February 2025

[Brian5671]

40 minutes ago, bluewave said:

I think the issue is that you keep putting up so much resistance to discussing the objective measures of ranking and describing the temperatures this winter. You would think on a weather forum that there would be more interest than just the subjective description of the weather and climate. In a pure subjective sense even our warmest winters felt cold since we frequently needed a winter coat. Same goes for some of coolest summers which many people still wore a bathing suit and went swimming. But we go beyond those generalities and are more precise on a weather forum. So it’s fine to point out that the only reason this winter will finish below average was due to the goal posts being shifted every 10 years making the bar for a cold winter lower than it used to be. 

One thing is for sure-I looked at many LR forecasts (yeah it's a crapshoot) but I didn't see one forecast that showed what we got temperature wise-most were warm

[EastonSN+]

57 minutes ago, bluewave said:

I think the issue is that you keep putting up so much resistance to discussing the objective measures of ranking and describing the temperatures this winter. You would think on a weather forum that there would be more interest than just the subjective description of the weather and climate. In a pure subjective sense even our warmest winters felt cold since we frequently needed a winter coat. Same goes for some of coolest summers which many people still wore a bathing suit and went swimming. But we go beyond those generalities and are more precise on a weather forum. So it’s fine to point out that the only reason this winter will finish below average was due to the goal posts being shifted every 10 years making the bar for a cold winter lower than it used to be. 

Like I posted before I have no issue having a separate thread to discuss historical averages and comparisons. Is there a specific objection to this?

[bluewave]

11 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Like I posted before I have no issue having a separate thread to discuss historical averages and comparisons. Is there a specific objection to this?

We don’t need anymore threads than we have. The general monthly thread contains all the discussions about temperatures, patterns, and general precipitation amounts. Then the storm threads for individual storm information like what each model is showing for a given storm system. You can’t discuss temperatures or precipitation without putting into historical context. It’s almost as if you are trying to sweep things under the rug because you don’t like the outcome. 

[EastonSN+]

3 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We don’t need anymore threads than we have. The general monthly thread contains all the discussions about temperatures, patterns,  and general precipitation amounts. Then the storm threads for individual storm information like what each model is showing for a given storm system. You can’t discuss temperatures or precipitation without putting into historical context. 

I tend to disagree. What is the point in putting in a historical context outside of an average? What benefit is gained by stating that a current average departure would not be a negative departure 20/50 years ago when posting in a monthly sub forum? 

[LibertyBell]

5 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

I tend to disagree. What is the point in putting in a historical context outside of an average? What benefit is gained by stating that a current average departure would not be a negative departure 20/50 years ago when posting in a monthly sub forum? 

The 30 year average is very subjective, there is no climate cycle that corresponds to it, there is no scientific reason for having a 30 year average it's really just a matter of convenience rather than anything scientific.

For my purposes, I would much rather use an average that begins in 1950 which is when most of our airports came into operation, or 1960 at the latest.  That way all stations are on an even footing since they were all in operation by 1960 at the latest. No 30 year averages or 10 year averages or what have you, just use all the data we have available starting in 1950 or 1960.

 

it's time to dump the 30 year averages.

[bluewave]

22 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

I tend to disagree. What is the point in putting in a historical context outside of an average? What benefit is gained by stating that a current average departure would not be a negative departure 20/50 years ago when posting in a monthly sub forum? 

For the simple reason that moving 30 year temperature averages were never designed to be used in rapidly warming climate. It would be more correct to set our temperature departures to the 1951-1980 climate normals like NASA and other agencies do for global temperatures. Since the constantly updating baseline  every 10 years lowers the bar for what is considered cold.

Don’t you want it to be considered cold by what the actual temperature is rather than an artificially lower standard? Imagine if Major League Baseball wanted more home runs so they decided to move the fences in much closer to home plate. So it was easier to hit more home runs. This is what you are doing by making it easier to get a cold departure.

When we had an actual cold winter month like February 2015 it was cold by any 30 year average in the last 100 years. So it wasn’t an artificial cold month like we have been seeing in recent times.

Most people aren’t a fan of lowering standards to achieve a goal. 

[the_other_guy]

19 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We don’t need anymore threads than we have. The general monthly thread contains all the discussions about temperatures, patterns, and general precipitation amounts. Then the storm threads for individual storm information like what each model is showing for a given storm system. You can’t discuss temperatures or precipitation without putting into historical context. It’s almost as if you are trying to sweep things under the rug because you don’t like the outcome. 

Yeh, but not every conversation on monthly temperatures has to delve into AGW with guys like you choosing different historical averages to make a point.

We are on 91 averages for comparison, but that didnt suit you this morning when people were discussing a cold winter.

You even brought age into it. 

Ive been here for 40 years…this was a cold winter. That fact doesnt have to be debated in the historical context of the 1970s or 1950s or 1980s every time it is brought up. 

 

This would have been even colder in the 1980s, but this would still be a cold winter in 80s/90s/2000s etc. It is especially noticeable since the last several winters we so warm 

 

For reference, today it was 50 and it felt like summer. my kids and I were in the street with no jacket on…because 50 is so warm compared to the last 60 days.

 

People dont want to be told they are wrong or constantly be given context when they state something that is factually correct on a daily weather forum. That belongs in a climate thread with deeper discussion in my humble opinion

 

 

 

 

[Rjay]

8 minutes ago, the_other_guy said:

Yeh, but not every conversation on monthly temperatures has to delve into AGW with guys like you choosing different historical averages to make a point.

We are on 91 averages for comparison, but that didnt suit you this morning when people were discussing a cold winter.

You even brought age into it. 

Ive been here for 40 years…this was a cold winter. That fact doesnt have to be debated in the historical context of the 1970s or 1950s or 1980s every time it is brought up. 

 

This would have been even colder in the 1980s, but this would still be a cold winter in 80s/90s/2000s etc. It is especially noticeable since the last several winters we so warm 

 

For reference, today it was 50 and it felt like summer. my kids and I were in the street with no jacket on…because 50 is so warm compared to the last 60 days.

 

People dont want to be told they are wrong or constantly be given context when they state something that is factually correct on a daily weather forum. That belongs in a climate thread with deeper discussion in my humble opinion

 

 

 

 

It was cold bc it was an actual winter this year

[Brian5671]

6 minutes ago, Rjay said:

It was cold bc it was an actual winter this year

And the cold was persistent.  Very few breaks outside of the 4-5 days of late December.

[Rjay]

Let me put it this way.  This winter was cold but not historically so.  Historically, it was close to an average winter even if it was technically below our current 30 year normals which are increasingly warmer every time they update.  It was cold bc we actually had a real winter this year.  We will very likely never have a top ten cold winter again as long as any of us are alive.  It was nice to see we can still have actual winter temps sustained through most of winter.  I'm really not understanding the confusion or annoyance some seem to have by these facts. 

[Rjay]

5 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

And the cold was persistent.  Very few breaks outside of the 4-5 days of late December.

Yup

[Nibor]

 

Still got ice on the reservoir. 

[BxEngine]

2 minutes ago, Rjay said:

Let me put it this way.  This winter was cold but not historically so.  Historically, it was close to an average winter even if it was technically below our currently 30 year normals which are increasingly warmer every time they update.  It was cold bc we actually had a real winter this year.  We will very likely never have a top ten cold winter again as long as any of us are alive.  It was nice to see we can still have actual winter temps sustained through most of winter.  I'm really not understanding the confusion or annoyance some seem to have by these facts. 

Agreed, unless its some freak event thats probably killing tens of thousands of ppl somewhere on earth.

[EastonSN+]

22 minutes ago, bluewave said:

For the simple reason that moving 30 year temperature averages were never designed to be used in rapidly warming climate. It would be more correct to set our temperature departures to the 1951-1980 climate normals like NASA and other agencies do for global temperatures. Since the constantly updating baseline  every 10 years lowers the bar for what is considered cold.

Don’t you want it to be considered cold by what the actual temperature is rather than an artificially lower standard? Imagine if Major League Baseball wanted more home runs so they decided to move the fences in much closer to home plate. So it was easier to hit more home runs. This is what you are doing by making it easier to get a cold departure.

When we had an actual cold winter month like February 2015 it was cold by any 30 year average in the last 100 years. So it wasn’t an artificial cold month like we have been seeing in recent times.

Most people aren’t a fan of lowering standards to achieve a goal. 

It's not lowering standards if it is an average departure according to an accepted benchmark. Even taking global warming out of the picture the climate has been changing since the beginning of the Earth, and most understand that the one constant in life is change, it should not expect the 30-year average to equal the 10-year average to equal the 200 year average. We have to give the audience some credit. Elder posters lived through winters of the past and would not benefit from being reminded at this cold departure is not the same as their childhood. The only audience that may gain knowledge are very new posters who have not lived through the past but what is the point in telling that audience? Are they going to care if they feel cold today but the grandparents felt colder?

Also it's not an artificial cold month if people feel cold and it is a negative departure from a 30-year average regardless of how fast it's warming. 

Not sure what you mean about lowering standards to achieve a goal, could you elaborate please.

[LibertyBell]

4 minutes ago, Rjay said:

Let me put it this way.  This winter was cold but not historically so.  Historically, it was close to an average winter even if it was technically below our currently 30 year normals which are increasingly warmer every time they update.  It was cold bc we actually had a real winter this year.  We will very likely never have a top ten cold winter again as long as any of us are alive.  It was nice to see we can still have actual winter temps sustained through most of winter.  I'm really not understanding the confusion or annoyance some seem to have by these facts. 

Yep, there is such a thing as *degrees of cold* literally, not all cold is the same, just like not all snowstorms are the same.  This cold is like an 8 inch snowstorm, an emotionally satisfying significant amount of cold, but a KU kind of cold-- No!

 

[EastonSN+]

7 minutes ago, Rjay said:

Let me put it this way.  This winter was cold but not historically so.  Historically, it was close to an average winter even if it was technically below our currently 30 year normals which are increasingly warmer every time they update.  It was cold bc we actually had a real winter this year.  We will very likely never have a top ten cold winter again as long as any of us are alive.  It was nice to see we can still have actual winter temps sustained through most of winter.  I'm really not understanding the confusion or annoyance some seem to have by these facts. 

The issue is not the facts, it is we already know it's not as cold as it was in the past. So no knowledge is gained by saying it was colder 40 years ago. What is the point in continually saying it was colder in the past? 

I do find history fascinating though, I believe it was June of 1812 that it's snowed in Boston following a major eruption, I saw a program which said that it was so warm during one period in the Renaissance that they were growing grapes in northern England. All of these are great to learn. However just like the average winter temperature in the 1980s is history, so were the aforementioned events and time frames. 

I mean I am fine with dropping the subject as it's dragged on too long at this point, however, this opens the door to saying this winter would be a torch compared to 1812 or on par with 1256. Basically anybody providing a departure of average to compare it to any point in our past. To me that is information that is not helpful for a monthly weather forum and more akin to a historical monthly forum. 

[bluewave]

50 minutes ago, the_other_guy said:

Yeh, but not every conversation on monthly temperatures has to delve into AGW with guys like you choosing different historical averages to make a point.

We are on 91 averages for comparison, but that didnt suit you this morning when people were discussing a cold winter.

You even brought age into it. 

Ive been here for 40 years…this was a cold winter. That fact doesnt have to be debated in the historical context of the 1970s or 1950s or 1980s every time it is brought up. 

 

This would have been even colder in the 1980s, but this would still be a cold winter in 80s/90s/2000s etc. It is especially noticeable since the last several winters we so warm 

 

For reference, today it was 50 and it felt like summer. my kids and I were in the street with no jacket on…because 50 is so warm compared to the last 60 days.

 

People dont want to be told they are wrong or constantly be given context when they state something that is factually correct on a daily weather forum. That belongs in a climate thread with deeper discussion in my humble opinion

 

 

 

 

This was close to an average winter for temperatures based on the climate we had before 2010. So pointing this out isn’t factually incorrect. If you think this was a cold winter based on the 1950s to 1980s climate era then you probably didn’t have to wait out on the bus stop for school in that era during some of those epic winters for cold. 

The reason I brought up age is that I have seen what actual cold winters were like. And can understand how the younger generation could see this as being a cold winter. I have no problem with this back and forth. 

AGW is more a political term and I seldom discuss politics since it’s such a polarizing feature in the modern global society. So we can substitute a more neutral term like warming climate. Since thermometers have no political affiliations.

So by stating the obvious that we have had over 50 top 10 warmest months and only 1 top 10 coldest since 2010 is more about awareness. The key to awareness of any topic is accurately measuring it and then making comparisons to earlier measurements. So it’s all about perspectives and not politics. 

My motivation is all about empowering people with the data so they can make informed decisions in their own life. But perspectives are key in making these decisions. Plus we are living though historic times with regard to the climate and not pointing this out wouldn’t make sense. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[psv88]

49 today. Felt great. Walked the dogs, played basketball with the kids outside. Sprint is afoot 

[psv88]

2 hours ago, NorthShoreWx said:

It'll really feel like LI spring when the seabreeze kicks in.

 

Terrible. 

[Roger Smith]

It was June (5-6) 1816 when it snowed in New England after the April 1815 eruption of Tamboro volcano in (present day) Indonesia. Temperatures were 3 to 5 deg below normal even by averages back then, all around the northern hemisphere. The first few days of June 1945 were also exceptionally cold in eastern N America.  

 

[donsutherland1]

Mild weather will prevail through the remainder of the month. That will cut the once impress monthly cold anomaly in New York City, but February will still finish solidly below normal.

The warmth will crest during the Tuesday through Thursday period. High temperatures will top out in the lower and perhaps middle 50s during that time in New York City. Washington, DC will likely see highs reach the lower and middle 60s. Boston could reach or exceed 50° at least once. Afterward, high temperatures will cool somewhat to the middle and upper 40s to end February.

No meaningful threats for a moderate or larger snowfall in the New York City area are likely through the remainder of February.

There remain indications that a major pattern re-alignment could take place starting in the first week of March bringing an end to a persistently cold regime that has predominated through most of the winter. By mid-month, a sustained warmer than normal pattern could be in place. The pattern change will likely follow a brief but fairly sharp cold shot.

A powerful PNA ridge is currently in place. Historical experience suggests that the presence of such a ridge at this time of year has been followed by the absence of major snowfalls in the New York City area.

The PNA reached +1.500 on February 19th and currently stands at a preliminary value of +1.648. In all 12 years that saw the PNA reach +1.500 or above on February 15 or later since 1950, the remainder of winter saw no 10" or greater snowstorms. If historic experience holds true yet again, that would make the Winter 2024-2025 the fourth consecutive winter without a 10" or above snowstorm in New York City. The last time that happened was during Winter 2016-2017 through Winter 2019-2020. Most of the 12 winters cited above went on to see some additional measurable snowfall with a few seeing a 6"+ storm.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.9°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.3°C for the week centered around February 12. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged +0.03°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.65°C. La Niña conditions have peaked and are beginning to fade. La Niña conditions will likely persist into the start of spring.

The SOI was +4.42 today.

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) was +2.194 today.

Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied 95% probability that New York City will have a colder than normal February (1991-2020 normal). February will likely finish with a mean temperature near 34.2° (1.7° below normal).

 

[bluewave]

1 hour ago, Brian5671 said:

One thing is for sure-I looked at many LR forecasts (yeah it's a crapshoot) but I didn't see one forecast that showed what we got temperature wise-most were warm

I was discussing this potential last October in the La Niña thread so it wasn’t that much of a surprise to me. But also noted that there were differences to what happened in winters like this in the past. This turned to be the case with some of the lowest snowfall on record this winter with similar circumstances in the past. 

[EastonSN+]

9 minutes ago, bluewave said:

This was close to an average winter for temperatures based on the climate we had before 2010. So pointing this out isn’t factually incorrect. If you think this was a cold winter based on the 1950s to 1980s climate era then you probably didn’t have to wait out on the bus stop for school in that era during some of those epic winters for cold. 

The reason I brought up age is that I have seen what actual cold winters were like. And can understand how the younger generation could see this as being a cold winter. I have no problem with this back and forth. 

AGW is more a political term and I seldom discuss politics since it’s such a polarizing feature in the modern global society. So we can substitute a more neutral term like warming climate. Since thermometers have no political affiliations.

So by stating the obvious that we have had over 50 top 10 warmest months and only 1 top 10 coldest since 2010 is more about awareness. The key to awareness of any topic is accurately measuring it and then making comparisons to earlier measurements. So it’s all about perspectives and not politics. 

My motivation is all about empowering people with the data so they can make informed decisions in their own life. But perspectives are key in making these decisions. Plus we are living though historic times with regard to the climate and not point this out wouldn’t make sense. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See this is exactly what I was driving at:

"Plus we are living though historic times with regard to the climate and not point this out wouldn’t make sense."

Why is there a need to point this out to this audience on a monthly subform? What is this audience going to do with this added information, when the vast majority of this forum were alive past 10 years ago and have lived through it already?

A negative temperature departure is just that, regardless of what it would have been in the past. If in 10 years the average February temperature is 50 and we end up at 48 it is still a negative 2 temperature departure. I can't do anything with information stating that 10 years ago it would have been a positive departure. At this point it's a historical fact not current. That is all I'm trying to say.

[NorthShoreWx]

53 minutes ago, the_other_guy said:

Yeh, but not every conversation on monthly temperatures has to delve into AGW with guys like you choosing different historical averages to make a point.

We are on 91 averages for comparison, but that didnt suit you this morning when people were discussing a cold winter.

You even brought age into it. 

Ive been here for 40 years…this was a cold winter. That fact doesnt have to be debated in the historical context of the 1970s or 1950s or 1980s every time it is brought up. 

 

This would have been even colder in the 1980s, but this would still be a cold winter in 80s/90s/2000s etc. It is especially noticeable since the last several winters we so warm 

 

For reference, today it was 50 and it felt like summer. my kids and I were in the street with no jacket on…because 50 is so warm compared to the last 60 days.

 

People dont want to be told they are wrong or constantly be given context when they state something that is factually correct on a daily weather forum. That belongs in a climate thread with deeper discussion in my humble opinion

 

 

 

 

I lived it too.  It wasn't that cold.

People have different perceptions; that isn't going to change. 

I am not in agreement with banning speech in this thread (e.g., 'it wasnt cold compared to a couple of decades ago') to back up someone's perception.  The depth of emotion is surprising.

 

[EastonSN+]

6 minutes ago, Roger Smith said:

It was June (5-6) 1816 when it snowed in New England after the April 1815 eruption of Tamboro volcano in (present day) Indonesia. Temperatures were 3 to 5 deg below normal even by averages back then, all around the northern hemisphere. The first few days of June 1945 were also exceptionally cold in eastern N America.  

 

Thanks for this. I wonder if there are any active volcanoes around now which could create such an eruption as Tamboro.

[EastonSN+]

2 minutes ago, NorthShoreWx said:

I lived it too.  It wasn't that cold.

People have different perceptions; that isn't going to change. 

I am not in agreement with banning speech in this thread (e.g., 'it wasnt cold compared to a couple of decades ago') to back up someone's perception.  The depth of emotion is surprising.

 

If that is your feeling then fine however you have to have the same stance if somebody says on a warm day that this is not really warm because the summer of 1995 had an average temperature which was 2° warmer.

[bluewave]

14 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

See this is exactly what I was driving at:

"Plus we are living though historic times with regard to the climate and not point this out wouldn’t make sense."

Why is there a need to point this out to this audience on a monthly subform? What is this audience going to do with this added information, when the vast majority of this forum were alive past 10 years ago and have lived through it already?

A negative temperature departure is just that, regardless of what it would have been in the past. If in 10 years the average February temperature is 50 and we end up at 48 it is still a negative 2 temperature departure. I can't do anything with information stating that 10 years ago it would have been a positive departure. At this point it's a historical fact not current. That is all I'm trying to say.

Because I have a deep respect for this audience and they have wealth of knowledge that makes them able to fully understand the topic being discussed. You are making gross oversimplifications of what I have said that leads me to believe you have another motive. But this is something that you are going to have to deal with on your own. 

[LibertyBell]

34 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

If that is your feeling then fine however you have to have the same stance if somebody says on a warm day that this is not really warm because the summer of 1995 had an average temperature which was 2° warmer.

but people don't judge *days* by average temperature, they judge them by the temperature and heat index on that day.

 

[LibertyBell]

45 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

See this is exactly what I was driving at:

"Plus we are living though historic times with regard to the climate and not point this out wouldn’t make sense."

Why is there a need to point this out to this audience on a monthly subform? What is this audience going to do with this added information, when the vast majority of this forum were alive past 10 years ago and have lived through it already?

A negative temperature departure is just that, regardless of what it would have been in the past. If in 10 years the average February temperature is 50 and we end up at 48 it is still a negative 2 temperature departure. I can't do anything with information stating that 10 years ago it would have been a positive departure. At this point it's a historical fact not current. That is all I'm trying to say.

Are you seriously trying to say that an average temperature of 48 in 10 years feels the same as an average temperature of 32 right now?

Regardless of the incredible amount of disdain I have about *average temperatures*-- there is no more meaningless stat in all of meteorology.

 

[EastonSN+]

21 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Because I have a deep respect for this audience and they have wealth of knowledge that makes them able to fully understand the topic being discussed. You are making gross oversimplifications of what I have said that leads me to believe you have another motive. But this is something that you are going to have to deal with on your own. 

My motive is simple in that a negative departure is just that, a negative departure. Past 30-year averages are historic now they do not apply to the current time. Therefore should apply in a historical thread or a thread of another title, nothing more. 

How is what I said a gross over simplification, please elaborate.

Please be conscious of the fact that there is a portion of this audience that does not need to know in a monthly thread that was colder in past times, if you have respect for this ENTIRE audience like you're stating, then you would know that they do not need this added information to understand history.

It's time to drop this discussion as both of us have our stances and are not going to be persuaded by the other.