TheClimateChanger

I'm not talking about the quality of data, but problems with the digitization of the data resulting in a lot of missing data that actually was observed and/or data improperly transcribed. Here's what NRRC Climod2 site shows for lowest seasonal snowfall in Erie, PA: Which matches with what NWS CLE shows (see: https://www.weather.gov/cle/Top10Annual): 1943-44 is shown to be the least snowiest in both data sets with 12.1 inches; however, there was actually 48.5 inches reported on the raw LCDs. There are 25 days with missing data on the digitized figures - all of them had observed snow that are missing from the total snowfall count. For example: The raw LCD data for Erie, PA in October 1943 shows 8.2 inches of snow fell, which would be the 4th most on record for the month of October. There appears to have been a mid-month storm system which gave way to lake effect/lake enhanced rain and then heavy, wet snow, judging by the massive precipitation totals. In the digitized data, from which the 12.1" seasonal figure is drawn, the snow from that storm is completely missing. The only missing data in October is the snowfall from the three days in which snow was observed - everything else matches the LCD exactly. This is only one example, it's like the entire winter in Erie. The bulk of the reported snow is not reflected in the digitized data. and reported as missing data. As noted, there is actually 48.5 inches of snow recorded in the official LCDs, which are accessible here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/lcd/lcd.html

This is just a ridiculously bad snowfall season.

Sorry for the complaints, but I think there are users here at the NWS in Cleveland that could look into this. These are just two of the more egregious examples. Obviously, don't have time to sift through all of the observations for every year. But the 12.1" was certainly eye-popping and warranted a review of the record books. No clue why all of the snowfall observations from that winter are missing there. Years ago, brought this to attention of the people in charge of the "Threaded Extremes" but nothing is ever done to correct the data.

Same story at Youngstown. The "official" record is 18.7 inches in the winter of 1941-42. So far, this winter, 18.4" has been observed. But if you look at the observations from that winter, most of the snowfall records are missing. Not to mention, those observations come from a location in downtown Youngstown, not KYNG airport. So we're talking about nearly 400 feet lower in elevation, urban (lots of steel mills & blast furnaces in those days) versus rural, and several miles further south. It would be like grafting snowfall records from the lakeshore in Lake County onto records from Chardon, Ohio. But even ignoring that, the snowfall observations from many of those early winters are replete with missing and incomplete data because the liquid equivalence of snowfall was reported instead of the actual snowfall and those numbers are then used by whatever algorithm they use as though it was actual snowfall. Look at this nonsense. It's clear the observer was just listing the liquid equivalent of snowfall in the snowfall column. Whatever algorithm they use to get these figures, ignores the first zero if reported to the hundredths column and gives that as a tenth of an inch. In other words, it basically assumes a 10:1 ratio. But when two digits are reported, like 0.52" and 0.29", it simply rounds them to the nearest tenth. So those days show up as 0.5" and 0.3". Obviously, that's nonsense. The depth increased by 4" on the 17th - erroneously listed in the prevailing wind column. Simply assuming a 10:1 ratio on all of the days with snow, except 0.8" on the 9th and 4" on the 17th to at least be consistent with the reported depth, gives 11.8". Yet the "official" total is 2.5 inches. You can see the Weather Bureau at the time, correctly indicated snowfall to be missing here. And it gets even worse. This is the official record for December 1941, but if you look it's labeled 1942 and was received by the Weather Bureau on January 8, 1943. This is indeed the record of observations from December 1942. The December 1941 observations were mistakenly labeled as 1942, and the NWS switched the dates of the wrong month. Just complete nonsense. Low of -10 on the 21st would be a record in the threaded climate history, yet is deleted from the record books as missing data.

It's even worse when you realize most of the old snow records are complete nonsense. Like the 12.1" in Erie in 1943-1944. It simply didn't happen. The data is simply missing, and it's really bizarre as the only missing data is like every date in which snow was observed. According to NWS CLE, Erie observed 12.1" of snow in 1943-1944. In reality, 8.2" of snow was observed in October 1943 - this is actually the 4th snowiest October in Erie history, but completely eliminated from the record books. The data from the mid-month snowstorm is all missing. Another 6.4 inches in November 1943, 7.8 inches in December 1943, 1.0 inches in January 1944, 12.5 inches in February, 10.7 inches in March 1944, and 1.9 inches in April 1944. There were 48.5 inches observed that year, which seems paltry compared to modern normals, but there were different techniques then. Regardless, a far, far cry from the 12.1 inches reported by the NWS.

Here is the full station history for Pittsburgh as given in the 1978 annual weather summary for the city office. We can see records were taken at various sites downtown until July 1, 1935, at elevations between 731 and 754 feet ASL. The thermometer was sheltered in a windowsill for 1870 and 1871, and then moved to various rooftops at elevations estimated to be between 90 and 353 feet above ground level. In July 1, 1935, the station moved to the Administration Building at AGC, with an elevation of 1,252 feet ASL. The thermometer continued to be mounted on the rooftop at 37 feet above ground level. On September 15, 1952, the station moved to the Terminal Building at PIT, with an elevation of 1,137 feet ASL. The thermometer continued to be located on a rooftop about 75 feet above ground level through at least 1979. Not sure when it was moved to the standard 2 meters above the surface. Rooftop measurements can have a significant warm bias but the first 110 years were exclusively rooftop measurements, well except for the first couple years of a thermometer in a window. This is our "official" temperature thread.

Certainly possible. The minimum observed at the NWS City Office site was actually 8.1" from the winter of 1972-1973. Records continued to be taken at the city office until 1979. The official total at PIT that winter was 16.6". We can see the mean accumulation at the downtown city office was only 30", or about a foot less than the mean accumulation at PIT for the period of record (or about 14" less than the current climatological normal value). Not to mention, the snowboard and measuring the maximum accumulation every 6-hour period is a relatively recent invention. Previously, snowfall measurements were taken once daily and, before that, it was estimated by multiplying the melted liquid amount by 10. See: U.S. Snowfall 1900-2019: A Decade-by-Decade Look | Weather Underground (wunderground.com)

You have to admit it's weird. It's like some automated quality control tool came in and completely wiped out the entire storm as though it were a data error.

Oh wait a second!!! They literally deleted all of the observations between 4:51 and 9:51, and from 9:51 to the end of the day. I think they are missing a good chunk of data. May have gotten pruned by some sort of automated algorithm designed to eliminate faulty data since it was so bizarrely out of whack with September climatology. I wish there was a way to get some one to look into this to see why the official records show a modest 52 mph wind gust at PIT and many hours of data are simply stricken.

Maybe this is a Mandela effect? I swear to God in my timeline, Ike was 60+ mph wind gusts. And that's borne out by the newspaper articles of the time. But if you go back and try to pull up observations from the day of Hurricane Ike at the various airports around Pittsburgh today, they are like 40 mph wind gusts maximum observed. I'm so confused.... this is completely baffling? Any insights on this? THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED! WHAT IS GOING ON? ime Temperature Dew Point Humidity Wind Wind Speed Wind Gust Pressure Precip. Condition 10:51 PM 76 °F 68 °F 76 % S 8 mph 0 mph 28.59 in 0.0 in Cloudy 11:51 PM 76 °F 68 °F 76 % S 7 mph 0 mph 28.57 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 12:51 AM 76 °F 67 °F 74 % SSW 9 mph 0 mph 28.56 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 1:51 AM 75 °F 67 °F 76 % SSW 10 mph 0 mph 28.55 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 2:51 AM 74 °F 67 °F 79 % SSW 8 mph 0 mph 28.54 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 3:51 AM 73 °F 67 °F 81 % SSW 8 mph 0 mph 28.53 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 4:51 AM 73 °F 66 °F 79 % SSW 6 mph 0 mph 28.53 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 5:51 AM 72 °F 66 °F 81 % SSW 7 mph 0 mph 28.53 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 6:51 AM 72 °F 67 °F 84 % SSW 8 mph 0 mph 28.54 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 7:51 AM 74 °F 67 °F 79 % SSW 9 mph 0 mph 28.54 in 0.0 in Partly Cloudy 8:51 AM 78 °F 68 °F 71 % SSW 12 mph 0 mph 28.53 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 9:51 AM 79 °F 68 °F 69 % SSW 16 mph 21 mph 28.51 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 10:51 AM 81 °F 68 °F 65 % SSW 16 mph 0 mph 28.48 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 11:51 AM 84 °F 68 °F 58 % SSW 12 mph 0 mph 28.45 in 0.0 in Cloudy 12:51 PM 85 °F 68 °F 57 % S 13 mph 21 mph 28.41 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 1:51 PM 87 °F 66 °F 49 % S 14 mph 20 mph 28.35 in 0.0 in Mostly Cloudy 2:51 PM 86 °F 65 °F 49 % S 17 mph 24 mph 28.30 in 0.0 in Cloudy 3:51 PM 85 °F 65 °F 51 % S 16 mph 28 mph 28.27 in 0.0 in Cloudy 4:51 PM 86 °F 65 °F 49 % S 17 mph 30 mph 28.24 in 0.0 in Cloudy 9:51 PM 72 °F 58 °F 61 % W 20 mph 41 mph 28.44 in 0.0 in Cloudy

The Hurricane Ike fraud goes so deep that they actually altered the official records for September 14, 2008 to show only a 52 mph peak gust. Unreal. It's no wonder people are skeptical of climate change when they can just go in and change the past like this. I lived in the city then and it was way higher than 52 mph. There were transformers blowing left and right. You can see from the articles several schools were cancelled - that doesn't happen at 52 mph.

With a very windy day on tap, let's take a moment to appreciate how the NWS continues to gaslight on Hurricane Ike. The wind gust records list a peak gust of 52 mph at PIT, which is laughable. See NWS Pittsburgh Records Climate Data (weather.gov), and click on Wind Gust Records [opens in separate downloaded file]. Luckily there's still a lot of residue from this era available on the world wide web. Pittsburgh area hit by remnants of Hurricane Ike - Pittsburgh Business Times (googleusercontent.com) STORM: Storm definitely from Ike (timesonline.com) At the time, the 67 mph gust was believed to be the all time record at the airport. They now claim there was an 83 mph gust in July 1992, and also since then there was a 75 mph gust in April 2020. But the 52 mph recorded on the records site is just laughable - I think sustained winds from Ike were that high. I bet there were 10 or 20 gusts on September 14, 2008 alone that exceeded the reported September record of 58 mph. What made Ike so dangerous is, unlike a brief heavy thunderstorm gust, this was hours and hours of 40+ mph sustained winds and gusts of 55-65+ mph. Anyways, third highest gust on record at the PIT airport, and it wouldn't surprise if the sustained winds from Ike were an all-time record. But they've relegated in the record books to run of the mill wind advisory conditions. Just complete gaslighting. Like we get it, your forecast busted. Time to get over it and report the actual observed winds.

In other news, the Euro suggests we may have something to keep an eye out for in about 10 days.

Yeah, I caught that after posting and swapped in the proper graphic. But the gist of the comment is correct. PIT has averaged 40.6" over the last 7 winters... and obviously this winter will drop that down some, unless we get a March 1993 Superstorm. 3 of the last 7 winters were above normal. Still have been relatively fortunate compared to some areas, granted I know places like Erie and Buffalo have had some record-breaking lake effect outbreaks over that stretch. And... actually with that correction, PIT has still beaten CLE 3 times in the last 8 years. The correct figure of 36.6" was still higher than the 35.2" at CLE.

We've been really fortunate as well. Cleveland hasn't had an above normal snowfall winter since 2014-2015, and PIT has beaten CLE in 2 of the last 8 years. The averages are basically the same the last 7 full winters (CLE --> 42.4" and PIT --> 40.6"). By contrast, the 1981-2010 normals were 68.1" and 41.9" respectively. The current normals (1991-2020) are 63.8" and 44.1" respectively. Note, negative "deficits" denote positive departure. Pittsburgh has been above normal for snowfall in 3 of the last 8 winters.

I'm not cherrypicking either. Look at Elkins, and this is at nearly 2000' mind you. 7 out of 125 years saw mean maxima 50+, 4 of them just since 2017. You can see that Super El Nino just completely obliterated the bounds of what was previously possible climatologically. Even 2020 and 2022 were just a bit shy of the 50F mark at Elkins. 50+ mean max months: 1925, 1976 --> starting to speed up here -> 1990 -> *cue This is Fine Dog on Fire Meme* -> 2017 -> all semblance of normalcy obliterated -> 2018, 2019, 2023

It could always be worse. You don't have to go too far south before you come across places where the mean monthly maximum this month was in the mid or even upper 50s. Clarksburg, WV saw a mean monthly maximum of 57.3F, which was nearly four degrees warmer than the record in 2018 (101 years of data!). There's no way to sugarcoat this. It is getting downright ugly just to our south. I don't think we're too far off from seeing occasional winter months in West Virginia where the mean maximum is 60+. You have to think this is going to push into SW Pennsylvania within the next couple of decades and probably get "superheated" as it descends into the Monongahela and Ohio River Valleys. Maybe we'll be seeing Februarys with 60+ average highs at some point. Clarksburg, WV

Looks like every threaded climate site in PBZ's warning area set a new monthly mean maximum high temperature record this month. These high temperatures were on par with what was considered normal under the 1961-1990 means in places like Chattanooga, TN and Oklahoma City in February. I just think we have to come to grips with the fact that western Pennsylvania is not a reliably wintry location anymore.

How's the severe risk looking today? I see a tornado watch has been issued for parts of Ohio and other nearby states.

You just got to laugh when these so-called experts say it's warmed 1.8F since preindustrial times, and you run the numbers yourself and it's up like 5F in 30 years.

Yeah, but Nashville International Airport is a notorious heat island, whereas Toledo Express Airport is in rural Swanton Township. Nashville's normal January temperature as recently as 2000 [using the 1961-1990 mean] was 36.1F, but has since risen 3.5F over the past 30 years. It's not really representative of most of metro Nashville, or certainly not of central Tennesee in general. So Toledo's temperatures this February are right on pace with what was considered normal in Nashville in January just a little over two decades ago.

Probably boring everyone with the climate information, but there's not much more to talk about. But anyways, with the recent warm weather, with 5 days remaining in the month, this is currently the warmest mean high temperature for February on record. Today's high will go down in the books as 49, and the rest of the month looks like 40s and 50s so I suspect this holds. Also, the daily range [difference between high & low temperature] has been 22.5F this month. That is the largest range on record by a significant margin for the month of February. In fact, running this through Excel, I could find only 4 other years at 20+ in the entire threaded record - 3 of which were exactly 20.0F. 2023 22.5 1990 20.5 1906 20.0 1884 20.0 1876 20.0

This winter has been so bad, we haven’t even had anything to track other than the glorified Arctic front just before Christmas.

My 1949-50 analog has worked out well so far

I thought that was the case, but if you go to the NWS PBZ snow page, it shows the numbers below. In hindsight, I think the monthly numbers do sum to 44.1". Looks like they just inadvertently left in the 1981-2010 average for the annual snowfall in this graphic. Either way, no real trend in snowfall yet. Granted, there's been some changes in procedure over that timeframe that could somewhat complicate the analysis.