Sundog

26 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Shocked no one has brought up the central park sensor yet on page 13 of this thread.  Doh!

I'm working on an extensive post regarding the issue

46 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

I agree. It is disappointing that the situation at Central Park has been neglected. The data no longer reliably reflects summer conditions in Manhattan. No matter how the data is examined, one sees an unmistakable impact during the summer or full foliage months.

All they have to do is chop back enough to where the shadows don't fall on the station post leaf out. 

The station right now has basically no clearance around it:

I have no hope that it will ever have 100 feet of clear land around it, but at least cut back enough to where the shadows aren't all over the station. 

Surprisingly I got to 66 or 67 degrees last night. I was wondering how it got so cool in the house, I thought my wife forgot to turn off the AC lol.

Then the Sun came up and my temperature jumped 10 degrees in one hour and now I'm 81 degrees. 

14 minutes ago, Rjay said:

Islip had a sea breeze all day. Nyc is ridiculous lol. 

I really think that NWS not giving a shit after 20+ years of this crap just makes the stereotype of government inefficiency look true. 

This is such an easy fix, no technical knowledge needed. It can be fixed in one day. 

Peaked at 93 here, now closer to 90. 

The 78 degree dewpoint is just brutal. 

3 minutes ago, FPizz said:

Crushed at home.  Look at that rate

We need a WTF emoji lol

Three different wind fronts interacted with each other on KDIX radar just south of @FPizz land. 

I'm in the low 90s. I thought it was supposed to be like 87 today?

3 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

Looking at the numbers, mean summertime high temperatures for the most recent 15 years (2010-2024) are about 1.5-2.5F warmer in most places in the eastern US, compared to the preceding 15 years (1995-2009). Have to wonder how much of that is attributable to a climate signal and how much of that is attributable to the 2010 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

International shipping (which was a major source of aerosol pollution) also became much cleaner like in 2020 or something like that. Tack that on top of the rising temps too. 

21 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I really wish there was a way to adjust the numbers like they did for the January 2016 snowstorm.

Remember when they did that? It was originally slightly behind January 2006 and then adjusted upward later.

There is a scientific way of doing this using nearby stations.

Feb 2006. But yea I remember when they adjusted January 2016 to be above that storm and become number 1. 

Feb 2006 was uber fluff anyway and that 26.9 inches was snowboard derived plus ultra local, I had closer to 20. 

January 2016 had 30 inches DEPTH and over a very large area, it was BS for that storm to not be number 1. 

1 minute ago, LibertyBell said:

That 99 last week was extremely significant.  Central Park lost out on its earliest 100 ever recorded there.

As far as I'm concerned it was broken, I don't have to pretend that Central Park is accurate. 

1 minute ago, SACRUS said:

 

Highs:

 

EWR: 95
ACY: 95
New Brnswck: 92
TEB: 92
JFK: 92
PHL: 93
ISP: 91
TTN: 91
LGA: 91
BLM: 90 * no intra hours highs

NYC: 89

That 89 is really something it's like the station is trolling us

Just now, LibertyBell said:

That's why the idea of putting more aerosols into the stratosphere has some merit.

I'm in favor of anything that will bring the average global temperature down. 

People say you can't run a global experiment like that without knowing the outcome. 

Oh but running a fossil fuel driven global experiment is no problem? We're already doing something bad, might as well mitigate the effects!

34 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

The only comparable snowstorms I can think of occurred in the 1870s.  I wonder what caused that snowstorm and cold so many decades after the planet had already started to warm?

 

The event is extremely unlikely but not impossible. 

Plus early 80s was peak aerosol pollution, we had capped climate change through air pollution. Then there is also natural variability. 

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

june 1980 was below average with a few nights getting into the 40s

Those were the days

4 minutes ago, steve392 said:

68 with a cool breeze, I can live with this til November! 

Clouds are getting thinner around the area, temps might rise in response. 

The Sun is a beast this time of year

9 minutes ago, SACRUS said:

 

6/26 Highs

 

PHL: 92
ACY: 90
EWR: 86
NYC: 85
JFK: 85
ISP: 84
TEB: 84
New Brnswck: 84
LGA: 83
TTN: 83 
BLM: 79

Are almost all of these fake midnight highs?

23 minutes ago, rclab said:

 

 

Perhaps we can have both? …… as always …..

Your article from which these pics came from has a line that supports my position:

"In Wales, a 10-year study looking at the presence of anxiety and depression in 2.3 million medical records, found that the greenest home surroundings were associated with 40% less anxiety and depression than those living in the least green areas." 

We aren't meant to live piled up on top of one another. 

6 minutes ago, LongBeachSurfFreak said:

So we should abandon cities and destroy rural areas and turn them into endless suburbs. 
The reality from the perspective of the planet is the EXACT OPPOSITE. We want more people in tightly packed cities and less McMansions on quarter acre lots. Upstate NY reforesting over the last century is a great example of what we want to see. 

What sucks is living on top each other is not healthy. People underestimate the psychological damage constant noise does to a human for example. 

Air pollution will be worse no matter how "clean" a city gets compared to suburbs/rural. 

For people, I think overall it's much better to live on that half acre lot than living like an ant colony. 

For the planet obviously it's better if people concentrated in as few urban centers as possible and left everything around alone. 

43 minutes ago, Roger Smith said:

There was a considerable urban heat island in 1948, actually, you could rate it as 60 to 70 per cent of the present urban heat island. Perhaps most of its influence would be on overnight lows. But even by around 1890 to 1900 large cities were beginning to display an urban heat island. Vehicle traffic is only a small component of the cause of a heat island, the main components are altered surface albedos and escape of building heat. People were heating their houses before they had cars. Also they had transformed the urban environments to allow horse and carriage movement (thus changing heat retention). The strength of an urban heat island falls off rapidly after the first 100,000 of population in an urban area is reached and begins for towns as small as 2,000 population based on extensive research by many climatologists. You'd perhaps be surprised how quickly an urban heat island develops and how slowly it increases once developed, if you hadn't done active research or read the literature.

For my Toronto data I estimated the urban heat island began in the 1881-1890 decade (rated at 0.1 C differential then) and I took an arbitrary 0.1 increase each decade to 1971-1980 (adding 1.0 then). For 1981-1990 and the past 35 years I estimated it had stabilized at 1.1 C (2.0 F) deg. For NYC data I have assumed the same pace of change except that I would expect an increase had already begun for 1869 to 1880 so if I had data as far back as Toronto's 1840 startup, I would start modifying 1861-1870 at 0.2 F or 0.1 C and adding that amount every decade so the stable period of 1981-2025 would be actually +1.3 C (+2.34 F) relative to what NYC might record in an unaltered "rural" state. 

Now some might instantly say, but NYC is in a megalopolis much larger than greater Toronto, would it not warm up even more? Perhaps, but as I said, past 100,000 the rate of increase is very slow and probably past 5 million it cannot increase because the environment is so substantially altered on a regional basis. The strength of the greater New York heat island is probably well over +1.5 F out into parts of west central NJ near the end of suburban sprawl. 

As to the urban park question and temperature reductions in hot weather, that probably washes out of data sets fairly quickly as there aren't all that many hot days and the nights in question remain more affected anyway. Urban heat islands tend to be something like 75% minimum boosts and 25% maximum boosts, an estimate of a +2.0 heat island really means +1.0 for average maximum and +3.0 for average minimum. Large stretches of cloudy wet weather show very small urban heat island effects, dry and clear months would have larger differentials. 

Growing up and spending summers in Greece I would visit my grandparents that lived JUST outside a small town (population ~5,000.) At the edge of the village/town it would turn into fields of open land and about 500 meters into the fields was my grandparents' home. 

Walking back from the town at night toward the house I could EASILY feel the temperature drop by several degrees once I would get to the edge. It was like walking into an air conditioned room. 

So I have first hand experience of a village or small town causing an obvious UHI even though people think a population center that small would be too insignificant to cause such an effect. 

Just now, nycwinter said:

was so windy out this morning i started to feel chilly wearing a shirt  i even sniffled a few times i hope i am not catching a cold..

The illness you suffer from is a mental one, not a physical one lol

The GEMLAM is broken. Even at 6z it showed temps of near 90 in Queens and Nassau at 2PM!

Meanwhile we're in the upper 60s to low 70s.

4 minutes ago, donsutherland1 said:

Today is just the 5th day on record that Central Park has seen the temperature fall into the 60s following a day with an 80° or above minimum temperature. There were 72 days with 80° or above lows.

I think going forward the only realistic way this happens is if we get these June heatwaves. With the warmer planet and warmer water it would be hard to get into the 60s in July following a major heatwave, but in June when the water isn't as warm yet it's more realistic, CAA not so much but still more likely in June rather than July. 

8 minutes ago, Brian5671 said:

agreed-most places will stay steady at whatever they are once the front passes---here we droppped to 66, it's 68 now with a stiff NE breeze

Still 70 here, models like to overdo highs on days with backdoor coldfronts and cloudy skies. 

4 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Supposed to rebound later. We shall see

0Z Euro for 2PM:

No way this verifies