mjr

Another example of Central Park erroneously being used as a legitimate proxy for New York City.

Unfortunately, even top level meteorologists on the Accuweather Professional website, when doing comparisons of 90+ days in the east, BOS, NYC, PHL, DCA among others, use Central Park as the benchmark for New York City. They then attempt to do analyses based on this flawed data. For example, trying to explain why as of June 28 NY City still had not reached 90 (it had, just not in Central Park) or why New York had fewer 90+ days in 2018 than Boston did (in reality LGA had substantially more).

NYC hit 90 a little after 1pm. Soon after, temperatures fell off a cliff.

What I have noticed on many occasions is that the NYC temperature seems to hit a wall at about 1pm or so capping any further rise. This occurs during various synoptic scenarios and has nothing to do with the onset of a sea breeze. Here, for example, at noon, NYC is right in the thick of things. By 4 pm, however, NYC is only 92 (daily high) while almost every other station, except ISP and JFK with their sea breeze, are 3 or 4 degrees higher. Just look at the hourly readings and you will find that this happens on a majority of days.

I like your NYC number to make a point of how ridiculous NYC has become. In reality, though, a day in the upper 90s is too much for even the NYC foliage to resist and LGA minus 4 is probably more accurate. I love your 88 though.

2015 was interesting in that during Aug. and Sept., NYC actually equaled or exceeded LGA and EWR in terms of heat and 90+ temps. Possibly a result of a relatively dry summer or else a massive defoliation.

I don't disagree with you on LGA. I've been following Central Park ever since I was a small child and the "official" NYC obs were moved from the Battery to Central Park in 1960. I remember being very happy at the time since the summer of 1960 had just concluded as the first summer in recorded history without a 90 degree reading. Tops at the Battery was 89. However, the Park did reach 91 that year so NY was saved the ignominious fate of going through a year without officially reaching 90. During the years there were ups...May 19, 1962 (99), April 1976 (96) and of course July 1966. I recall being somewhat surprised on July 3 when the highs I believe were NYC 103, EWR 103, JFK 104 (strong NW wind all day) and LGA 107. It was unusual at the time for LGA to be so far out in front of the rest. Possibly the NW wind. There were also downs. I remember staying up all night in late Aug. 1986, listening to the hourly reports on the radio, to see if the temperature would fall below 50 for the first time ever during July or August. It did not. During most of this time, though, there was never an issue of NYC not being a valid proxy for Manhattan. I did not pay much attention to the ASOS thing in 1996 and first really noticed it during the early 2000s. On July 31, 2009 there was an article in the NY Times lamenting the cool summer thus far and that it had not exceeded 86 during all of July. Well, the summer was certainly well below normal but LGA recorded days of 87,87,88 and 89 (on the day of the article). No big deal really except to illustrate how what is being viewed as reality is actually based on a false premise. This year, when it comes time to review the summer, the media will probably report the fifteen (maybe a few more) 90+ days at NYC and draw conclusions from that. I will be pleasantly surprised if they mention the 30+ (maybe close to 40 when all is said and done) 90+ days at LGA and discuss the foliage issue. I would be even more pleasantly surprised if this finally motivates Upton to correct this situation.

Hard to find a good proxy for NY City as LGA seems to be running a bit warm and NYC is a joke. Average high temperatures for Aug. through 8/20 LGA 88.1, TEB 88.1, EWR 87.3, New Brunswick 86.8, BDR 85.2, ISP 84.5, NYC 84.4, JFK 84.1, HPN 83.6.

On Monday July 30 at 3pm the following stations...NYC, LGA, EWR, TEB, JFK, ISP, BDR and Caribou Maine reported the following temperatures in scrambled order...81,81,80,80,77,77.77,74. See if you can guess who reported the 74 (hint...it was not Caribou). The answer is NYC. It had not rained in 48 hours. NYC has now routinely been reporting maximum temps 3-5 degrees or more lower than comparable local stations not dominated by sea breezes. The temperature deficiencies are especially pronounced in the mid to late afternoon. On Tuesday July 31 at 4pm the temperatures for the 8 stations listed above (in scrambled order) were 84,82,81,80,80,80,78,77. NYC reported the 77. Wednesday, August 1 was the most extreme. When I first saw the high of 93 at LGA I thought it was a typo. It turns out that while LGA was warm, NYC was the real outlier. At 4pm the average of 10 stations in the NYC metropolitan area, including Breezy Point (surrounded by water) and Bronx Botanical Gardens (probably has some foliage) was 86.8. Six Northern NJ stations averaged 87.3. Central Park boasted 81. I would think that a 9 degree spread between LGA and NYC has to be a record. All of this would be an amusing diversion except for the fact that this is the "official" New York City temperature that everyone from the uninformed media and public to experienced professional meteorologists looks to as an accurate representation of conditions in Manhattan and an accurate standard of comparison (for example, experienced mets routinely use the NYC number when comparing the number of 90+ days around the country). The largest city in the US deserves better, foliage or no foliage. Meanwhile, I suggest that Upton send someone out to make sure that the temperature sensor wasn't vandalized and that someone didn't in fact remove it and toss it into the polar bear pool at the zoo.

Try northern CA coast. Eureka for example.

You certainly make a valid point about rolling countryside 140 years ago. One thing I can argue is that back then, I would guess that was true of mostly all stations so that a comparison among different locations was valid. For the past 50 years or so, virtually all stations have been located at airports. Since, among other things, the data are used to compare climate characteristics across different geographical areas (number of 90 degree days in different cities across the US), it would seem that you would want to make every effort to eliminate local distortions...like having the NYC thermometer located in a swamp.

A recent blog post by one of the Senior Forecasters on the Accuweather Professional website commented on the number of 90+ days thus far in 2016. Some of the figures listed wereBOS 20 NYC 19 PHL 40 DCA 50. No mention was made of the fact that the NYC number reflected readings taken in the middle of a swamp and that other NYC area locations (not heavily influenced by sea breezes) ranged between 29 and 35. This was not some lightweight pretty face TV weather entertainer but rather a top meteorologist at Accuweather presenting these numbers without mention of any extenuating circumstances. Naturally the general public, including many people with an in depth knowledge of weather, will look at these numbers as an accurate reflection of reality and not as the distortion that it actually is. Some of them may wonder why the NYC number is not between BOS and DCA as opposed to being less than BOS but, given the respectability of the source, they will accept these numbers as accurate. The argument that the NWS is respecting 140+ years of historical significance does not hold water since for most of this period the readings were taken at a different location with fewer distortions. The recent readings actually disrespect the majority of the historical record. Similarly for the argument that the reading just represents one of many microclimates within NYC, one could relocate the thermometer to the bottom of Central Park lake and it would also technically represent a microclimate. While this may seem absurd, the current location is so distorted that it really is not that much different. It represents itself and nothing else. I find it interesting that during the winter of 2015 (not the 2016 blizzard), Upton, days after the fact, increased the NYC snow totals of three events based on totals at surrounding areas plus radar observations. These adjustments were only by fractions of an inch but indicated that in this regard they were willing to go to great lengths to maintain an accurate historical record. In light of this, it seems ridiculous that they would allow the NYC thermometer situation to persist since I would think that a difference of 10-15 90 degree days in 2016 is far more significant than an inch or two of snow. Unfortunately, NYC is the official New York City station and as such it is what much of the world looks at concerning the weather in New York City. As evidenced by the Accuweather blog, these observations are looked at with an uncritical eye even by the most competent meteorologists and as such distort the picture of NYC weather presented to the general public as well as distorting the historical record.

Might be willing to bet that for summer 2016, BOS ends up reporting more 90+ days than NYC. Not in the real world but in the alternate universe of the Central Park thermometer. Dysfunction trumps climatology.