January 1886...Just Another Great month From a Great Decade

[wx_statman]

I got a reply back from the WRCC, regarding the missing daily records at different stations:

 

Hello, 

I would normally explain that this is due to the major update that NCEI is in the process of completing.

NCEI has, and is, updating the database to account for missing data, incorrect data and data that was never included because the forms were sent in late.

 

We do need to update our tables as the General Climate Summaries Table, it hasn’t been updated since 2012.

I am investigating this as NCEI has the records available but ACIS, the new database does not.

 

I will let you know - 

[wx_statman]

So I've been thinking about all the records that have recently gone missing from the WRCC. It seems as though the NCDC has quality controlled some of the more extreme records and flagged those that failed at least one of the QC tests. A good case study is Coquille, Oregon. This station set two remarkable records during the last decade - a 97 degree reading on 10/26/2003 (which was actually assigned to 10/27/2003 due to the 24 hour lag in reporting at COOP's) and 104 degrees on 9/21/2009 (assigned to 9/22/2009). 
 
The 10/26/2003 reading represents the highest temperature ever observed in Oregon for so late in the season. Its corroborated by a 95 degree reading at Powers Ranger Station RAWS the same day (the Powers COOP was not reporting that month). It could be seen as a daily record high for Coquille on 10/27 for over a decade until being removed sometime within the past year or so. Not only that, it has also been removed from the monthly data @ the Utah Climate Center. 
 
Looking at the NCDC data, the 97 degree reading still appears but has been flagged with an "s" which according to the legend below means that "This data value failed one of NCDC's quality control tests."

 

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20Oct%2027%202003%20NCDC_zpssbobhbqw.jpg

 

I'm guessing that due to the quality control flag, the reading has been removed from the NCEI/ACIS database(s). As such it no longer appears on neither the Utah Climate Center monthly summary for October 2003 nor the WRCC daily summary data:

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20Oct%2027%202003%20UTAH_zpssvy8pph5.jpg http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20Oct%2027%202003%20WRCC_zpsrcfgfeoq.jpg

 

Here is the corroborating 95 degree reading at Powers Ranger Station RAWS that same day, 10/26/2003:

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Powers%20Oct%2026th_zpscv8rzvcd.jpg

 

The same fate has befallen Coquille's all time record high of 104 from September 2009. This reading still shows up in the General Climate Summary - Temperature table @ WRCC (which haven't been updated since 2012):

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20104%20Table_zpsojvfe39b.jpg

 

However, its been flagged with an "s" in the NCDC data table and now no longer appears at neither the Utah Climate Center nor the WRCC daily summary data. 

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20104%20NCDC_zpsauxbscjo.jpg

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20104%20UTAH_zpsy6nfcgni.jpg

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Coquille%20104%20WRCC_zpsssl9txhn.jpg

 

As was the case with the 97 degree reading in October 2003, the 104 degree reading in September 2009 can also be corroborated. It also seems to be a legitimate reading that should not have been removed. It was 93 degrees that day in North Bend, which is extremely difficult to accomplish at that location and obviously reflects significant downslope heating. It was 100 at Agness RAWS that day, and 103 the following day:

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Agness_zpsgkzl2yv6.jpg

 

 

 

Even older, established records have been affected as demonstrated by the removal of long-standing all-time record highs at both Aberdeen, WA and Astoria Airport. A check of the WRCC daily summary data reveals that neither 105 degree reading on Aberdeen's' books - 7/23/1891 and 8/10/1981 - appears in the daily records anymore. Likewise, a number of other 100 degree readings have been removed from that station's records. Checking the data for August 1981, and sure enough the triple digit readings at Aberdeen have been flagged as suspicious:

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Aberdeen%20NCDC_zpswddbedls.jpg

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Aberdeen%20WRCC_zpscdap2az8.jpg

 

Likewise, the long-standing all-time record high of 100 degrees @ AST from July 11, 1961 has been flagged and removed. This reading was even mentioned by the NWS last month when AST hit 98 degrees. As some here may remember, the Portland NWS office sent out a tweet saying that the 98 degrees represented the highest reading @ AST since 100 degrees on July 11, 1961. Here's the July 1961 data form for AST as it appears @ the NCDC (with the "s" flag for the 100 degree maximum), and the WRCC daily summary data as it appears today @ the WRCC:

 

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Astoria%20NCDC_zpslwrw56lt.jpg

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q363/dmitrik1/Astoria%20WRCC_zpsmy8eq2b1.jpg

 

Both the July 1961 and August 1981 heat waves were major regional events that set numerous other impressive records, especially in the case of August 1981. Personally, I have no reason to doubt either of those readings @ Aberdeen and Astoria. Its unfortunate that the NCDC feels like they're not worthy of inclusion into the record books. Then again, maybe this is temporary? Maybe there's some sort of QC process underway right now, and the readings that are determined to be valid will be reinstated? I wish I knew the answers to those questions. Either way, all of this is very frustrating for a weather geek like me!

[James Jones]

So I've been thinking about all the records that have recently gone missing from the WRCC. It seems as though the NCDC has quality controlled some of the more extreme records and flagged those that failed at least one of the QC tests. 

 

Both the July 1961 and August 1981 heat waves were major regional events that set numerous other impressive records, especially in the case of August 1981. Personally, I have no reason to doubt either of those readings @ Aberdeen and Astoria. Its unfortunate that the NCDC feels like they're not worthy of inclusion into the record books. Then again, maybe this is temporary? Maybe there's some sort of QC process underway right now, and the readings that are determined to be valid will be reinstated? I wish I knew the answers to those questions. Either way, all of this is very frustrating for a weather geek like me!

It would be nice if they at least let you know which quality control test these readings failed. In these cases it seems like they've arbitrarily decided that the readings must be suspicious simply because they stand out so much compared to other records at the same time of year.

[wx_statman]

It would be nice if they at least let you know which quality control test these readings failed. In these cases it seems like they've arbitrarily decided that the readings must be suspicious simply because they stand out so much compared to other records at the same time of year.

 

That's almost what it seems like. But yeah I'd love to know more details. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

The same has been done to SLE's all-time record low of -12...

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024232&year=1972&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Look at December 1919...This is ridiculous...

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024232&year=1919&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

[James Jones]

The same has been done to SLE's all-time record low of -12...

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024232&year=1972&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

Eugene's records too.

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024221&year=1972&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024221&year=2013&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

[Front Ranger]

Look at December 1919...This is ridiculous...

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024232&year=1919&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

The "missing" data seems unrelated to the temps, though. At least for that month.

[wx_statman]

The same has been done to SLE's all-time record low of -12...

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024232&year=1972&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

Its a sad sight right now. So many records missing, both hot and cold. 

 

It seems totally random too. Other records that "stand out" at various stations haven't been removed. 

[wx_statman]

 

I got a reply back from the WRCC, regarding the missing daily records at different stations:

 

Hello, 

I would normally explain that this is due to the major update that NCEI is in the process of completing.

NCEI has, and is, updating the database to account for missing data, incorrect data and data that was never included because the forms were sent in late.

 

We do need to update our tables as the General Climate Summaries Table, it hasn’t been updated since 2012.

I am investigating this as NCEI has the records available but ACIS, the new database does not.

 

I will let you know - 

 

 

An update -

 

I've been communicating with one of the service climatologists @ the WRCC about this issue. They're OK with me re-posting correspondence here. The blame seems to rest on the shoulders of the NCDC/NCEI, as I suspected. The WRCC is not to blame for this one...I just want to make that clear. I sent them a link to my post about Coquille earlier in this thread, and this is the response I received:

 

I have been communicating with NCEI, their GQ programs has flagged so many values it’s sad.

THEY don’t understand microclimates here in the West.  Although we have communicated this many, many times…I have yet to see them relax on the subject.  I am still working on it.   You are more than welcome to pass along my responses..

[BLI snowman]

 

An update -

 

I've been communicating with one of the service climatologists @ the WRCC about this issue. They're OK with me re-posting correspondence here. The blame seems to rest on the shoulders of the NCDC/NCEI, as I suspected. The WRCC is not to blame for this one...I just want to make that clear. I sent them a link to my post about Coquille earlier in this thread, and this is the response I received:

 

I have been communicating with NCEI, their GQ programs has flagged so many values it’s sad.

THEY don’t understand microclimates here in the West. Although we have communicated this many, many times…I have yet to see them relax on the subject. I am still working on it. You are more than welcome to pass along my responses..

Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

 

Yeah, it is insane they are flagging December 8, 1972. It is the all-time record low for multiple stations up and down the I-5 corridor. 

[BLI snowman]

Yeah, it is insane they are flagging December 8, 1972. It is the all-time record low for multiple stations up and down the I-5 corridor.

Moronic. And that one is recent enough to have plenty of evidence to support it. Hell, the observers from then are probably still alive. I can understand why the 19th century stuff may be more difficult to process.

 

Is this related to the NCDC changing to NCEI recently? Some shake-up involved with quality control now?

[wx_statman]

Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

 

Its mindboggling.

[snow_wizard]

Look at December 1919...This is ridiculous...

 

https://climate.usurf.usu.edu/reports/e15daily.php?stn=USW00024232&year=1919&month=12&unit=EN&network=direct:ghcn&sidebar=0

 

 

Shows they don't understand the fine points of the climate in certain places.  There are reasons the Willamette Valley is capable of extraordinarily low readings when there is heavy snow cover and seepage from the Columbia Gorge.

[Jesse]

Its mindboggling.

I just caught up on reading this thread and it really is. Makes you question global data sets just a bit when even our national stuff is so mishandled.

[wx_statman]

I just caught up on reading this thread and it really is. Makes you question global data sets just a bit when even our national stuff is so mishandled.

 

From what I understand its worse in a lot of other countries, especially if you're talking about the third world. Most countries don't have what can be considered a reliable, long term record of weather observations. 

[Jesse]

From what I understand its worse in a lot of other countries, especially if you're talking about the third world. Most countries don't have what can be considered a reliable, long term record of weather observations.

That makes sense.

 

With that in mind, I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how they've tracked global temps since 1880 with any degree of accuracy.

 

Not trying to start a global warming conspiracy theory debate. I do believe we have been warming. But that is something I have always wondered about. I know they have certain algorithms, etc, but seeing the level of data mishandling even here does have me feeling just a bit skeptical about the validity of global long term data.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

I don't trust a lot of older extreme readings. I do not think a lot of times the sensors were always properly placed. 

[wx_statman]

That makes sense.

 

With that in mind, I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around how they've tracked global temps since 1880 with any degree of accuracy.

 

Not trying to start a global warming conspiracy theory debate. I do believe we have been warming. But that is something I have always wondered about. I know they have certain algorithms, etc, but seeing the level of data mishandling even here does have me feeling just a bit skeptical about the validity of global long term data.

 

Its a problem here in the US too. Look at climate division #9 here in Oregon, which is essentially Malheur County. Its a mess. There isn't a sample of reliable, long term stations with reasonably complete observation histories to draw from. And yet NCDC/NOAA still puts out numbers for that climate zone. I did some research on this issue a few years ago and actually made a post about it (yeah, I took the time to dig it up):

 

And the sad thing is, there doesn't appear to be a single good station to use in the High Desert region of southeastern Oregon. Almost all of those stations have garbage recording histories, so you can't really use them for long term climo purposes. Its weird. Every seemingly reputable station - that's located in an actual town - that I looked at in that region has that problem. And I'm not going to trust data from ranch stations with names like "P Ranch Refuge" or "OO Ranch," so I didn't even bother looking at their periods of record. Maybe they are more complete, but I'm not going to trust them. So for the purposes of this little study, I'll have to ignore ALL of southeastern Oregon. And this begs the question - what exactly is NOAA using to compute their numbers for southeastern OR? The myriad of crappy stations that can't seem to string together more than three decades of consistent observations? How reliable are those NOAA regional numbers then? How many other regions across the country have the same problem, where the averages are pulled from stations that don't have sufficient data to establish long term normals, and should not be used for such purposes? This stuff can make your head spin!

 

Here's the NOAA climate division map for reference:

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Its a problem here in the US too. Look at climate division #9 here in Oregon, which is essentially Malheur County. Its a mess. There isn't a sample of reliable, long term stations with reasonably complete observation histories to draw from. And yet NCDC/NOAA still puts out numbers for that climate zone. I did some research on this issue a few years ago and actually made a post about it (yeah, I took the time to dig it up):

 

And the sad thing is, there doesn't appear to be a single good station to use in the High Desert region of southeastern Oregon. Almost all of those stations have garbage recording histories, so you can't really use them for long term climo purposes. Its weird. Every seemingly reputable station - that's located in an actual town - that I looked at in that region has that problem. And I'm not going to trust data from ranch stations with names like "P Ranch Refuge" or "OO Ranch," so I didn't even bother looking at their periods of record. Maybe they are more complete, but I'm not going to trust them. So for the purposes of this little study, I'll have to ignore ALL of southeastern Oregon. And this begs the question - what exactly is NOAA using to compute their numbers for southeastern OR? The myriad of crappy stations that can't seem to string together more than three decades of consistent observations? How reliable are those NOAA regional numbers then? How many other regions across the country have the same problem, where the averages are pulled from stations that don't have sufficient data to establish long term normals, and should not be used for such purposes? This stuff can make your head spin!

 

Here's the NOAA climate division map for reference:

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/maps/us-climate-divisions.php

 

I know BNO only goes back to what 1980 or so?

[wx_statman]

I know BNO only goes back to what 1980 or so?

 

It used to be 1980, but I see they've uploaded data back to 1973. Looks to be part of the trend of the WRCC back-filling older data that wasn't digitized initially. 

 

But yeah, that's not a long term dataset either way.

[wx_statman]

 

An update -

 

I've been communicating with one of the service climatologists @ the WRCC about this issue. They're OK with me re-posting correspondence here. The blame seems to rest on the shoulders of the NCDC/NCEI, as I suspected. The WRCC is not to blame for this one...I just want to make that clear. I sent them a link to my post about Coquille earlier in this thread, and this is the response I received:

 

I have been communicating with NCEI, their GQ programs has flagged so many values it’s sad.

THEY don’t understand microclimates here in the West.  Although we have communicated this many, many times…I have yet to see them relax on the subject.  I am still working on it.   You are more than welcome to pass along my responses..

 

 

Some good news regarding this issue, from the WRCC:

 

After some deliberation and research, the high temps are going back into the database!

SUCCESS!  

 

Might not show up for a while but I got word that the values will be added back in soon.

Nice work!

[BLI snowman]

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow

[wx_statman]

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow

 

Great find!

 

60.1" in January 1890 is pretty unreal.

[snow_wizard]

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow

 

If there was only one thank goodness it wasn't 1888-89!

 

1889-90 had to be one of the most well rounded winters on record for cold snaps throughout the winter.

[Doinko]

On 11/4/2016 at 4:29 PM, BLI snowman said:

Just recently came across an old station at St. Helens, OR that has data from the 1889-90 winter. Pretty good approximation for my current location. Too bad they only have one winter of data.

 

December 1889: 37.5 degree mean, 8.3" of snow

January 1890: 29.6 monthly mean, 60.1" of snow

February 1890: 37.8 monthly mean, 0.9" of snow

Sorry to talk in such an old thread, but I found all of this discussion really interesting and was wondering, how do you search for stations like that? I was reading through some of these threads on old historical events and thought that it would be interesting to go through different stations around the area seeing temps/snow totals.

[BLI snowman]

9 minutes ago, Doiinko said:

Sorry to talk in such an old thread, but I found all of this discussion really interesting and was wondering, how do you search for stations like that? I was reading through some of these threads on old historical events and thought that it would be interesting to go through different stations around the area seeing temps/snow totals.

If you want to search the old original observation forms, a lot of them (not all) are available still on here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

[Doinko]

34 minutes ago, BLI snowman said:

If you want to search the old original observation forms, a lot of them (not all) are available still on here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

Thank you for this!

[Doinko]

1 hour ago, Doiinko said:

Thank you for this!

From a weather station in Bethany in Dec 1968, crazy!: For some reason it reported the 30th as 15/7 instead of 11/7? Do they report days at different times?

[Doinko]

4 hours ago, BLI snowman said:

If you want to search the old original observation forms, a lot of them (not all) are available still on here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

Are there any other old observation forms not on there? Thank you again for showing that, found some interesting stuff from 1967/78 and 1968/69.

[BLI snowman]

16 hours ago, Doiinko said:

Are there any other old observation forms not on there? Thank you again for showing that, found some interesting stuff from 1967/78 and 1968/69.

Unfortunately a lot of the original observation forms for whatever reason haven't been scanned and just haven't made it in there. Some are likely missing or damaged. Fort Vancouver for example has data from 1849 to 1868 but only the 1856 observation forms are included. A lot of the 1950-1980 forms also aren't in there for the long term stations for whatever reason.  There are also some COOP stations that aren't necessarily represented there. La Center, WA for example isn't on there even though the COOP station has records available from 1896 to 1940.

I'd also recommend cross-checking with the NCDC station database to find the majority of the complete datasets. I find searching Daily Summaries by county helps when wading through it.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search

[Doinko]

33 minutes ago, BLI snowman said:

Unfortunately a lot of the original observation forms for whatever reason haven't been scanned and just haven't made it in there. Some are likely missing or damaged. Fort Vancouver for example has data from 1849 to 1868 but only the 1856 observation forms are included. A lot of the 1950-1980 forms also aren't in there for the long term stations for whatever reason.  There are also some COOP stations that aren't necessarily represented there. La Center, WA for example isn't on there even though the COOP station has records available from 1896 to 1940.

I'd also recommend cross-checking with the NCDC station database to find the majority of the complete datasets. I find searching Daily Summaries by county helps when wading through it.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/search

Yeah, I noticed that a lot of the forms are missing during that time period. Luckily the station really close to me had data from 1967-1969, and a station a few miles SSE of me had data from 1972-1985. 

I'm slightly confused about how the stations report high/low temps, for example in Dec 1968:

On the 30th, they report a temp spread of 15/7, but from hourly observations, it starts out as 12 degrees at midnight and drops throughout the day, so how did they get the high of 15?

 

[BLI snowman]

3 hours ago, Doiinko said:

Yeah, I noticed that a lot of the forms are missing during that time period. Luckily the station really close to me had data from 1967-1969, and a station a few miles SSE of me had data from 1972-1985. 

I'm slightly confused about how the stations report high/low temps, for example in Dec 1968:

On the 30th, they report a temp spread of 15/7, but from hourly observations, it starts out as 12 degrees at midnight and drops throughout the day, so how did they get the high of 15?

 

They may have used some weird calendar like 9pm to 9pm. Not sure. PDX had a midnight high of 14 that day so it also makes sense that far western Portland would have been a tiny bit warmer at that time as the cold air advected in.

Edited June 30, 2022 by BLI snowman

[Doinko]

7 hours ago, BLI snowman said:

They may have used some weird calendar like 9pm to 9pm. Not sure. PDX had a midnight high of 14 that day so it also makes sense that far western Portland would have been a tiny bit warmer at that time as the cold air advected in.

It shows a temp of 12 at midnight and then it steadily drops so I guess I should count it as that. For hourly wind observations, are they recording gusts or sustained wind speeds? It looks like sustained because of the consistency of hourly observations, but a sustained wind speed of 30mph is crazy. They did remark that there were blizzard conditions and drifts 2' deep, probably east wind accelerating off of the west hills?

[BLI snowman]

13 hours ago, Doiinko said:

It shows a temp of 12 at midnight and then it steadily drops so I guess I should count it as that. For hourly wind observations, are they recording gusts or sustained wind speeds? It looks like sustained because of the consistency of hourly observations, but a sustained wind speed of 30mph is crazy. They did remark that there were blizzard conditions and drifts 2' deep, probably east wind accelerating off of the west hills?

The east winds were very strong with that with the insane thermal gradient. It was a very top tier event from a low level cold air standpoint. Mt. Scott had a station back then as well and recorded a 5/0 day on the 30th. There were severe blizzard conditions throughout the gorge.

The cold air to the north and east was unbelievable with the PV essentially parking into NE WA and north ID. Moscow, ID dropped to -42 (-30 is their next coldest reading) and Mazama/Winthrop both set the WA state record with -48.

[Doinko]

9 minutes ago, BLI snowman said:

The east winds were very strong with that with the insane thermal gradient. It was a very top tier event from a low level cold air standpoint. Mt. Scott had a station back then as well and recorded a 5/0 day on the 30th. There were severe blizzard conditions throughout the gorge.

The cold air to the north and east was unbelievable with the PV essentially parking into NE WA and north ID. Moscow, ID dropped to -42 (-30 is their next coldest reading) and Mazama/Winthrop both set the WA state record with -48.

The station in Bethany recorded NE winds 30 mph for nearly 5 hours in a row with that. And then in January 1969, it recorded an hourly wind speed of NE 35mph.

Also, wasn't the GEM model at one point showing something similar to that in Feb 2021? Some of the model runs before thag were wild, like the GFS showing 30+ inches in a lot of places and stuff like that.

[BLI snowman]

3 hours ago, Doiinko said:

The station in Bethany recorded NE winds 30 mph for nearly 5 hours in a row with that. And then in January 1969, it recorded an hourly wind speed of NE 35mph.

Also, wasn't the GEM model at one point showing something similar to that in Feb 2021? Some of the model runs before thag were wild, like the GFS showing 30+ inches in a lot of places and stuff like that.

I think it was a 00z GEM run that had single digits down near Santa Barbara about 5 days out.

Edited July 1, 2022 by BLI snowman

[Doinko]

On 9/12/2016 at 6:14 PM, BLI snowman said:

Seems pretty ridiculous. They're essentially flagging a lot of extreme events because they were, in fact, extreme. You'd think that they would rather quickly be able to corroborate a lot of these readings, at least to a point where they consider the data usable.

Looks like Longview's reading in January 1930 of -20 was removed as well. Was that a valid reading? Hillsboro dropped to -14 and they kept that.

[BLI snowman]

5 hours ago, Doiinko said:

Looks like Longview's reading in January 1930 of -20 was removed as well. Was that a valid reading? Hillsboro dropped to -14 and they kept that.

Pretty good chance that it was at least close to legit, although thermometer placement may have slightly exaggerated that particular reading. Castle Rock was -13 and newspaper accounts seem to corroborate the -15 to -20 stuff in Cowlitz County. Very, very deep snowcover following that big storm on the 18th-19th. Some places had 20"+ on the ground by that point with clear, calm conditions and a super cold airmass. Pretty much the ideal setup for big time radiational cooling.

[snow_wizard]

On 9/20/2022 at 12:20 PM, Doiinko said:

Looks like Longview's reading in January 1930 of -20 was removed as well. Was that a valid reading? Hillsboro dropped to -14 and they kept that.

Given what I know about that winter the -20 is very possibly legit.  Even places up this way with little snow cover were quite cold.  I don't think the people making these decisions understand the fact we used to get extremely anomalous cold here some winters.

[Doinko]

8 hours ago, snow_wizard said:

Given what I know about that winter the -20 is very possibly legit.  Even places up this way with little snow cover were quite cold.  I don't think the people making these decisions understand the fact we used to get extremely anomalous cold here some winters.

That month looks amazing, over 24" of snow at Hillsboro and 15 days consecutively below freezing and a few 33s (19 in a row at Portland but less snow). I think Hillsboro averaged 25.4 for the month, colder than 1950, 1949 or 1937. Seems like it was better in NW OR and SW WA though than Western WA.

[snow_wizard]

On 9/23/2022 at 7:57 AM, Doiinko said:

That month looks amazing, over 24" of snow at Hillsboro and 15 days consecutively below freezing and a few 33s (19 in a row at Portland but less snow). I think Hillsboro averaged 25.4 for the month, colder than 1950, 1949 or 1937. Seems like it was better in NW OR and SW WA though than Western WA.

I would call January 2017 a poor mans January 1930.  Kind of similar distribution of the real goodies.

[Doinko]

2 minutes ago, snow_wizard said:

I would call January 2017 a poor mans January 1930.  Kind of similar distribution of the real goodies.

Was the January 1956 snowstorm somewhat similar to the January 2017 one? Looks like a big snowstorm for Portland followed by cold weather. And it seems like Seattle got a good bit of snow the next month as well to even it out.

[snow_wizard]

3 minutes ago, Doiinko said:

Was the January 1956 snowstorm somewhat similar to the January 2017 one? Looks like a big snowstorm for Portland followed by cold weather. And it seems like Seattle got a good bit of snow the next month as well to even it out.

Very possible.  That winter had so many good events pretty much everywhere got hit at least once...probably twice.  The Feb 1956 event was very impressive up here.