP 73.78 CT ROUND POND COOP 73.66 NY DOBBS FERRY-ARDSLEY COOP 73.30 NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 72.70 CT STAMFORD 5 N COOP 72.08 CT MOUNT CARMEL COOP 71.64 CT DANBURY COOP 71.49 NJ CANOE BROOK COOP 71.37 NJ LITTLE FALLS COOP 70.60 NJ GREENWOOD LAKE COOP 69.58 NJ RINGWOOD COOP 69.57 NY NEW YORK LAUREL HILL COOP 69.50 NY WEST POINT COOP 69.49 CT SAUGATUCK RESERVOIR COOP 69.41 CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 69.20 NY PLEASANTVILLE COOP 68.99 NJ CRANFORD COOP 68.91 NJ MIDLAND PARK COOP 68.90 NJ MAHWAH COOP 68.62 CT NORWICH PUBLIC UTILITY PLANT COOP 68.36 NJ ESSEX FELLS SERVICE BLDG COOP 68.03 CT COCKAPONSET RANGER STA COOP 67.62 NJ WOODCLIFF LAKE COOP 67.02 NJ WANAQUE RAYMOND DAM COOP 66.77 NY WESTBURY COOP 66.37 CT NORWALK GAS PLANT COOP 66.31 NY PATCHOGUE 2 N COOP 66.18 NY NY WESTERLEIGH STAT IS COOP 66.06 NJ LODI COOP 66.05 NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 65.50 NY NEW YORK AVE V BROOKLYN COOP 65.00 NY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT WBAN 60.84 I agree. But that was the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now