Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,130
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Jdhuffmanhws
    Newest Member
    Jdhuffmanhws
    Joined

June 2022


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

Central Park is wrong since the old sensor used to be out in the open instead of under the trees before the 1990s. Deep shade with leaf transpiration can shave at least 2-3° off the high temperature on sunny days. That’s why the highs used to be much warmer at Central Park before the overgrowth in the 1990s. A sensor on the Great Lawn in Central Park would be at least 2-3° warmer than under trees. 

https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KNYC

Recent temp analysis over the past year does not support this narrative. In actuality the daytime high temps at Central Park when compared to surrounding stations are solidly within the ASOS target in terms of mean error & SD. 

137466336_NYCpast14vs.thumb.png.7b58727f6748d0ce8d24c8043a9040a6.png

Over the past 28 days the average day time temp error at Central Park is only 0.3 degrees too cool. The issue, if there really is one, would be the night time average error running solidly cool however that's not far fetched considering the comparison to many highly urbanized sensors vs. the heavily wooded park array.

1982568453_NYCpast28days.thumb.png.80d473256a04d0043d24080e961d4d6d.png

52 week day time trends are consistent

1546123009_NYCpast52.png.9c5a5cd5799a1f377bbb6ae38dc0b138.png

You posted a 9yr old pic of the Central Park ASOS from 2013 showing the surrounding vegetation, it should be noted that despite that growth they had no problems recording triple digits during 2010-2012 including a 104 & 103 day. Very comparable to the triple digit readings at PHL & LGA during that time. 

Now when you cross the Hudson you really encounter a site that currently has significant day time temp issues on the warm side. I would think the warm bias at Newark is so obvious even Stevie Wonder could see it but apparently that's not the case.....

The same data & charts for Newark, in this case the day time temps over the past 14 are well outside the ASOS target. Significant warm average day time temp error. The is how you turn 92 into 96 degrees LOL.

878103463_EWRpast14vs.thumb.png.3aad988fff965f6c69a4f7321182ba8f.png

Over the past 28 days the day time error is a ridiculous 2.7 degrees too warm which is so bad you have the unacceptable error range note.

509473160_EWRpast28days.thumb.png.e6b972c0c75f99a74357ba5e2bc5db05.png

EWR.thumb.png.3d79891b91342269b8996f71aac02df6.png

Finally the 52 week trend, something sure changed during the winter however the sensor has reverted back to it's customary nuking of day time temps.

1096176653_EWRpast52.png.8bb87ccd105f25de718beffb75706efc.png

 

  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning thoughts…

Today will mostly sunny and warmer. High temperatures will reach the lower and middle 80s in most of the region. Likely high temperatures around the region include:

New York City (Central Park): 83°

Newark: 89°

Philadelphia: 88°

Tomorrow and Friday will be very warm days.

Normals:

New York City: 30-Year: 83.4°; 15-Year: 83.6°

Newark: 30-Year: 85.7°; 15-Year: 86.0°

Philadelphia: 30-Year: 86.8°; 15-Year: 87.2°

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BucksCO_PA said:

Recent temp analysis over the past year does not support this narrative. In actuality the daytime high temps at Central Park when compared to surrounding stations are solidly within the ASOS target in terms of mean error & SD. 

The error solidly emerged  back in the 1990s when the ASOS was installed under the trees. Temperature analysis over the last year is irrelevant since the issue has been ongoing. So we have to use an analysis going back to the 1951-1980 climate period when the sensor was out in the open and not in the deep shade.

The Central Park equipment was out in the sun and away from the deep shade during the 1951-1980 climate era. So we can compare how the high temperatures during the summer have changed between EWR, NYC, and LGA since then. The tree growth over the equipment has trimmed 2° off the NYC summer high temperatures relative to EWR and LGA. This has resulted in many lost recent heat records for NYC as the record warmth dramatically increased since 2010. Central Park should be averaging 10 more annual 90° days instead of just 1 if it was out in a grassy clearing away from the deep shade and cooling foliage. 
 

2010-2021 summer high temperature warming over 1951-1980

NYC 1951-1980……83.0……2010-2021….83.5…..+0.5….should be closer to 85.5 or +2.5 away from the shade 

EWR…83.4…..85.7…+2.3

LGA….82.0…..84.6...+2.6

 

90° days change 

NYC….18……19……+1…should be +10 and 28 days a year of 90°

EWR….23....33…….+10

LGA…..15…..26…….+11

 

The NYC Central Park minimum JJA average temperature rise between 1951-1980 and 2010-2021 actually matches the other stations. So this is how we can see that the dense foliage is blocking the sun during the daytime. I included all our major weather stations in the analysis below. It’s interesting that the stations on the Long Island Sound saw the greatest minimum temperature increase. So LGA and BDR are our only stations with a 3° low temperature increase.

1951-1980 to 2010-2021 JJA average temperature increase 

NYC….max….+0.5….min +2.3

EWR….max…+2.3…..min…+2.3…identical to NYC Central Park

LGA…..max….+2.6….min….+3.2

JFK……max....+2.2…min….+2.4

ISP…….max…..+2.7….min….+2.7……records start in 1964

BDR…..max…..+2.1…..min……+3.1…similar to LGA

 

We can clearly identify the mid 1990s into the early 2000s  as the period when the trees began to cover the Central Park equipment. From the 1950s through the early 1990s, NYC would record 90 degree days in reasonable agreement with either EWR or LGA. Then NYC fell far behind during the 2000s when tree growth caused the high temperature readings to become unreliable. 
 

Sample years for 90 days since 1955

1955

EWR…32

NYC….25

LGA…..29

1966

EWR….33

NYC….35

LGA….25

1977

EWR….26

NYC….23

LGA…..14

1980

EWR…27

NYC…32

LGA….22

1983

EWR…40

NYC…36

LGA….31

1988

EWR….43

NYC….32

LGA…..26

1991

EWR…41

NYC…39

LGA….34

1999

EWR….33

NYC….27

LGA….26

2005

EWR….37

NYC….23

LGA…..30

2006

EWR…..27

NYC…..8

LGA……22

2010

NYC…54

NYC….37

LGA….48

2016

EWR….40

NYC…..22

LGA…..32

2020

EWR….31

NYC….20

LGA…..34

2021

EWR….41

NYC…..17

LGA…..25

 

Yes. The most among the major sites like NYC, EWR, and LGA. Central Park would regularly tie or lead for the most 90° days from the 1930s to 1980. But the tree growth over the equipment has prevented it from happening since 1980. If the station  was properly maintained, NYC could have lead the area or tied for the most 90° days several years since then.

Years when Central Park lead or tied for most 90° days 

1936

NYC….26

EWR….22

1937

NYC…22

EWR…22

1939

NYC…24

EWR…24

1941

NYC…29

EWR…27

1953

NYC….32

EWR….32

1962

NYC….18

EWR….14

1966

NYC…35

EWR….33

1967

NYC…..9

EWR….7

1969

NYC….16

EWR…15

1970

NYC…29

EWR….29

1976

NYC…15

EWR..15

1980

NYC…32

EWR…27

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BucksCO_PA said:

https://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/KNYC

Recent temp analysis over the past year does not support this narrative. In actuality the daytime high temps at Central Park when compared to surrounding stations are solidly within the ASOS target in terms of mean error & SD. 

137466336_NYCpast14vs.thumb.png.7b58727f6748d0ce8d24c8043a9040a6.png

Over the past 28 days the average day time temp error at Central Park is only 0.3 degrees too cool. The issue, if there really is one, would be the night time average error running solidly cool however that's not far fetched considering the comparison to many highly urbanized sensors vs. the heavily wooded park array.

1982568453_NYCpast28days.thumb.png.80d473256a04d0043d24080e961d4d6d.png

52 week day time trends are consistent

1546123009_NYCpast52.png.9c5a5cd5799a1f377bbb6ae38dc0b138.png

You posted a 9yr old pic of the Central Park ASOS from 2013 showing the surrounding vegetation, it should be noted that despite that growth they had no problems recording triple digits during 2010-2012 including a 104 & 103 day. Very comparable to the triple digit readings at PHL & LGA during that time. 

Now when you cross the Hudson you really encounter a site that currently has significant day time temp issues on the warm side. I would think the warm bias at Newark is so obvious even Stevie Wonder could see it but apparently that's not the case.....

The same data & charts for Newark, in this case the day time temps over the past 14 are well outside the ASOS target. Significant warm average day time temp error. The is how you turn 92 into 96 degrees LOL.

878103463_EWRpast14vs.thumb.png.3aad988fff965f6c69a4f7321182ba8f.png

Over the past 28 days the day time error is a ridiculous 2.7 degrees too warm which is so bad you have the unacceptable error range note.

509473160_EWRpast28days.thumb.png.e6b972c0c75f99a74357ba5e2bc5db05.png

EWR.thumb.png.3d79891b91342269b8996f71aac02df6.png

Finally the 52 week trend, something sure changed during the winter however the sensor has reverted back to it's customary nuking of day time temps.

1096176653_EWRpast52.png.8bb87ccd105f25de718beffb75706efc.png

 

There is an important difference between what the charts are measuring and the point @Bluewave et al., have been making. The charts measure daytime and nighttime temperatures, not high and low temperatures. There could be a 2-degree error during a one-to-two hour period with all the other hours having small errors. The daytime error would then be small. 

The issue raised concerns high temperatures (mainly during late spring to early fall). At present, Central Park’s hourly temperatures diverge from local and Micronet temperatures around 18z until near 20z (one can see it on the most recent daily chart shown on the Gladstone website). That time shifts a little as the season progresses hinting at shadowing during a small part of the day. However, that’s typically when some of the day’s highest readings occur. Thus, the issue noted in discussions here and by local meteorologists.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SnowGoose69 said:

Yeah I forget when they moved it.  My guess is probably 1996.   I was also told once snow measurements prior to the 93-94 winter are questionable (yeah we know they are questionable after too lol) but the reason told to me was they used to measure somewhere downstairs from the NWS office up til 92-93 and the measurements were likely too low most times

I think we can all agree Central Park, Newark and LGA have issues...The NWS was at Rockerfeller Plaza...Did they measure there?...in the 1890's snow was measured in lower Manhattan...some of those totals were higher than Central Park especially the 1892-93 and 1893-94 winters...more snow fell in 1892-93 than 1995-96...some big descrepancies with snow totals from lower Manhattan and Central Park... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last 2 days of June are averaging  79degs.(69/89) or +4.

Month to date is  71.0[-0.8].       June should end at  71.6[-0.4].

Reached 83 here yesterday.

Today:  80-85, wind n. to w. to s. and breezy, some clouds, 69 tomorrow AM.

NBM for Thurs, Fri, Sat is: 88,90,85, with 0.4" rain Sat. PM into Sunday.

The first 10 days of July (GFS) are averaging  80(70/90) or +4.

68*(77%RH) here at 7am.      71* at 10am.       75* at Noon.       76* at 1pm.     down to 74* about 2pm.      75* at 3pm.      78* at 6pm.     Reached 80 at 7pm.       72* at 10pm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, uncle W said:

I think we can all agree Central Park, Newark and LGA have issues...The NWS was at Rockerfeller Plaza...Did they measure there?...in the 1890's snow was measured in lower Manhattan...some of those totals were higher than Central Park especially the 1892-93 and 1893-94 winters...more snow fell in 1892-93 than 1995-96...some big descrepancies with snow totals from lower Manhattan and Central Park... 

While the snowfall since 2003 has been very impressive, the old method of measurement undercounted snowfall totals. So we need to adjust the earlier snowfall era measurements higher to match the current methodology. The 1888 blizzard total was based on the  liquid equivalent and not an actual snow depth measurement.


https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/US-Snowfall-1900-2019-Decade-Decade-Look

As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

Another example: The great Blizzard of March 1888 brought Central Park 2.10” of melted precipitation, resulting in the official 21.0” snowfall reported. Since temperatures during the height of the blizzard were in the low teens, it is likely that the ratio was much greater than 10 to 1, and thus the actual snowfall considerably more than the 21.0” officially reported.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bluewave said:

While the snowfall since 2003 has been very impressive, the old method of measurement undercounted snowfall totals. So we need to adjust the earlier snowfall era measurements higher to match the current methodology. The 1888 blizzard total was based on the  liquid equivalent and not an actual snow depth measurement.


https://news.ucar.edu/14009/snowfall-measurement-flaky-history

Earlier in our weather history, the standard practice was to record snowfall amounts less frequently, such as every 12 or 24 hours, or even to take just one measurement of depth on the ground at the end of the storm.

You might think that one or two measurements per day should add up to pretty much the same as measurements taken every 6 hours during the storm. It’s a logical assumption, but you would be mistaken. Snow on the ground gets compacted as additional snow falls. Therefore, multiple measurements during a storm typically result in a higher total than if snowfall is derived from just one or two measurements per day.

That can make quite a significant difference. It turns out that it’s not uncommon for the snow on the ground at the end of a storm to be 15 to 20 percent less than the total that would be derived from multiple snowboard measurements.  As the cooperative climate observer for Boulder, Colorado, I examined the 15 biggest snowfalls of the last two decades, all measured at the NOAA campus in Boulder. The sum of the snowboard measurements averaged 17 percent greater than the maximum depth on the ground at the end of the storm. For a 20-inch snowfall, that would be a boost of 3.4 inches—enough to dethrone many close rivals on the top-10 snowstorm list that were not necessarily lesser storms!

Another common practice at the cooperative observing stations prior to 1950 did not involve measuring snow at all, but instead took the liquid derived from the snow and applied a 10:1 ratio (every inch of liquid equals ten inches of snow). This is no longer the official practice and has become increasingly less common since 1950. But it too introduces a potential low bias in historic snowfalls because in most parts of the country (and in the recent blizzard in the Northeast) one inch of liquid produces more than 10 inches of snow.

This means that many of the storms from the 1980s or earlier would probably appear in the record as bigger storms if the observers had used the currently accepted methodology. Now, for those of you northeasterners with aching backs from shoveling, I am not saying that your recent storm wasn’t big in places like Boston, Portland, or Long Island. But I am saying that some of the past greats—the February Blizzard of 1978, the Knickerbocker storm of January 1922, and the great Blizzard of March 1888—are probably underestimated.

So keep in mind when viewing those lists of snowy greats: the older ones are not directly comparable with those in recent decades. It’s not as bad as comparing apples to oranges, but it may be like comparing apples to crabapples.

Going forward, we can look for increasingly accurate snow totals. Researchers at NCAR and other organizations are studying new approaches for measuring snow more accurately (see related story: Snowfall, inch by inch).  

But we can’t apply those techniques to the past. For now, all we can say is that snowfall measurements taken more than about 20 or 30 years ago may be unsuitable for detecting trends – and perhaps snowfall records from the past should not be melting away quite as quickly as it appears.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/US-Snowfall-1900-2019-Decade-Decade-Look

As an observer who has used both techniques during his now-29-year COOP tenure in Boulder, Mr. Kelsch estimates that for extreme snowfalls the use of six-hourly snowboard measurements can result in snow totals that are 15 to 20 percent greater than what is actually measured on the ground. The potential for confusion became evident after New York’s official Central Park site reported a 24-hour snowfall of 26.8” on January 22-23, 2016, a new all-time record for New York City. That total was adjusted upward even higher, to 27.5”, after an NWS review found and corrected an error in the transmitted snow report. However, local weather-minded residents living near the site in Central Park (and there are many of those!) measured only 18” to 22” on the ground at the end of the storm.

At Newark International Airport, observations from the same storm showed a preliminary record of 28.1”. That total was declared invalid by the NWS because the private contractor who measured the snowfall took snowboard measurements once per hour, as opposed to the standard six-hour interval. The revised total of 24.0” fell short of the record of 25.6” set on Dec. 26, 1947.

Another example: The great Blizzard of March 1888 brought Central Park 2.10” of melted precipitation, resulting in the official 21.0” snowfall reported. Since temperatures during the height of the blizzard were in the low teens, it is likely that the ratio was much greater than 10 to 1, and thus the actual snowfall considerably more than the 21.0” officially reported.

 

all the big storms from my youth were measured when the snow ended...the 26" in 1947 must have been over 30" if measured today...the Feb 1978 storm was 17.7" falling on a trace of leftover snowcover...the total snow depth after the storm was 18"...Jan 12-13th 1964 had 12.5" measured...the snow depth after the storm was 13"...no snow on the ground when it started...many more examples of this in the 60's and 70's...

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newark NJ's 18" storm on Feb 11, 1994 is wrong...no other sight had over 13"...the snow depth was 18" after the storm ended...there was 8 or 9 inches on the ground when it started...The real total should be 9 or 10 inches...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2022 at 12:08 AM, BucksCO_PA said:

The same data & charts for Newark, in this case the day time temps over the past 14 are well outside the ASOS target. Significant warm average day time temp error. The is how you turn 92 into 96 degrees LOL.

Those charts that you posted don’t go into any detail on how or what an ASOS target is. The record heat at the end of May matched the NYC micronet readings. You realize that the other ASOS stations around NYC like LGA and JFK have been subject to cooler sea breezes. Interior Brooklyn and Queens stations have had highs in line with Newark when the wind flow made comparisons valid. The only station in the region with consistent quality control issues is NYC. 

May 31st warmest day of year highs were in line with the 98° at Newark when the limited ASOS network missed the warm spots around NYC metro. The charts you posted lacked the data from a much wider network. Your sample size was too limited to be a valid comparison of our local temperature distribution. So the Newark temperatures have been an accurate measurement from one of the warmest parts of the area.

https://www2.nysmesonet.org/networks/nyc

13th St./16th / Alphabet City 99 67 85 99 67 78 27 0.00 16
9:05pm
7
11:20am
26.9
160 Ave. / Howard Beach 96 68 81 96 68 88 32 0.00      
28th St. / Chelsea 96 70 85 96 70 73 29 0.00 25
11:45am
10
11:45am
25.0
Astoria 97 64 84 97 64 82 30 0.00 18
10:15pm
9
10:15am
26.0
Bensonhurst / Mapleton 97 71 84 97 71 81 31 0.00     25.0
Bronx Mesonet 94 63 82 94 63 79 32 0.00 24
11:50pm
15
11:25pm
29.2
Brooklyn Mesonet 93 67 82 93 67 82 32 0.00 26
10:45am
16
10:40am
27.1
Brownsville 100 69 84 100 69 77 27 0.00      
Corona 99 66 84 99 66 80 28 0.00      
E 40th St. / Murray Hill 96* 70* 85* 96* 70* 70* 30* 0.00      
Fresh Kills 97 69 85 97 69 82 29 0.00 22
10:05am
12
9:50am
0.0
Glendale / Maspeth 96 65 83 96 65 81 30 0.00      
Gold Street / Navy Yard 96 66 84 96 66 78 30 0.00 23
10:30am
13
10:50am
26.6
Lefferts / South Ozone Park 98 68 83 98 68 80 29 0.00      

Manhattan Mesonet

Elevation 311 ft rooftop

93 65 82 93 65 79 31 0.00 27
1:45am
17
10:10am
27.6
Newtown / Long Island City 96 65 84 96 65 80 28 0.00 25
11:25am
14
9:55pm
25.3
Queens Mesonet 93 64 81 93 64 87 32 0.00 26
10:25am
15
10:45am
26.1
Queensbridge / Dutch Kills 98 66 85 98 66 75 28 0.00     23.7
Staten Island Mesonet 95 69 84 95 69 80 30 0.00 29
10:10am
17
10:20am
28.4
TLC Center 94 65 83 94 65 78 30 0.00 24
10:20pm
10
10:05pm
28.0
Tremont / Van Nest 99 63 85 99 63 81 28 0.00 18
10:15pm
8
12:45am
27.0

 

Data for May 31, 2022 through May 31, 2022
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.
State
Name
Station Type
Highest Max Temperature 
NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 98
NJ CALDWELL ESSEX COUNTY AP WBAN 95
CT NEW HAVEN TWEED AP WBAN 95
NY JFK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT WBAN 94
CT MERIDEN MARKHAM MUNICIPAL AP WBAN 94
NY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT WBAN 93
NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 93
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Down to 55 overnight and back up to 72.  On the way for a nice stretch of summer weather and the seasons first hat trick (heatwave) for many as height rise and ridge builds over the east coast 6/29 - 7/2).  Another gorgeous day dry , sunny and warm and while most places will be capped below 90, in the upper 80s, there is an outside chance of a 90 in the warm spots to start the mini heatwave.  By tomorrow  Thu (6/30)many spots will reach 90, maybe even the park.  Heat peaks on Friday (7/1) with 850 temps pushing near 20C (>18c) and mostly sunny skies.  Could challenge some records (see above).  Lots of mid / upper 90s.  Saturday starts hot and pending on storms should reach low 90s, if front is delayed more mid 90s.  Storms come through satruday (7/2) ( night (could be a nice soking for the vegetables/tomatoes) and into Sunday (7/3).   Looks like we could clear out by the late afternoon (3PM). The fourth of July ridge rebuilds with a push near 90, great day on tap.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, uncle W said:

Newark NJ's 18" storm on Feb 11, 1994 is wrong...no other sight had over 13"...the snow depth was 18" after the storm ended...there was 8 or 9 inches on the ground when it started...The real total should be 9 or 10 inches...

 

Yeah that total always baffled me.  I have no idea how they managed to come up with that one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SnowGoose69 said:

 

Yeah that total always baffled me.  I have no idea how they managed to come up with that one

Clearly someone measured and forgot snow was already on the ground from the prior storm Tuesday :lol:.  With some melting and compaction it was probably still a foot or so and there was some sleet and freezing drizzle in between 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stormlover74 said:

Clearly someone measured and forgot snow was already on the ground from the prior storm Tuesday :lol:.  With some melting and compaction it was probably still a foot or so and there was some sleet and freezing drizzle in between 

 

Yeah there was basically sleet/freezing rain from late evening on the 8th into very early AM on the 9th then it was sunny that day and the 10th.  I believe EWR never flipped to sleet on the 11th while most of the south shore of Queens/Bklyn/LI did by 12-1pm that day...even so LGA and NYC I think only recorded like 10-12 inches and there was no notable banding with that storm so EWR seeing that much more is certainly a mistake of some kind

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, uncle W said:

Newark NJ Feb 1994...no hourly precip for some reason...the 2.06" precip total on the 11th is suspect too...

IPS-83214A3A-D583-4075-9331-CE59C7FFBAAC.pdf (noaa.gov)

The 1983 precipitation totals still haven’t been corrected for NYC. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/nyregion/city-s-rain-83-record-is-in-doubt.html

The heavy rains that pounded New York City during 1983 may not have broken the annual rainfall record here, after all, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The only thing broken for certain, it said, was the official rain gauge in Central Park.

To no one's surprise, the Weather Service announced on Nov. 15 that the year's drenching rains in Manhattan had surpassed a record of 67.04 inches, set in 1972. As of early yesterday, additional rains were said to have brought the year's total to 80.56 inches.

But the Weather Service's data acquisition division in Garden City, L.I., suspected something was amiss because the Central Park readings were much higher than official measurements at Kennedy International, Newark International and La Guardia Airports.

So the gauge at Belvedere Castle in the park was taken apart. It was found to be leaky. A faulty weld apparently was allowing water to seep in the side and be measured with rain entering the calibrated opening.

No one knows how much rain fell in the park in 1983. But the Weather Service said that an official estimate based on nearby readings would be made and that ''it likely will be close to the record, either just above or just below.''

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bluewave said:

The 1983 precipitation totals still haven’t been corrected for NYC. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/nyregion/city-s-rain-83-record-is-in-doubt.html

The heavy rains that pounded New York City during 1983 may not have broken the annual rainfall record here, after all, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The only thing broken for certain, it said, was the official rain gauge in Central Park.

To no one's surprise, the Weather Service announced on Nov. 15 that the year's drenching rains in Manhattan had surpassed a record of 67.04 inches, set in 1972. As of early yesterday, additional rains were said to have brought the year's total to 80.56 inches.

But the Weather Service's data acquisition division in Garden City, L.I., suspected something was amiss because the Central Park readings were much higher than official measurements at Kennedy International, Newark International and La Guardia Airports.

So the gauge at Belvedere Castle in the park was taken apart. It was found to be leaky. A faulty weld apparently was allowing water to seep in the side and be measured with rain entering the calibrated opening.

No one knows how much rain fell in the park in 1983. But the Weather Service said that an official estimate based on nearby readings would be made and that ''it likely will be close to the record, either just above or just below.''

 

they took the record away and erased all the 1983 rainfall totals...years later they reinstated the data...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, uncle W said:

Newark NJ's 18" storm on Feb 11, 1994 is wrong...no other sight had over 13"...the snow depth was 18" after the storm ended...there was 8 or 9 inches on the ground when it started...The real total should be 9 or 10 inches...

Was this the storm that it was suggested that the SWE was reverse-engineered - to use a term- to get the 18" total?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

The 1983 precipitation totals still haven’t been corrected for NYC. 

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/31/nyregion/city-s-rain-83-record-is-in-doubt.html

The heavy rains that pounded New York City during 1983 may not have broken the annual rainfall record here, after all, the National Weather Service said yesterday. The only thing broken for certain, it said, was the official rain gauge in Central Park.

To no one's surprise, the Weather Service announced on Nov. 15 that the year's drenching rains in Manhattan had surpassed a record of 67.04 inches, set in 1972. As of early yesterday, additional rains were said to have brought the year's total to 80.56 inches.

But the Weather Service's data acquisition division in Garden City, L.I., suspected something was amiss because the Central Park readings were much higher than official measurements at Kennedy International, Newark International and La Guardia Airports.

So the gauge at Belvedere Castle in the park was taken apart. It was found to be leaky. A faulty weld apparently was allowing water to seep in the side and be measured with rain entering the calibrated opening.

No one knows how much rain fell in the park in 1983. But the Weather Service said that an official estimate based on nearby readings would be made and that ''it likely will be close to the record, either just above or just below.''

 

Upon a review, the 1983 record was upheld. I emailed NCEI about the record back in 2018 and then posted the response here:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Upon a review, the 1983 record was upheld. I emailed NCEI about the record back in 2018 and then posted the response here:

 

Still seems like a pretty big outlier given the other amounts in the 5 boroughs. 

 

Data for January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.
State
Name
Station Type
Total Precipitation 
NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 80.56
NY WESTCHESTER CO AP WBAN 74.15
CT STEVENSON DAM COOP 73.78
CT ROUND POND COOP 73.66
NY DOBBS FERRY-ARDSLEY COOP 73.30
NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 72.70
CT STAMFORD 5 N COOP 72.08
CT MOUNT CARMEL COOP 71.64
CT DANBURY COOP 71.49
NJ CANOE BROOK COOP 71.37
NJ LITTLE FALLS COOP 70.60
NJ GREENWOOD LAKE COOP 69.58
NJ RINGWOOD COOP 69.57
NY NEW YORK LAUREL HILL COOP 69.50
NY WEST POINT COOP 69.49
CT SAUGATUCK RESERVOIR COOP 69.41
CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 69.20
NY PLEASANTVILLE COOP 68.99
NJ CRANFORD COOP 68.91
NJ MIDLAND PARK COOP 68.90
NJ MAHWAH COOP 68.62
CT NORWICH PUBLIC UTILITY PLANT COOP 68.36
NJ ESSEX FELLS SERVICE BLDG COOP 68.03
CT COCKAPONSET RANGER STA COOP 67.62
NJ WOODCLIFF LAKE COOP 67.02
NJ WANAQUE RAYMOND DAM COOP 66.77
NY WESTBURY COOP 66.37
CT NORWALK GAS PLANT COOP 66.31
NY PATCHOGUE 2 N COOP 66.18
NY NY WESTERLEIGH STAT IS COOP 66.06
NJ LODI COOP 66.05
NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 65.50
NY NEW YORK AVE V BROOKLYN COOP 65.00

 

NY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT WBAN 60.84
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bluewave said:

Still seems like a pretty big outlier given the other amounts in the 5 boroughs. 

 

Data for January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1983
Click column heading to sort ascending, click again to sort descending.
State
Name
Station Type
Total Precipitation 
NY NY CITY CENTRAL PARK WBAN 80.56
NY WESTCHESTER CO AP WBAN 74.15
CT STEVENSON DAM COOP 73.78
CT ROUND POND COOP 73.66
NY DOBBS FERRY-ARDSLEY COOP 73.30
NJ CHARLOTTEBURG RESERVOIR COOP 72.70
CT STAMFORD 5 N COOP 72.08
CT MOUNT CARMEL COOP 71.64
CT DANBURY COOP 71.49
NJ CANOE BROOK COOP 71.37
NJ LITTLE FALLS COOP 70.60
NJ GREENWOOD LAKE COOP 69.58
NJ RINGWOOD COOP 69.57
NY NEW YORK LAUREL HILL COOP 69.50
NY WEST POINT COOP 69.49
CT SAUGATUCK RESERVOIR COOP 69.41
CT MIDDLETOWN 4 W COOP 69.20
NY PLEASANTVILLE COOP 68.99
NJ CRANFORD COOP 68.91
NJ MIDLAND PARK COOP 68.90
NJ MAHWAH COOP 68.62
CT NORWICH PUBLIC UTILITY PLANT COOP 68.36
NJ ESSEX FELLS SERVICE BLDG COOP 68.03
CT COCKAPONSET RANGER STA COOP 67.62
NJ WOODCLIFF LAKE COOP 67.02
NJ WANAQUE RAYMOND DAM COOP 66.77
NY WESTBURY COOP 66.37
CT NORWALK GAS PLANT COOP 66.31
NY PATCHOGUE 2 N COOP 66.18
NY NY WESTERLEIGH STAT IS COOP 66.06
NJ LODI COOP 66.05
NJ NEWARK LIBERTY INTL AP WBAN 65.50
NY NEW YORK AVE V BROOKLYN COOP 65.00

 

NY LAGUARDIA AIRPORT WBAN 60.84

I agree. But that was the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...