Jump to content

  • Member Statistics

    17,513
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Toothache
    Newest Member
    Toothache
    Joined

Central PA Winter 23/24

Voyager

By Voyager,
in Upstate New York/Pennsylvania

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
No need to bring actual facts and statistics to the discussion, personal observations and PWS data spliced into a threaded record will always supersede observations at a first order climate site.
But the Philly area got pasted from big storms during that period

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Bubbler86

    2430

  • mitchnick

    1437

  • Blizzard of 93

    1428

  • Itstrainingtime

    984

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Itstrainingtime
Itstrainingtime

A Season In The Life Of A Central PA Winter Part 1: This is an adaptation from the previous versions of "A Day In the Life Of..." - for this edition, let's take a sneak peek to see what happens d

Itstrainingtime
Itstrainingtime

And now - presenting Part 2 of our typical winter season full of snow maps, snow maps, more snow maps...and...snow maps. Being in the "heart" of winter...this is significantly longer than part 1. 

mahantango#1
mahantango#1

Pics from yesterday:  

Posted Images

Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
A little. Probably had a few too many chocolate covered cherries the other night. It may consider taking up a resolution to become a little less dense.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

I'm having an enjoyable time watching the spawn of Penn state play a messy game in crap weather while enjoying a fire and double IPA

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
No need to bring actual facts and statistics to the discussion, personal observations and PWS data spliced into a threaded record will always supersede observations at a first order climate site.
This also bothers me for your inherent faith in first order climate stations. I want to leave this here for you to read about the history of the Harrisburg station, but needless to say I would take any and all readings before 1941 as only reliable within an error range of probably 5-10x the acceptable range today if not more. Especially in the 1920s, since they decided for decades to take readings on top of buildings and construction from buildings around it had out sized effect on rain and wind readings. As well as it being on top of a building. At some point data was taken from two locations without it being always clear. But from its inception in 1888 till it's move to capital city airport in 1939 all reading were taken from atop buildings in various parts of Harrisburg.

From 1939-1981 all readings were taken at what is now capital city airport. A couple years ago I did a deep dive regarding the persistent differences in rain, snow, temperature between capital city and KMDT, which shocked me at first due to them being so close by straight line distant. But you have far different microclimates and even far different extreme local effects from the positioning of the weather instruments. To say that Harrisburg weather data is superior just because it is a first order climate site after knowing it's history is laughable. I assume cheaters readings have been taken in a rural area for a long time consistently. As long as the record keepers were diligent in there record keeping and instrument calibration they are a valid and important climate data point.

After actually investigating Harrisburg climate data and locations I feel there is no reliable way to properly compare any specific data from before 1941 to any data after. In general you can take a anything with an error of at least 25% +/- , and weather it rained, snowed, was sunny or cloudy. But specific amounts are a fools errand. How can you compare weather stations on top of buildings to one on the river in a sea of black asphalt with lots of planes aroundAt least after capital city has continued to keep data after a many year hiatus so that some sort of comparison to KMDT can be calibrated.

Read for yourself

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.weather.gov/media/ctp/ClimateStationHistory/Harrisburg%2520LCD%2520Site%2520History.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj95JLmurCDAxVGfzABHULLClkQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3o9ZqjV8uN7wryJgySUuZ2

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TimB

TimB

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Jns2183 said:

This also bothers me for your inherent faith in first order climate stations. I want to leave this here for you to read about the history of the Harrisburg station, but needless to say I would take any and all readings before 1941 as only reliable within an error range of probably 5-10x the acceptable range today if not more. Especially in the 1920s, since they decided for decades to take readings on top of buildings and construction from buildings around it had out sized effect on rain and wind readings. As well as it being on top of a building. At some point data was taken from two locations without it being always clear. But from its inception in 1888 till it's move to capital city airport in 1939 all reading were taken from atop buildings in various parts of Harrisburg.

From 1939-1981 all readings were taken at what is now capital city airport. A couple years ago I did a deep dive regarding the persistent differences in rain, snow, temperature between capital city and KMDT, which shocked me at first due to them being so close by straight line distant. But you have far different microclimates and even far different extreme local effects from the positioning of the weather instruments. To say that Harrisburg weather data is superior just because it is a first order climate site after knowing it's history is laughable. I assume cheaters readings have been taken in a rural area for a long time consistently. As long as the record keepers were diligent in there record keeping and instrument calibration they are a valid and important climate data point.

After actually investigating Harrisburg climate data and locations I feel there is no reliable way to properly compare any specific data from before 1941 to any data after. In general you can take a anything with an error of at least 25% +/- , and weather it rained, snowed, was sunny or cloudy. But specific amounts are a fools errand. How can you compare weather stations on top of buildings to one on the river in a sea of black asphalt with lots of planes aroundAt least after capital city has continued to keep data after a many year hiatus so that some sort of comparison to KMDT can be calibrated.

Read for yourself

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.weather.gov/media/ctp/ClimateStationHistory/Harrisburg%2520LCD%2520Site%2520History.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj95JLmurCDAxVGfzABHULLClkQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3o9ZqjV8uN7wryJgySUuZ2

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

I sure as hell don’t have any faith in the old records. I’m quite familiar with how questionable they are at PIT and I’m sure it’s much the same at other sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
I sure as hell don’t have any faith in the old records. I’m quite familiar with how questionable they are at PIT and I’m sure it’s much the same at other sites.
I'm just happy for many years in same location with a reasonable component record keeper and equipment. That's better than 95% out there.

The other day I highlighted the insane rain differences between stations in a 5mile radius. Eventually I went back to what I could that had records for 5+ years and with some differences evened out where some they became greater. The ones that stood out I looked at other closer stations to try to verify some and kept average reading if they were within a mile. It wasnt super scientific but I definitely saw some microclimate variations that were greater than I thought. It definitely changed my priors on how variable and persistent they can be. I wish I could find some better research papers regarding them

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ruin

Ruin

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Jns2183 said:

I'm just happy for many years in same location with a reasonable component record keeper and equipment. That's better than 95% out there.

The other day I highlighted the insane rain differences between stations in a 5mile radius. Eventually I went back to what I could that had records for 5+ years and with some differences evened out where some they became greater. The ones that stood out I looked at other closer stations to try to verify some and kept average reading if they were within a mile. It wasnt super scientific but I definitely saw some microclimate variations that were greater than I thought. It definitely changed my priors on how variable and persistent they can be. I wish I could find some better research papers regarding them

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

didnt they also have some fudging of global numbers in 2014? where they added a few degrees to global temps and bumped up the highs for the records that were false numbers? It came out in a leaked email or something. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bubbler86

Bubbler86

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ruin said:

oh so were back to the bs pushing the cold back a week or 2 like the last few years and it never happens 

Eh, I was more saying that this AM's GFS had it on schedule for the talk of the last few days which was the second week of Jan.    The talk about it getting cold right after Christmas left the building over a week ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
didnt they also have some fudging of global numbers in 2014? where they added a few degrees to global temps and bumped up the highs for the records that were false numbers? It came out in a leaked email or something. 
What the hell are you talking about?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
didnt they also have some fudging of global numbers in 2014? where they added a few degrees to global temps and bumped up the highs for the records that were false numbers? It came out in a leaked email or something. 
How the hell do you get some global conspiracy out of something I did as a weekend project because I found something interesting. I don't get the logic here.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Atomixwx

Atomixwx

Posted
Posted
How the hell do you get some global conspiracy out of something I did as a weekend project because I found something interesting. I don't get the logic here.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

I don't know if you need to be told this or not, but it's not difficult for conspiracy theorists to make a conspiracy out of anything.

Be careful with that water. It's turning the friggin frogs gay.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jns2183

Jns2183

Posted
Posted
I don't know if you need to be told this or not, but it's not difficult for conspiracy theorists to make a conspiracy out of anything.

Be careful with that water. It's turning the friggin frogs gay.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

I thought I should probably drink less this new year. Now....maybe the answer is more

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Atomixwx

Atomixwx

Posted
Posted
I thought I should probably drink less this new year. Now....maybe the answer is more

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

As Lewis Black once said, if by Friday you haven't met your weekly quota, you should just shove a fire hose up your ass to cross the line.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

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
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...