LibertyBell

the seabreeze doesn't work that way though, the sea breeze comes in well after it has hit 100 in such a scenario, so you can easily be 100+ at 12 noon and the sea breeze comes in at like 4 pm, thats how it usually works around here.

close to 70 here or more precisely, the range is 63-68, 63 further east and 68 further west.

a light wind can easily result in 100+ unless you're on Fire Island or Long Beach.

people have a distorted view of the seabreeze, we were in the 90s on a SW wind 10 days ago, this is Long Island not Greenland.

we just did it like 10 days ago lol. the water doesn't have as much influence as you think

thinking it's fertilizer runoff.

but here in the northeast our air has become more humid and more cloudy, I compare years like 1944, 1948, 1949, 1953, 1955, 1966, when it was far easier to hit 100+ in drier air than it is now. Our cloudiness has increased since that earlier, much drier era.

a couple of beaches on Long Island are closed because of elevated bacteria levels thanks to excessive rainfall and runoff from hazardous chemicals....

I'm thinking cloud cover is actually increasing in the northeast though, just going by how much wetter our climate has been getting.

This is what I mean by a wetter atmosphere. From my own personal observations, it's made it harder to reach or exceed 100 and especially to get higher than 102 especially in the city and at the coast. Even without a seabreeze. In all our big heatwaves, like in 1993 and 1999, even in 2010 and 2011, I've seen clouds billow up as the temperature reached 100 or when it got into the lower 100s. Even on W or NW flow this tends to cut off the temperature rise. During the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, I deduce in our very hot summers there was less in the way of clouds and thats how NYC hit 106 in 1936 and how JFK hit 104 and LGA hit 107 in 1966. I know that 1966 was our driest year on record and no other year was even close.

It's much more logical to assume we needed lower heights to reach 100+ in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, because the air was much drier back then. We got a taste of that in 2010.....

YES, 1936 redux!!

wild, so 2 99s in 1949, one in June and one in August, and one 98 in July Tony? and did the 3 100+ in a row in 1948 at JFK and NYC both happen in August Tony?

On a different topic are we going to get a big northern lights display from this? https://www.newsweek.com/nasa-satellite-extreme-solar-flare-us-states-blackout-map-2088388 Large parts of the United States faced a radio blackout on Thursday following a strong solar flare from the sun. The "extreme ultraviolet flash" was captured by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite. The solar flare, categorized as X-class in scale—the highest scale, was triggered by an active region of a sunspot on June 19 at 11:50 p.m. UTC. Radiation from the X1.9 blast caused a shortwave radio blackout over the Pacific Ocean, leading to a loss of signal at frequencies below 25 Megahertz (MHz). Amateur radio operators, especially in Hawaii, may have noticed the signal loss. Solar flares are intense bursts of radiation from the sun. The most powerful explosions in the solar system, they can can contain as much energy as a billion hydrogen bombs, according to NASA. Solar flares are classified according to their intensity, with X being the highest on the scale. X-class solar flares can cause planet-wide radio blackouts and long-lasting radiation storms.

wow what the heck was going on in 1949 lol, was that the 1940s version of 2010? I wonder if JFK had many 100 degree days that summer, I know they had three in a row in 1948. Come to think of it, 1948 and 1949 sound a lot like 2010 and 2011....

to be fair EWR was also hotter than NYC before the foliage problem happened (I'm referring to 1988, 1991 and 1993). But we can use just EWR data if you prefer. Just going by EWR data, 1949 and 1993 have the most 100+ days It makes me think we need lower heights to reach triple digits back then than what we need now (because of more moisture in the air now.)

this is exciting as the two models taking turns forecasting a 30 inch snowstorm for us vs 3 inches of rain lol

The question though is, at least for our part of the country, do we need a stronger 500mb ridge to achieve 100 degrees than we needed in, for example, 1944 or 1948 or 1949 or 1953 or 1955 or 1993?

yes and weighing them relative to each other is also important (as is sometimes applying them to one part of the season vs another.)

Exactly, getting to 98 or 99 is as annoying as a 98 or 99 on a test. 100 is perfection in both cases, so that would be ideal. 105 for extra credit lol.

Great news. I don't really care about Monday, maybe we'll finally have an exceptional day, not the mediocre heat of every summer since 2013.

But was it also easier to hit 100 back then because of lower moisture in the air (I'll use 1949 as an example even more than 1993 which is more recent.) So back then lower heights were needed to hit 100 than what we need now to do it?

Chris please note how 2022 is only on this list once, while years like 1949 and 1993 are on this list multiple times, they had many more 100+ days than 2022 did. 1993 is on this list twice while 1949 is on this list a whopping three times. It does seem like it was easier to hit 100 back then with lower heights, it must be because of lower humidity levels back then, more like a desert than the tropical rainforest we live in now.

That sounds more like 1953 which had two of our most extreme heatwaves we've ever had with 4 100+ days split evenly between both (and our all time September record of 102).

July 1993 had more 100+ days and the 100+ extreme heatwave it had in July was more extreme than the one in 2022 (it hit 105 the all time record at that time twice back then) and the extreme heat was much more widespread in 1993 as it covered the entire area-- NYC hit 100+ three days in a row and JFK two days in a row. It seems like we need higher heights for such extreme temperatures than we did back then (maybe it was easier to be hotter back then because the amount of moisture in the air was lower back then.)