Jump to content

August 2017 PNW Discussion Thread


Geos

Recommended Posts

Makes me wonder how many times that scenario played out in the past, especially in the 1930s-1940s. Lots of fires due to drought and careless logging operations. There's a good chance we wasted another July 1941 or June/July 1942-type ridge at some point during that era due to fire smoke.

 

Smoke definitely seemed like it was a lot more common back then.

 

I just clicked on a totally random July (1922) original observation form from Vancouver and wasn't surprised to see it mentioned

 

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-FE57690F-F057-40EB-9E1D-B89AC0E2CA29.pdf

 

It looks like it says there in the remarks "It was more or less smoky during the latter quarter of the month".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if smoke could explain the difference between Salem and Portland during some of those 1920s-30s heatwaves. I always thought Salem's thermometer was a bit overexposed during that era, but now I'm wondering if Portland could have had smokey skies while Salem was clear on some of those days.

 

That's an interesting thought. In theory, Salem's weather station should have been top-notch, since proximity to transportation/shipping routes is what determined if a COOP observer received the proper sheltering equipment or not (Salem was a COOP station in the 1920's as opposed to a Weather Bureau station). It's funny, but in the early days the Weather Bureau would simply tell far-flung COOP observers to build their own shelters since shipping was too expensive. I'm pretty sure that's the biggest reason why there are so many bogus warm readings at small-town COOP stations from that era. Back to the point, Salem should have had the proper equipment...but at the same time they do have a number of readings from that era that look suspect. So I don't know. 

 

With regards to Salem's supposed 108 degree reading on 7/23/1927 (since that one really jumps out), I don't think there was smoke since Bull Run Headworks hit 106 that day and Cascade Locks reached 103. It definitely seems overexposed since Portland was 101 and Eugene was 97 on that day. McMinnville shows 107 on that day but their obs were garbage during that era. In fact, because McMinnville shows 107 it makes me think the real maximum there was something like 102-103.  :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke definitely seemed like it was a lot more common back then.

 

I just clicked on a totally random July (1922) original observation form from Vancouver and wasn't surprised to see it mentioned

 

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-FE57690F-F057-40EB-9E1D-B89AC0E2CA29.pdf

 

It looks like it says there in the remarks "It was more or less smoky during the latter quarter of the month".

 

That word is not "quarter".   It appears to be "portion".  

 

Not sure of the word before it though... sort of looks like 'larger'.

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke definitely seemed like it was a lot more common back then.

 

I just clicked on a totally random July (1922) original observation form from Vancouver and wasn't surprised to see it mentioned

 

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-FE57690F-F057-40EB-9E1D-B89AC0E2CA29.pdf

 

It looks like it says there in the remarks "It was more or less smoky during the latter quarter of the month".

 

It would be interesting to run some sort of correlation analysis for max temperatures between known clear days in Medford and known clear days in Portland during JJA in that era. And then apply it to days when Medford was clear and Portland reported smoke, to see what the theoretical clear-sky maximum would have been. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That word is not "quarter".   It appears to be "portion".  

 

Not sure of the word before it though... sort of looks like 'larger'.

 

Ah, yeah, that would make sense too. I also thought that first word might have said larger but then read it as "larger quarter of the month" which wouldn't have been right.

 

Either way, a lot of smoke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to run some sort of correlation analysis for max temperatures between known clear days in Medford and known clear days in Portland during JJA in that era. And then apply it to days when Medford was clear and Portland reported smoke, to see what the theoretical clear-sky maximum would have been. 

 

It's just too bad that the upper air soundings were non-existent in this region before 1950. It'd be interesting to look at the correlation between any high thickness (>576) days and the temps here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting thought. In theory, Salem's weather station should have been top-notch, since proximity to transportation/shipping routes is what determined if a COOP observer received the proper sheltering equipment or not (Salem was a COOP station in the 1920's as opposed to a Weather Bureau station). It's funny, but in the early days the Weather Bureau would simply tell far-flung COOP observers to build their own shelters since shipping was too expensive. I'm pretty sure that's the biggest reason why there are so many bogus warm readings at small-town COOP stations from that era. Back to the point, Salem should have had the proper equipment...but at the same time they do have a number of readings from that era that look suspect. So I don't know. 

 

With regards to Salem's supposed 108 degree reading on 7/23/1927 (since that one really jumps out), I don't think there was smoke since Bull Run Headworks hit 106 that day and Cascade Locks reached 103. It definitely seems overexposed since Portland was 101 and Eugene was 97 on that day. McMinnville shows 107 on that day but their obs were garbage during that era. In fact, because McMinnville shows 107 it makes me think the real maximum there was something like 102-103.  :lol:

 

Huh, good information. I had no idea COOP stations worked like that back then. I always learn some interesting quirk like that from your posts.

 

Those three consecutive readings in the 70s during December 1929 are for sure 100% bogus, so we know that station occasionally had problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yeah, that would make sense too. I also thought that first word might have said larger but then read it as "larger quarter of the month" which wouldn't have been right.

 

Either way, a lot of smoke. 

 

Yeah... and if it really says "larger portion of the month" then its even more extensive than you thought originally.  

 

It also seems strange to have so many highs in the 70s down there in July in a totally dry month... I would expect it to be warmer so maybe smoke played a role.

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just too bad that the upper air soundings were non-existent in this region before 1950. It'd be interesting to look at the correlation between any high thickness (>576) days and the temps here.

 

I've seen a study where they reconstructed upper air data - temps and heights - back to 1922 based on airport balloon launches (for pilot reports at the time). The purpose of that study was to reconstruct the PNA, and apparently it worked pretty well. I would imagine what you're talking about might be possible...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, good information. I had no idea COOP stations worked like that back then. I always learn some interesting quirk like that from your posts.

 

Those three consecutive readings in the 70s during December 1929 are for sure 100% bogus, so we know that station occasionally had problems.

 

Yeah, no doubt about that one. There actually was a record warm pattern with monthly record highs set east of the Cascades on those days, but the Willamette Valley readings were nowhere close to 70. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SEA has really stalled, only running 2 degrees ahead of yesterday at 84. Doesn't appear particularly smoky in that area right now, though.

 

Not bad yet... nothing like Vancouver.  

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

97 in Bend. Will we finally be able to crack 100? We've hit between 97-99 about 7 times I think, but no days hit 100.

Bend, OR

Elevation: 3550'

 

Snow History:

Nov: 1"

Dec: .5"

Jan: 1.9"

Feb: 12.7"

Mar: 1.0"

Total: 17.1"

 

2016/2017: 70"

2015/2016: 34"

Average: ~25"

 

2017/2018 Winter Temps

Lowest Min: 1F on 2/23

Lowest Max: 23F on 12/24, 2/22

Lows <32: 87

Highs <32: 13

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next few days I'm sure.

Roberts field has already hit 100 this summer right?

Bend, OR

Elevation: 3550'

 

Snow History:

Nov: 1"

Dec: .5"

Jan: 1.9"

Feb: 12.7"

Mar: 1.0"

Total: 17.1"

 

2016/2017: 70"

2015/2016: 34"

Average: ~25"

 

2017/2018 Winter Temps

Lowest Min: 1F on 2/23

Lowest Max: 23F on 12/24, 2/22

Lows <32: 87

Highs <32: 13

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lovely.

 

 

Here is a zoomed in image of the BC wildfire smoke pouring into Western Washington via NASA MODIS:
#wawx
#KOMOnews
pic.twitter.com/pKtqersphR
— Scott Sistek (@ScottSKOMO)
August 1, 2017

 

 

Really cool to see it fill in all the river valleys... even though I hate the smoke.  

**REPORTED CONDITIONS AND ANOMALIES ARE NOT MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ON A REGIONAL LEVEL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

101 at UAO, 97 at PDX. I should have known better when I called for 100 at PDX earlier today. Too much northerly flow. Based on the progression this morning, 100 seemed likely but the days I had used as analogs generally had w/wnw winds at the surface and a bit ligher/less gusty than today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...