Dark Star

You showed some temperature maps.

I like that last quote...

As I said, TOO many factors involved. Can't just state it. What is the correlation to Canadian land temperatures vs. Great Lakes temperatures? We are in the midst of substantial warming. To isolate the effects the Great Lakes would have on the immediate NYC metro area would take an intensive study, year by year, scenario by scenario, and some pretty involved modeling. While we know in practical terms, a cold air system retains its core better when traveling over colder (snow covered) land masses. I'm not sure if any of the existing synoptic models include this variable? Again, I'm old school, old in general and stubborn. The most significant reason why the recent cold snap wasn't that cold here is because it came here "indirectly", like so often before. Your theory would have perhaps been more evident if the cold air plunged directly across the pole and down the Hudson valley.

I will be pretty stubborn to be convinced on the effect of the Great Lakes on NYC temperatures. The calculations would be mind boggling. You would have to overcome factors like where the core of the cold air comes from (in this case it was west), wind speeds preventing significant overnight radiational cooling, snow cover, orographic heating. Then, one has to split hairs like the cold air did not come straight down the Hudson Valley, as eastern Canada has not seen true arctic air vs. the lakes not being frozen. Surely, friction alone is increased with an unfrozen Hudson Bay, but I think you are mainly targeting the effects the Great Lakes have on NYC metro temperatures. Perhaps this has been intensely studied, but no way anyone without a computer program could come close to estimating the effect the Great Lakes would have on temperatures in NYC, especially when other factors like windspeed significantly retard radiational cooling. Good idea for a thesis however. My guess, it "might affect northeastern NJ temperatures by about a degree. And the effect should be equal both day and night. Our night time lows were higher than normal 99% because of the strong winds, regardless of the temperatures of any lake(s) 400 miles or more, away.

But if the core of the cold air went west of the greater NYC metro area, doesn't that mean that the NYC metro area would not have gotten as cold, with or without any "warming" effect from the Great Lakes heat source?

very light snow with a dusting on the cars in Garwood NJ, central Union county

Maybe, but don't forget that the Great Lakes aren't frozen yet...

Once again, I ask, do the Great Lakes have a different effect on daytime maximums as opposed to overnight minimums in the NYC area?

I understand the humor. My deadline for a general forecast is 48 hours before the start of any precipitation. If you need more time closer than that, you may as well nowcast. My forecasting days are shot. But as Jeff Berradelli would say, "The devil is in the details". I interpret this to mean between all the models and general synoptic setup, the clues are there to make an accurate forecast. Sometimes we ignore a simple thing like the positioning of the high pressure system or mid level temperatures...

The question is, do the Great Lakes temperatures affect the NYC daytime maximum and overnight minimum similarly?

Does the Great Lake affect the daytime max and nighttime minimums differently?

and let's just hope it was from a spark, not that it really matters...

Exactly. Thats what controlled burns are designed to do. I think they also just lifted their ban on using ocean water to fight forest fires?

You are both correct...

So you are saying that the winds in the deep south were the same as the NYC metro area? And that the core of the cold air dropped south, west of the northeast coast, which is not uncommon, since places like Atlanta are farther west and the southern coast tapers westward. I was also told that the night time temperatures in NW New Jersey had bigger temperature drops at night. Surely they are closer to the Great Lakes?

Looks like I have to go back to school. I could have sworn one of the basic principles is that it is warmer in the day and colder at night? The sun provides light and heating. Without the sun, the warmth collected during the day radiates upwards into space (at night). Sometimes this isn't so, depending upon timing of fronts, clouds, inversions, etc. And wind. Wind retards radiational cooling at night. Now if you live on the ocean, I could see the heat from the water moderating temperatures a bit at night. However, I usually see Bayville NJ colder many nights than Garwood NJ. Bayville is right on the water and about 50 miles south, Garwood is inland about 10 miles. If the Great Lakes are tempering our night time temperatures all the way down to the NYC burbs, it should equally temper the day time temperatures? I realize eastern Canada has not yet seen true arctic air, but it doesn't matter if it is land or lake temperatures. A large lake can affect nearby areas at night, but not all the way down here. It is the air temperatures in general. We have not had much chance at radiational cooling at night, predominantly because of the strong sustained winds.

Could be, but still not sold. Overnight temps in northeast Jersey did not drop as much due to the relentless winds, inhibiting radiational cooling.

Basketball is structured where you can't play defense. If a shooter's follow through hits your outstretched arms, its a foul on the defense?

Since we are on the "banter" post, I will share my feelings on baseball in steroids. Baseball, of all the major sports, seemed to be the one were individual efforts could be the most quantitated. Because of that, I think you could compare generation to generation. Steroids ruined the mathematics. No longer can you play simulation computer games based on statistics (to compare generations). The steroid era will always have the dominant hitters (in general). My calculations estimated that steroids increased your production by about 33%. People who did not want to question the steroid era would say that steroids did not hit home runs. That the hardest thing in sports is to hit a baseball. While the latter is true, steroids did increase home run production, as well as your batting average. When Congress held its "steroid hearings" everyone interviewed on the panel were "obvious" steroid users (Congress probably had the "anonymous" testing results when they assembled the witness panel) except for Palmeiro and Schilling. Even though Palmeiro had not increase in size, his home run production had increased, and after the hearings, he was found to have been juicing. The only one of the panel not "caught" was Schilling, but perhaps he was more cautious, only juicing for "special" games, especially the playoffs (which might explain why he "rose to the occasion" and was one of baseball's premiere post season pitchers)? Unfortunately, because of the number of known users at the time, everyone in that era will be suspect. Some defended their use by saying that they were using them to recover from injury. Some defend the use by saying that baseball had not yet banned the substances, but they were illegal and needed a prescription, so they were already breaking the rules. It's amazing how the steroid manufacturers have tried (and succeeded) many times to keep ahead of the testing technology. Again, to me, steroids broke that sacred ability to mathematically compare players from generation to generation. As the years pass, I am less in tune with sports in general. I am old, and in the way...

It seems 33% was the increase in production from the use of steroids, league wide in general (at, least from my calculations).

This is never ending. It is the wind chill that makes it uncomfortable and potentially dangerous to those who work outside, especially in the far northern and western parts of this forum. The fact remains that we have only been about 0.6 degrees below normal using the arbitrary previous 20 years average, and normal to slightly above normal as compared to the previous 20 years or so before that.

I know NW Jersey is considered the icebox of the state, but for most of the population in this forum, the actual temperatures are considered seasonable...

The wind chill, yes, the temperature is arguably seasonal.

Last week's temperatures were 0.6 degrees below whatever is the current normal we are using. However, when comparing to the 20 years before that one, we were actually slightly warmer than normal. The wind however made if feel unbearably cold.