LibertyBell

8 minutes ago, SnoSki14 said:

Already mid 80s before 10:30. 

Someone's gonna hit 100F

I remember in July 1993 on a Saturday when JFK was at 88 at 8 am and 92 at 9 am (we hit 90 at around 8:30 am)....what a historic amazing day that was, our high was 102.

It was the first day I put in my a/c

I dont regard high min temps as "hot"- most of my most memorable heatwaves had high temps of 100 or above like  1991, 1993,  1995, 1999, 2010 and 2011.

1 hour ago, SnoSki14 said:

I highly doubt the strong WAR will give way so quickly. Euro OP looks like a fluke.

stronger war may mean more rainfall in the end

15 minutes ago, uncle W said:

the only thing that can save us it an easterly flow...

a westerly flow with low humidity is better

10 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

if ewr and lga don't hit 100 this ridge is a stupid waste

you're coming around to my point of view

also: 2020 was  a stupid waste

54 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

Western Atlantic Ridge pumping heights and heat / humidity. So far much more clear than Saturday and it looks to be off to the races and full steam ahead the next  days.  Mid - upper 90s (in the warmer spots).  850 temps >18c through Thu pm.  81/72 here.  Pop up showers (Florida style) the next few days could produce some scattered heavy rains between the high heat.   Most area should tack on 3 or 4 more 90 degree days.

GFS and ECM still not fully aligned on timing and extent / duration of the front but both bring the brunt of the storms into the area by Fri (7/2) and into Sat (7/3) as the Western Atlantic Ridge is pushed east and subsequent front and cold front come through.   Jul 4th could be mainly storm or rain free but still a bit unstable.  Some heavier rains and will all be dependent if the ridge is stubborn to move out and front gets hung up or if it can clear and stall in the south (GA/N-S C)

Longer range heights look to balloon again towards the middle of next week.  Looks to be warm to hot again with more 90s by Jul 8th.

 

will the heat post july 8th be as hot as the current bout?

2 hours ago, uncle W said:

7/22...

hottest weeks...

high low mean max ..

98.0 76.9 87.4 102 7/07-7/13 1993

98.4 76.3 87.4 104 7/15-7/21 1977

98.3 76.0 87.1 102 8/29-9/04 1953

95.1 78.9 87.0 .98. 8/05-8/11 1896

95.7 77.9 86.8 104 7/18-7/24 2011

94.6 79.0 86.8 .98. 7/14-7/20 2013

95.3 78.0 86.7 .99. 8/09-8/15 1988

96.6 75.1 85.9 102 8/11-8/17 1944

96.1 75.2 85.7 100 8/01-8/07 1955

95.3 75.9 85.6 103 8/04-8/10 2001

94.9 76.1 85.5 102 7/16-7/22 1980

97.3 73.6 85.4 102 7/17-7/23 1991

95.7 75.1 85.4 .98. 8/28-9/03 1973

94.1 76.7 85.4 .96. 7/12-7/18 1981

94.3 76.4 85.4 103 7/04-7/10 2010

95.4 75.1 85.3 100 7/17-7/23 1955

long live 1993!  wow 1977 was number 1- short hot summer but special in how intense the heat was.

special to see 1953 a close third despite how late in the season that happened and being the longest heatwave on record

do you have a similar list for JFK? I'd expect either 1966 or 2010 to be number 1 there

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The evolution of the synoptic features. It looks destined to slowly move east-northeastward through Canada while moderating over time.

sort of like arctic air masses that take long trajectories before they get here

and LOL at politicians being better "thinkers" than scientists, these "planners" of yours wouldn't know science if it smacked them in the face, all they know is how to bend over to take bribes from the fossil fuel cartels.  Your take is way out of date, most people know much better by now than to fall for these dark money pandering politicians that spread the kind of propaganda you wasted your time typing out.

and yes the generation which actually matters does want these changes, it's only you archaic boomers holding on to the past who dont.

thank goodness we've banned dangerous fracking in NY and NJ and eastern PA after a year long scientific study and we've also banned new pipelines, looks like the unintelligent conservative cult out west is digging their own graves

On 6/22/2021 at 8:28 PM, raindancewx said:

The proposals you see from a lot of the advocacy groups would more than offset any 3% GDP hits. If you taxed oil companies heavily enough, with something like a wealth tax or special income tax, they would pass on the cost to consumers. My personal view is that scientists should stay in their lane, focus on improving your field, and leave social policy to better thinkers. A state like New Mexico gets 40% of tax revenue from an oil. You really want to confiscate that money from a school or a road to lower the temperature of the Earth by a fraction of a degree over a 100 years? It's bad ethics. There are actually states with far more share of their budget coming from oil companies than here. It's not just "states" either, there are entire countries reliant on oil money for their economic development, and their not domestic companies, so the taxes from us, or Biden's proposed "global taxes" would hit them pretty hard. Telling people that they are losing the high paying oil job because a scientist is concerned that the Earth will be hotter in a 100 years is also insane to do politically. We're supposed to be a country where the society at large decides how to proceed. This non-sense with a few people getting to dictate how the entire country is ripe with ethical issues and political illegitimacy. You can see it with COVID too, the governors all magically decided they could do emergency orders without consulting the "people" via the state law makers. I always like the wisdom of the masses, if you asked a bunch of barbers how to come up with any negative impacts from the climate warming, you'd have a much better solution that stripping states of their oil money, which seems to be your solution via taxing externalities. This obsession with oil companies is also bad ethics and bad economics, since we as a people who drive cars and fly on airplanes demanded that the oil companies provide their product as cheaply as possible. It's the same bullshit as when people talk about how much they care about human rights and they spend three hours on their Chinese slave labor produced Iphone yelling at people on Twitter who won't even pretend to agree. Apple could produce Iphones in the US if you were willing to spend thousands of dollars per phone. The modern world is built on people getting what they want even if they have to make some difficult decisions. It's not always pretty, but the foundation is grounded well.

Europe is also far less dynamic than the US with $7-$9 per gallon oil costs per gallon. That type of cost would destroy the US economy. Gas is a low percentage of costs for wealthier people but it would hit poor people and rural people hard. Frankly $640 billion is an irrelevant number and I don't particularly like their method for calculating it either. For a person making $40,000 a 3% hit per year, it's $100 a month. I would call that irrelevant next to the benefits that have been accrued via the processes that warmed the Earth - cars, airplanes, computing power increases, electrical grids, better buildings, and so on. The type of re-invention of society that is proposed to reduce greenhouse gasses would be extremely destabilizing, if for no other reason than it punishes people innocent of any major wrong doing for past mistakes. You're trying to make a moral argument that because of a culmination of past poor lifestyles, modern people have to live less luxuriously to save the Earth. It's the same ethical issue as slave reparations, or when modern Christians attack modern Jews for killing Jesus, or for calling young Germans in 2021 Nazis over something like an EU trade dispute. You're punishing people in the modern world for something you don't like that mostly happened in the past. It doesn't matter if changing the system would solve some of the issues, you're still advocating for a  "two wrongs make a right" type of setup. Ethically, the solutions that tell people they can't have the lifestyle they want because of a culmination of mistakes from prior generations amounts to hot garbage in both practical and political terms. 

this piece of crap you just wrote is as much propaganda as much as anything the Nazis ever did, fortunately people who know better will correct you on all these fake points

On 6/22/2021 at 8:28 PM, raindancewx said:

The proposals you see from a lot of the advocacy groups would more than offset any 3% GDP hits. If you taxed oil companies heavily enough, with something like a wealth tax or special income tax, they would pass on the cost to consumers. My personal view is that scientists should stay in their lane, focus on improving your field, and leave social policy to better thinkers. A state like New Mexico gets 40% of tax revenue from an oil. You really want to confiscate that money from a school or a road to lower the temperature of the Earth by a fraction of a degree over a 100 years? It's bad ethics. There are actually states with far more share of their budget coming from oil companies than here. It's not just "states" either, there are entire countries reliant on oil money for their economic development, and their not domestic companies, so the taxes from us, or Biden's proposed "global taxes" would hit them pretty hard. Telling people that they are losing the high paying oil job because a scientist is concerned that the Earth will be hotter in a 100 years is also insane to do politically. We're supposed to be a country where the society at large decides how to proceed. This non-sense with a few people getting to dictate how the entire country is ripe with ethical issues and political illegitimacy. You can see it with COVID too, the governors all magically decided they could do emergency orders without consulting the "people" via the state law makers. I always like the wisdom of the masses, if you asked a bunch of barbers how to come up with any negative impacts from the climate warming, you'd have a much better solution that stripping states of their oil money, which seems to be your solution via taxing externalities. This obsession with oil companies is also bad ethics and bad economics, since we as a people who drive cars and fly on airplanes demanded that the oil companies provide their product as cheaply as possible. It's the same bullshit as when people talk about how much they care about human rights and they spend three hours on their Chinese slave labor produced Iphone yelling at people on Twitter who won't even pretend to agree. Apple could produce Iphones in the US if you were willing to spend thousands of dollars per phone. The modern world is built on people getting what they want even if they have to make some difficult decisions. It's not always pretty, but the foundation is grounded well.

Europe is also far less dynamic than the US with $7-$9 per gallon oil costs per gallon. That type of cost would destroy the US economy. Gas is a low percentage of costs for wealthier people but it would hit poor people and rural people hard. Frankly $640 billion is an irrelevant number and I don't particularly like their method for calculating it either. For a person making $40,000 a 3% hit per year, it's $100 a month. I would call that irrelevant next to the benefits that have been accrued via the processes that warmed the Earth - cars, airplanes, computing power increases, electrical grids, better buildings, and so on. The type of re-invention of society that is proposed to reduce greenhouse gasses would be extremely destabilizing, if for no other reason than it punishes people innocent of any major wrong doing for past mistakes. You're trying to make a moral argument that because of a culmination of past poor lifestyles, modern people have to live less luxuriously to save the Earth. It's the same ethical issue as slave reparations, or when modern Christians attack modern Jews for killing Jesus, or for calling young Germans in 2021 Nazis over something like an EU trade dispute. You're punishing people in the modern world for something you don't like that mostly happened in the past. It doesn't matter if changing the system would solve some of the issues, you're still advocating for a  "two wrongs make a right" type of setup. Ethically, the solutions that tell people they can't have the lifestyle they want because of a culmination of mistakes from prior generations amounts to hot garbage in both practical and political terms. 

at this point the economy needs to be destroyed

when things are destroyed they can be built from the ground up

all new cars must be electric and that will be the case in a few years

people dont want to work in the dirty fossil fuel cartels anymore, its less than a 20% job desirability rate- green energy pays far higher and is the highest growing job sector.  Not only that the fossil fuel cartels said that the pandemic destroyed them and they reached peak oil in 2019 and see only declines from here on.....see the pandemic does good things, nature corrects human stupidity.

and lol at high paying fossil fuel jobs, fossil fuel companies are laying off workers left and right they ditch their workers and pay their execs...where did you find this fantasy of that dirty cartel treating its workers well?  they are ditching them because they see the writing on the wall, their best days are behind them and the workers are the first to get cut

you want to talk about impacting the poor- dirty fossil fuels kill more poor people than anything else does and shorten longevity more than anything else

end fossil subsidies forever

10 hours ago, Gravity Wave said:

My parents have friends who live near Portland; they headed out to their cabin by the coast in the SW part of the state, it's in the mid-60s there right now. 

Meanwhile it's 98 degrees in Astoria right now, which is absolutely incredible to anyone who's familiar with that area.

Edit: And this might be the most insane reading so far:

 

isnt that right at the water?  so that would be like JFK hitting 100?

9 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

No. There’s no indication that this air mass will ever impact this region.

whats keeping it away?

5 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

Our mid 90s this week look cool in comparison though I'm sure the dews will make up for it. 

Tomorrow looks even hotter for Portland & especially Seattle.

Seattle dewpoint will be near 70 tomorrow.

5 hours ago, uncle W said:

the date with the most years with temps 100 or more is July 21st...

104 in 1977

102 in 1930

102 in 1980

102 in 1991

100 in 1926

100 in 1957

1885 just missed with a 99 on the 21st...

what was that date we reached 104 in 2011?

5 hours ago, psv88 said:

Was 116 in Canada today…this is nothing 

exactly my point.  I wonder if all that arctic hot air that has been talked about for years is actually causing northern regions to be hotter than we are.

6 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

A very warm and humid air mass remains in place over the Middle Atlantic and southern New England areas. Under partly sunny skies, temperatures will likely reach the lower 90s in many parts of the region. A shower or thundershower is possible. The warmth will continue through at least mid-week.

Meanwhile, out West an unprecedented heat event shattered numerous all-time high temperature records. Preliminary high temperatures included:

Eugene, OR: 111° (old record: 98°, 2015) ***New All-Time Record***
Fort Nelson, BC: 96° (old record: 87°, 2015) ***New June Record***
Kamloops, BC: 110° (old record: 99°, 2006) ***New All-Time Record***
Lillooet, BC: 113° (old record: 104°, 2015) ***New All-Time Record***
Lytton, BC: 116° (old record: 96°, 2000) ***New All-Time Record; New National Record for Canada***
Medford, OR: 113° (old record: 104°, 2015) ***New June Record***
Portland: 112° (old record: 98°, 2000) ***New All-Time Record***
Seattle: 104° (old record: 92°, 2015) ***New All-Time Record***
Spokane: 102° (tied record set in 2015)
The Dalles, OR: 115° (old record: 105°, 2006) ***New June Record; Tied All-Time Record***
Vancouver: 87° (old record: 79°, 1937)
Victoria: 99° (old record: 85°, 1995) ***New All-Time Record***
Yakima, WA: 108° (tied record set in 2015) ***Tied June Record***

Additional all-time high temperature records will likely be surpassed tomorrow. After tomorrow, the core of the heat will shift somewhat to the north and east. Readings will remain much above normal in parts of eastern Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, and eastern British Columbia.

Records for select cities:

Kamloops, BC:
June 28: 100° (37.7°C), 2008
June 29: 102° (39.1°C), 2008

June record: 103° (39.5°C)
All-time record: 105° (40.8°C)

Portland:
June 28: 100°, 2008
June 29: 97°, 1951

June record: 112°
All-time record: 112°

Seattle:
June 28: 91°, 1995 and 2008
June 29: 93°, 1987

June record: 103°
All-time record: 103°

Spokane:
June 28: 105°, 2015
June 29: 98°, 1939

June record: 105°
All-time record: 108°

Climate change has increased the frequency, magnitude, and duration of extreme heat events in the United States and worldwide. Further increases are likely in coming decades as the world's climate continues to warm.

During the 1971-00 period, there was a statistical 0.9% probability that the temperature would reach or exceed 90° during June 26-28. For the 1991-20 period, that figure had increased to 2.0%. That's an implied 55% increase tied to climate change. Actual outcomes saw Seattle record 90° temperatures on 1.1% of days within that period during 1971-00 and 4.4% during the 1991-20 timeframe. For Portland, the statistical probability of a 90° day during the June 26-28 period was 6.2% during the 1971-00 period and 10.4% during the 1991-20 period. That's an implied 40% increase tied to climate change. The actual outcomes were 6.6% during the 1971-00 period and 12.2% during the 1991-20 period. That actual outcomes exceeded statistical outcomes is consistent with ongoing warming.   

In large part on account of Phoenix's recent extreme heat event, there is an implied 95% probability that June 2021 will become Phoenix's warmest June on record with a mean temperature near 95.0°. The existing record of 94.8° was set in 2013 and tied in 2016.

The ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly was +0.4°C and the Region 3.4 anomaly was -0.5°C for the week centered around June 16. For the past six weeks, the ENSO Region 1+2 anomaly has averaged -0.30°C and the ENSO Region 3.4 anomaly has averaged -0.25°C. Neutral ENSO conditions will likely prevail into at least mid-summer.

The SOI was -5.62 today.

The preliminary Arctic Oscillation (AO) figure was +0.456 today.

On June 25 the MJO was in Phase 1 at an amplitude of 1.357 (RMM). The June 24-adjusted amplitude was 1.305 (RMM).

In late April, the MJO moved through Phase 8 at an extreme amplitude (+3.000 or above). Only February 25, 1988 and March 18-19, 2015 had a higher amplitude at Phase 8. Both 1988 and 2015 went on to have an exceptionally warm July-August period. July-August 1988 had a mean temperature of 79.1°, which ranked 4th highest for that two-month period. July-August 2015 had a mean temperature of 78.9°, which ranked 5th highest for that two-month period. September 2015 was also the warmest September on record. The MJO's extreme passage through Phase 8 could provide the first hint of a hot summer.

Since 1896, 76% of years that saw Phoenix reach 115° or above in June, as occurred this year, had a warmer than July-August in the Middle Atlantic region. The ratio of top 30 July-August temperatures relative to bottom 30 temperatures was 6:1 in favor of the warmth. Overall, the ingredients continue to fall into place for a warmer than normal to potentially hot summer.

Based on sensitivity analysis applied to the latest guidance, there is an implied near 100% probability that New York City will have a warmer than normal June (1991-2020 normal). June will likely finish with a mean temperature near 74.1° (2.1° above normal).

 

back to back all time records?  thats a first!

7 hours ago, bluewave said:

Newark has a shot at the all-time June 95° day record.

Time Series Summary for NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP, NJ - Month of Jun
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.

Rank	Year	Number of Days Max Temperature >= 95	Missing Count
1	1943	7	0
2	1988	6	0
-	1984	6	0
-	1945	6	0
3	2012	5	0
-	1993	5	0
-	2021	5	3

1993 one of my favorite summers on that list that had the hottest week of weather I've ever experienced.

9 hours ago, bluewave said:

Newark can get close to 100° in coming days if it beats model guidance by as much as today.

 

TEMPERATURE (F)                                                          
 TODAY                                                               
  MAXIMUM         95    251 PM 101    1966  85     10       86       
  MINIMUM         74    433 AM  52    1940  67      7       68       
  AVERAGE         85                        76      9       77    

wow 1966 reached 100 early and often.....what an amazing summer that was.

9 hours ago, bluewave said:

Newark can get close to 100° in coming days if it beats model guidance by as much as today.

 

TEMPERATURE (F)                                                          
 TODAY                                                               
  MAXIMUM         95    251 PM 101    1966  85     10       86       
  MINIMUM         74    433 AM  52    1940  67      7       68       
  AVERAGE         85                        76      9       77    

that was an unexpected 90 for the park, I guess things are starting to dry out there?

13 hours ago, SnoSki14 said:

Better hope it's wrong because it looks ugly. The 4th may still be salvaged. 

what does it look like the entire week after the 4th, I have that week off

5 hours ago, uncle W said:

1999 has the third hottest 30 days...

Hottest 30 day periods...

82.5 in 1980

81.9 in 1876

81.9 in 1999

81.8 in 2005

81.8 in 2010

81.7 in 2013

81.6 in 1955

81.2 in 1993

81.1 in 1995

81.1 in 1988

81.0 in 1966

81.0 in 2011

80.9 in 1983

I knew 1980 would be at the top for this, the combo of July and August that year was unmatched nationwide.

8 hours ago, uncle W said:

Longest heat waves 90+...NYC

#.....max.....dates

12...102...8/24-9/4 1953

11.....98...7/23-8/2 1999

10...102...7/7-7/16 1993

10.....98...8/4-8/13 1896

9.......98...8/11-8/19 2002

9.....104...7/13-7/21 1977

9.....101...7/6-7/14 1966

9.......94...7/5-7/13 1944

8.....102...8/10-8/17 1944

8.......97...7/29-8/5 2002

8.......98...8/2-8/9 1980

8.......98...8/28-9/4 1973

8.....100...6/26-7/3 1901

this stretch in 1993 was the hottest 10 days of heat in my memory, it's when I broke down and finally put in the a/c

10...102...7/7-7/16 1993

8 hours ago, uncle W said:

Extreme heat days 95 or higher in NYC.....

16 in 1955

13 in 1988

12 in 1953

12 in 1993

12 in 1999

12 in 2002

10 in 1944

10 in 1980

9.. in 2005

9.. in 1983

9.. in 1966

8.. in 1963

8.. in 1991

8.. in 2010

 

wow what a list!  Do you have one for JFK too?  It's amazing we had more 95 days in 2010 than NYC did!