Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,497
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    PhiEaglesfan712
    Newest Member
    PhiEaglesfan712
    Joined

Pittsburgh, PA/Western PA Fall/Winter Discussion 2022-23


Recommended Posts

On 3/1/2023 at 6:28 PM, jwilson said:

Outside for a while today and it felt like summer towards the end.  Winter can die now, peacefully I hope, but we'll probably get something now that many have lost interest.

Still don't buy long-range cold threats.  No reason to based on the winter we've had.

I'm not buying it either, get it under day 7 and my interests will perk up. Part of me hates to see that below avg temp map for Match, but if we can get a storm of consequence I'll be all in. March can spawn some real beasts as we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RitualOfTheTrout said:

I'm not buying it either, get it under day 7 and my interests will perk up. Part of me hates to see that below avg temp map for Match, but if we can get a storm of consequence I'll be all in. March can spawn some real beasts as we know.

Next 2 weeks have a chance at least. I’m off to southwest New York tomorrow. Hoping to see some accumulation or ice tomorrow night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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].

 

image.png.9a58ef5370845f41195b577c8abcf1d6.png

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)

Quote

The wind set a record at the Pittsburgh International Airport, where a gust was measured at 67 mph at 8:30 p.m. Sunday. The record high — 62 mph — was set in June 1988. Hendricks said an 81 mph gust was clocked at the Beaver County Airport at 8:37 p.m. — Bob Bauder

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.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

image.thumb.png.513dd3293d6862cf51206571e78e6f36.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rd9108 said:

37X9FQN.png

Lol just give up on winter you'll be a lot happier.

Yeah I really think the 11th is dead. So now anyone who’s still holding onto any chance of anything resembling winter before the interminable 9 months to follow will just have to hope for something the following week under ever more hostile climo. Every week that passes from here on out, it gets exponentially more difficult to get meaningful snowfall. It’s honestly surreal to think we’re on the cusp of making it through an entire winter without anything slightly resembling winter other than those 3 days at Christmas.

To illustrate this, there are exactly 9 warning level (6” or more) snowstorms in our records beyond 3/15, and only two in the past 65 years. It would be a miracle if something pans out in the 3/15-3/17 timeframe that some are touting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TimB said:

We desperately need next weekend to not turn into the clusterf*** that the Euro showed, if only to take the focus off of this NWS Ike coverup.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

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. 

It is indeed weird. I didn’t live here during that storm, so I have zero anecdotal evidence of anything that did or didn’t happen, but something’s odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Ahoff said:

I think you’re the only one still worried about getting snow this season, lol.

I’m still keeping an eye on next weekend. (And the rest of the month).
Although the OP’s have pivoted to a far NW solution, not all is lost yet based on a few red tagged comments I’ve seen in other threads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ahoff said:

I think you’re the only one still worried about getting snow this season, lol.

I wouldn’t be, but I’d like to not set a snow futility record. So I either have to hope for a few more inches of snow or pretend the 8.8” from 1918-19 is legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TimB said:

I wouldn’t be, but I’d like to not set a snow futility record. So I either have to hope for a few more inches of snow or pretend the 8.8” from 1918-19 is legit.

That record could still be legit, who's to say Moon would have double the actual snow that year.  They could have had less than the official.  So, since we can't actually say what they had, you do have to take that as the record.

Now the Ike record, lol, you don't have to take that since there are other (plentiful) it seems observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ahoff said:

That record could still be legit, who's to say Moon would have double the actual snow that year.  They could have had less than the official.  So, since we can't actually say what they had, you do have to take that as the record.

Now the Ike record, lol, you don't have to take that since there are other (plentiful) it seems observations.

Could you make the argument that Pittsburgh (in the city) has seen less than 8.8” this winter? I think it’s possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TimB said:

Could you make the argument that Pittsburgh (in the city) has seen less than 8.8” this winter? I think it’s possible.

Maybe, but it definitely feels like we had more than that.  Hard to say, though.  November had a good three, December was pretty close to what the airport reported.  There was a surprise one to two though when the airport didn't report that much sometime in January.  I'd saw where I am in the City definitely surpassed that 8.8" and probably 10" ot 12".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 10:12 PM, TimB said:

Could you make the argument that Pittsburgh (in the city) has seen less than 8.8” this winter? I think it’s possible.

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).

image.png.d9ec083692359e99dfd98dfa22e9bcdf.png

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)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

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).

image.png.d9ec083692359e99dfd98dfa22e9bcdf.png

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)

The differences are pretty stark when you look at prolific winters like 1950-51 (yes, I know this one was pre-KPIT) 1960-61, 1969-70 and 1977-78. You’re talking 25” of difference in some of those.

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...