Will Portland, OR reach 110ºF in the near future?

[Omegaraptor]

Here's a possibly interesting question.

 

Since the August 2017 heat wave I have felt like Portland's 107ºF temperature record is under threat and will most likely be broken in the near future.

 

Portland only hit 105ºF on 8/3/17 but the temperature was lowered by wildfire smoke and would have hit 108 or 109 with clear skies. At one point, 110 was forecasted.

 

Summer '18 was a record breaker in terms of # of hot days, but the highest temperature recorded was only 100ºF. (The question isn't about Portland recording a month with a 90ºF average high or becoming a Köppen Csa.)

 

107 has been hit three times before, and all three times were long ago when Portland's climate was generally cooler. This recent period of hot summers is the most intense on record. Seattle had never reliably recorded a 100º day prior to 2009, and that year it recorded a 103º.

 

Portland is absolutely capable of hitting 110º. A 2017-like heat wave with clear, non-smoky skies would most likely do it. The only question is, when?

[Deweydog]

The August 2017 heatwave pretty much maxed out its potential even with the smoke. There was no way PDX was cracking 110 with that air mass.

[wx_statman]

Here's a possibly interesting question.

 

Since the August 2017 heat wave I have felt like Portland's 107ºF temperature record is under threat and will most likely be broken in the near future.

 

Portland only hit 105ºF on 8/3/17 but the temperature was lowered by wildfire smoke and would have hit 108 or 109 with clear skies. At one point, 110 was forecasted.

 

Summer '18 was a record breaker in terms of # of hot days, but the highest temperature recorded was only 100ºF. (The question isn't about Portland recording a month with a 90ºF average high or becoming a Köppen Csa.)

 

107 has been hit three times before, and all three times were long ago when Portland's climate was generally cooler. This recent period of hot summers is the most intense on record. Seattle had never reliably recorded a 100º day prior to 2009, and that year it recorded a 103º.

 

Portland is absolutely capable of hitting 110º. A 2017-like heat wave with clear, non-smoky skies would most likely do it. The only question is, when?

 

The basic mechanics of a high pressure ridge don't change under global warming. So unless we get consistently stronger ridges overhead (not a guaranteed teleconnective response to global warming), we're probably not hitting 110. We've never had a legitimate close call in nearly 150 years of observations, either downtown or at the airport. 

[snow_wizard]

There is always the chance this recent spate of hot summers has been nothing more than a natural cycle.  If so we might start seeing cooler summers becoming the norm once again.  Nobody knows for sure.

 

There is still no way to prove the climate wouldn't be doing exactly what it is now if man wasn't here.  Keep in mind we managed to go from ice age cold to temps nearly as warm as present long before man could have possibly had any effect.  The perpetrators of the golbal warming narrative know this, but choose to ignore it.

[Phil]

Within the next 20yrs. #UHI

[BLI snowman]

Well, PDX hitting 110 is a lot more likely than them hitting -6, which has about as close to zero odds as you can get at this point.

[Deweydog]

PDX's proximity to the river makes it pretty unlikely.

[BLI snowman]

PDX's proximity to the river makes it pretty unlikely.

 

The steadier mixing has occasionally been their friend in the past in the right setup, though.

 

The 107 in July 1965 was a pretty big downslope assist. Also pretty unrepresentative of that event's stature overall.

[Deweydog]

The steadier mixing has occasionally been their friend in the past in the right setup, though.

 

The 107 in July 1965 was a pretty big downslope assist. Also pretty unrepresentative of that event's stature overall.

It's just basic meteorology when it comes to proximity to water. 110 is pretty much the absolute ceiling for the valleys of NW OR and SW WA. PDX's proximity to water is a hindrance while areas with no possibility of a "sea" breeze have better shot. I can see Hillsboro pulling it off at some point.

[BLI snowman]

It's just basic meteorology when it comes to proximity to water. 110 is pretty much the absolute ceiling for the valleys of NW OR and SW WA. PDX's proximity to water is a hindrance while areas with no possibility of a "sea" breeze have better shot. I can see Hillsboro pulling it off at some point.

 

Maybe, but using the 1965 example, Hillsboro only topped out at 102 with  that. Every event is a little different.

 

Hillsboro's record through the decades is 108, so not a big difference but it stands to reason that they have slightly better odds at 110 with their superior thermal radiation. But PDX being near the water probably isn't a huge hindrance, relatively speaking. They also still tend to get hotter than places in Clark County that are away from the water, like here.

[Kayla]

PDX's proximity to the river makes it pretty unlikely.

 

At least until they put in a fourth runway!

[Frontal Snowsquall]

Here's a possibly interesting question.

 

Since the August 2017 heat wave I have felt like Portland's 107ºF temperature record is under threat and will most likely be broken in the near future.

 

Portland only hit 105ºF on 8/3/17 but the temperature was lowered by wildfire smoke and would have hit 108 or 109 with clear skies. At one point, 110 was forecasted.

 

Summer '18 was a record breaker in terms of # of hot days, but the highest temperature recorded was only 100ºF. (The question isn't about Portland recording a month with a 90ºF average high or becoming a Köppen Csa.)

 

107 has been hit three times before, and all three times were long ago when Portland's climate was generally cooler. This recent period of hot summers is the most intense on record. Seattle had never reliably recorded a 100º day prior to 2009, and that year it recorded a 103º.

 

Portland is absolutely capable of hitting 110º. A 2017-like heat wave with clear, non-smoky skies would most likely do it. The only question is, when?

If "Very soon" means by 2025, then I say yes and that's what I voted for.

 

This was actually discussed before and I got into an argument with some people. I agree you. There's no doubt without the wildfire smoke PDX would have hit 108 at least and possibly 109 IMHO. 110 might be stretching it though.

 

We will never know but I still believe to this day PDX would have set an new all time record high under clear skies on 8-3-17.

[wx_statman]

If "Very soon" means by 2025, then I say yes and that's what I voted for.

 

This was actually discussed before and I got into an argument with some people. I agree you. There's no doubt without the wildfire smoke PDX would have hit 108 at least and possibly 109 IMHO. 110 might be stretching it though.

 

We will never know but I still believe to this day PDX would have set an new all time record high under clear skies on 8-3-17.

 

Do you have any data to support this? 

 

Heights were 594dm and 850's were 26c on 8/3/2017. PDX maxed out right about where those numbers say they should. 105 degrees. The fire smoke on that day was in the mid to upper levels (arriving from BC), which doesn't really impact maximum temperatures. You need low-level smoke to create an inversion and cap maximums, like we saw in September of last year. 

[wx_statman]

BTW, it's easy to forget but PDX actually cleared out quite a bit around 4:30 PM on 8/3/2017. Some drier air mixed down at about the same time and PDX bumped to 105, otherwise we might have only reached 103 or something like that. Still would have been a reasonable number given the column profile that day. 

 

So basically, even if the elevated smoke layer held PDX down by 1-2 degrees earlier in the afternoon, it was negated by the clearing during our peak heating window.

[Front Ranger]

I guess the air mass actually verified cooler than some models had forecast? I remember GFS runs on multiple days leading up to the event spitting out highs in the 108-110 range. Even the Euro, I think.

[Deweydog]

BTW, it's easy to forget but PDX actually cleared out quite a bit around 4:30 PM on 8/3/2017. Some drier air mixed down at about the same time and PDX bumped to 105, otherwise we might have only reached 103 or something like that. Still would have been a reasonable number given the column profile that day.

 

So basically, even if the elevated smoke layer held PDX down by 1-2 degrees earlier in the afternoon, it was negated by the clearing during our peak heating window.

I could see them reaching 106 without the smoke.

[wx_statman]

I could see them reaching 106 without the smoke.

 

Hard to say. Possible given that SLE reached 107. That stuff comes down to local nuances, as you know. 

[Deweydog]

I guess the air mass actually verified cooler than some models had forecast? I remember GFS runs on multiple days leading up to the event spitting out highs in the 108-110 range. Even the Euro, I think.

The GFS definitely ran hott leading up to that. Bottom line is, unless you think Jim has been right all these years and we have indeed thrown climo out the window, PDX made it up to just about what you'd expect with the column we had that day. The smoke aspect and the toasty models just creates good conspiracy theory fodder.

[Deweydog]

Hard to say. Possible given that SLE reached 107. That stuff comes down to local nuances, as you know.

Definitely. Happenstance at that point, kind of like the difference between 106 and 107 on 7-29-09.

[wx_statman]

I guess the air mass actually verified cooler than some models had forecast? I remember GFS runs on multiple days leading up to the event spitting out highs in the 108-110 range. Even the Euro, I think.

 

I remember the GFS numerical output had 112 for Eugene at one point. It definitely wasn't realistic. IIRC the 850's were way too warm in those model runs. 

[Frontal Snowsquall]

Do you have any data to support this?

 

Heights were 594dm and 850's were 26c on 8/3/2017. PDX maxed out right about where those numbers say they should. 105 degrees. The fire smoke on that day was in the mid to upper levels (arriving from BC), which doesn't really impact maximum temperatures. You need low-level smoke to create an inversion and cap maximums, like we saw in September of last year.

It's not all about heights and 850mb temps. I remember Mark making a blog post about our past heatwaves regarding the reason it got that hot and it always stuck to my head. What I learned from him was that the placement and shape of the ULR and a closed H was more important. You also need a sharp thermal trough. Here is some of what he said:

 

'"107 – July 30th, 1965 590dm 500mb height, +23 deg. @ 850mb. (Nice surface high to the east, but not too chilly in Montana. Closed upper level high just to our north, maybe that helped)

 

107 – Aug. 8th/10th, 1981 594dm 500mb height, +23 to +26 deg @ 850mb. (Cooler air moving down to the east into Montana helped with offshore flow again)

 

No big surprises but some common themes: One is that 850mb temps sure don’t have to be insanely hot, but the surface flow definitely needs to be good offshore with a sharp thermal trough to push us up around 105. Seems like it’s all about the surface flow. Once again, not brain surgery there.

 

I think the shape and placement of the upper level ridge is far more important. Looks like a closed high is most “efficient” at producing heat when it’s slightly to the north of us (probably helps give more easterly flow in the mid-levels. That was pretty obvious in the two 107 degree incidents."'

 

https://fox12weather.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/how-hot-2/

[wx_statman]

It's not all about heights and 850mb temps. I remember Mark making a blog post about our past heatwaves regarding the reason it got that hot and it always stuck to my head. What I learned from him was that the placement and shape of the ULR and a closed H was more important. You also need a sharp thermal trough. Here is some of what he said:

 

'"107 – July 30th, 1965 590dm 500mb height, +23 deg. @ 850mb. (Nice surface high to the east, but not too chilly in Montana. Closed upper level high just to our north, maybe that helped)

 

107 – Aug. 8th/10th, 1981 594dm 500mb height, +23 to +26 deg @ 850mb. (Cooler air moving down to the east into Montana helped with offshore flow again)

 

No big surprises but some common themes: One is that 850mb temps sure don’t have to be insanely hot, but the surface flow definitely needs to be good offshore with a sharp thermal trough to push us up around 105. Seems like it’s all about the surface flow. Once again, not brain surgery there.

 

I think the shape and placement of the upper level ridge is far more important. Looks like a closed high is most “efficient” at producing heat when it’s slightly to the north of us (probably helps give more easterly flow in the mid-levels. That was pretty obvious in the two 107 degree incidents."'

 

https://fox12weather.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/how-hot-2/

 

Yes, I'm aware   . There was no downslope flow on 8/3/2017, hence the 105 degree maximum. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

The 8/3/17 thing is a day I try to forget, but I agree with the general consensus here. Seeing PDX hit 110 is a bit of a stretch. Saying PDX could have hit that number on 8/3/17 is just an incorrect statement. 

[Jesse]

Do you have any data to support this?

 

 

Looks like the answer was no.

[wx_statman]

It's interesting that Mark Nelsen used AM soundings and not PM in that one post. The AM sounding on 8/3/2017 had 24.8C over SLE...pretty close to 7/20/1994 (24.3) when PDX hit 103. For what that's worth. It was 24.4 on 8/8/1981 when PDX hit 107 but we had more of an offshore flow component. I definitely like 105 with clear skies at PDX on 8/3/2017.

[Front Ranger]

When was the last time anywhere in the Willamette Valley hit 110?

[Jesse]

When was the last time anywhere in the Willamette Valley hit 110?

 

Medieval warm period.

[Deweydog]

When was the last time anywhere in the Willamette Valley hit 110?

I remember hearing something about something regarding 110 readings in Lewis County on 7-29-09.

[wx_statman]

When was the last time anywhere in the Willamette Valley hit 110?

 

Never in the valley itself. Forest Grove hit 109 on 7/19/1956, if that reading was accurate. Estacada hit 109 in both 1935 and 2009. Some foothills locations have seen 110-112, but those readings aren't guaranteed to be reliable either...

[wx_statman]

I remember hearing something about something regarding 110 readings in Lewis County on 7-29-09.

 

Yeah, Mayfield Power Plant (COOP) supposedly hit 112 and Castle Rock RAWS was 109. Both are most likely overexposed readings. 

[Frontal Snowsquall]

Yes, I'm aware . There was no downslope flow on 8/3/2017, hence the 105 degree maximum.

I still believe it would have hit 107 and IMHO likely 108. The wildfire smoke was really thick that day and the air quality really poor. It kept high temperatures down enough for PDX not to set or tie the all time record high. There was definitely some downslope flow that day, I remember some poster(s) mentioning it the day before which is the reason I went with 108.

[wx_statman]

I still believe it would have hit 107 and IMHO likely 108. The wildfire smoke was really thick that day and the air quality really poor. It kept high temperatures down enough for PDX not to set or tie the all time record high. There was definitely some downslope flow that day, I remember some poster(s) mentioning it the day before which is the reason I went with 108.

 

It wasn't. As mentioned before, it was an elevated smoke layer and PDX actually cleared up around 4:30 PM. There was no downslope that day either. Check some RAWS observations for places like Larch Mountain. Winds were from the NW. 

[Frontal Snowsquall]

It wasn't. As mentioned before, it was an elevated smoke layer and PDX actually cleared up around 4:30 PM. There was no downslope that day either. Check some RAWS observations for places like Larch Mountain. Winds were from the NW.

Okay I'll look into the RAWS observations for that day.

 

As for the smoke, you say it cleared up at 4:30pm. So let's say the smoke did have an impact that day. Wouldn't it have tempered temperatures throughout the day so we couldn't have reached our full potential? In other situations during these past few summers, I've seen the smoke pull the high temperatures down as much as 5 to 10 degrees below the forecasted high.

[wx_statman]

Okay I'll look into the RAWS observations for that day.

 

As for the smoke, you say it cleared up at 4:30pm. So let's say the smoke did have an impact that day. Wouldn't it have tempered temperatures throughout the day so we couldn't have reached our full potential? In other situations during these past few summers, I've seen the smoke pull the high temperatures down as much as 5 to 10 degrees below the forecasted high.

 

I think it goes back to how low the smoke layer was on the day in question. Low level smoke will definitely hold temps down, like we saw in September of last year. Believe it or not, 850's over Portland were actually warmer (in a 24 hour average) during the September heat wave last year than they were in August. This is according to reanalysis anyway. But, the smoke source was much closer and the smoke much lower = maximums were significantly affected. We were lucky to sneak in that 98 on 9/2 before the smoke moved in. 

 

Mid-level smoke like we saw in August last year just isn't that effective at holding down maximums. There was probably some influence. Who knows, maybe we would have touched 106 without it? Or maybe we would have stayed at 103-104 had we not cleared out a little bit? That's hard to say. But 108 was never a realistic possibility in that pattern. Look at the readings further south, in areas not affected by smoke. Readings were generally not in all-time record territory anywhere in Oregon or California. Even the impressive 112 in Medford was still short of the all-time record, 114 in Aug. 1981.

[Frontal Snowsquall]

I think it goes back to how low the smoke layer was on the day in question. Low level smoke will definitely hold temps down, like we saw in September of last year. Believe it or not, 850's over Portland were actually warmer (in a 24 hour average) during the September heat wave last year than they were in August. This is according to reanalysis anyway. But, the smoke source was much closer and the smoke much lower = maximums were significantly affected. We were lucky to sneak in that 98 on 9/2 before the smoke moved in.

 

Mid-level smoke like we saw in August last year just isn't that effective at holding down maximums. There was probably some influence. Who knows, maybe we would have touched 106 without it? Or maybe we would have stayed at 103-104 had we not cleared out a little bit? That's hard to say. But 108 was never a realistic possibility in that pattern. Look at the readings further south, in areas not affected by smoke. Readings were generally not in all-time record territory anywhere in Oregon or California. Even the impressive 112 in Medford was still short of the all-time record, 114 in Aug. 1981.

Thanks for the insight.

 

I started looking at the RAWS observations for Larch Mountain and also the Eagle Creek and South Fork sites for that day. I also have started looking at the observations for other heatwaves like July 2009. I'll post more of my thoughts by the end of this weekend.

[Frontal Snowsquall]

I think it goes back to how low the smoke layer was on the day in question. Low level smoke will definitely hold temps down, like we saw in September of last year. Believe it or not, 850's over Portland were actually warmer (in a 24 hour average) during the September heat wave last year than they were in August. This is according to reanalysis anyway. But, the smoke source was much closer and the smoke much lower = maximums were significantly affected. We were lucky to sneak in that 98 on 9/2 before the smoke moved in.

 

Mid-level smoke like we saw in August last year just isn't that effective at holding down maximums. There was probably some influence. Who knows, maybe we would have touched 106 without it? Or maybe we would have stayed at 103-104 had we not cleared out a little bit? That's hard to say. But 108 was never a realistic possibility in that pattern. Look at the readings further south, in areas not affected by smoke. Readings were generally not in all-time record territory anywhere in Oregon or California. Even the impressive 112 in Medford was still short of the all-time record, 114 in Aug. 1981.

Thanks for the insight.

 

I started looking at the RAWS observations for Larch Mountain and also the Eagle Creek and South Fork sites for that day. I also have started looking at the observations for other heatwaves like July 2009. I'll post more of my thoughts by the end of this weekend.

Didn't get a chance to look over everything until just now. There was no downslope flow that day. I remember seeing that there was going to be downslope so apparently it did not materialize. A high of 105/106 is probably the max for 8/3/17.

 

So to answer your question Omegaraptor, PDX would not have hit the 108/109 you forecasted. To get to 107 you pretty much need downslope winds to reach that level and it just wasn't there. I've now changed my vote to not in the near future. Unless PDX adds multiple runways 109/110 is virtually impossible, maybe 108 is possible but that's still a reach.

[Omegaraptor]

 

"Didn't get a chance to look over everything until just now. There was no downslope flow that day. I remember seeing that there was going to be downslope so apparently it did not materialize. A high of 105/106 is probably the max for 8/3/17.

 

So to answer your question Omegaraptor, PDX would not have hit the 108/109 you forecasted. To get to 107 you pretty much need downslope winds to reach that level and it just wasn't there. I've now changed my vote to not in the near future. Unless PDX adds multiple runways 109/110 is virtually impossible, maybe 108 is possible but that's still a reach."

 

That did not quote correctly.

 

Well, Portland is right next to the cold Columbia river. That could potentially create a microclimate with reduced heat records.

 

Several valley locations like Estacada have recorded a 109. I think somewhere in the valley has definitely hit a 110, just not where there is a weather station.

 

I'm not sure about "next 20 years", but I think it is 100% possible for somewhere near Portland (valley location) to have a 110 degree day if everything lines up perfectly. If Seattle can break its all time temperature record by 4ºF, it's possible. 

 

So I'm going to say "not likely in the near future, but definitely possible".

[Front Ranger]

 

I'm not sure about "next 20 years", but I think it is 100% possible for somewhere near Portland (valley location) to have a 110 degree day if everything lines up perfectly. If Seattle can break its all time temperature record by 4ºF, it's possible. 

 

So I'm going to say "not likely in the near future, but definitely possible".

 

 

They broke it by 3F in 2009 (103 vs 100). And I would say that 100 was sort of low hanging fruit, considering several local stations had gotten hotter previously (Seattle UW hit 103 in 1981, Landsburg 102 in 1981, Kent hit 101 in 1925, Puyallup 101 in 1955).

 

PDX's record of 107 lines up nicely with the all-time maxes for the entire Portland area, with the warmest ones in the 107-108 range.

[Frontal Snowsquall]

"Didn't get a chance to look over everything until just now. There was no downslope flow that day. I remember seeing that there was going to be downslope so apparently it did not materialize. A high of 105/106 is probably the max for 8/3/17.

 

So to answer your question Omegaraptor, PDX would not have hit the 108/109 you forecasted. To get to 107 you pretty much need downslope winds to reach that level and it just wasn't there. I've now changed my vote to not in the near future. Unless PDX adds multiple runways 109/110 is virtually impossible, maybe 108 is possible but that's still a reach."

 

That did not quote correctly.

 

Well, Portland is right next to the cold Columbia river. That could potentially create a microclimate with reduced heat records.

 

Several valley locations like Estacada have recorded a 109. I think somewhere in the valley has definitely hit a 110, just not where there is a weather station.

 

I'm not sure about "next 20 years", but I think it is 100% possible for somewhere near Portland (valley location) to have a 110 degree day if everything lines up perfectly. If Seattle can break its all time temperature record by 4ºF, it's possible.

 

So I'm going to say "not likely in the near future, but definitely possible".

Yeah, it's definitely gotten to 110 in a remote isolated location before if we had weather stations in every neighborhood in the Valley.

 

I believe the main reason Seattle got to 103 was because they added another runway. Don't entirely quote me on this but I remember some poster(s) mentioning it.

 

I just found out recently that PDX was planning to add another third super runway in 1968 by dredging and filling in some parts of the Columbia River. That idea got squashed when there was public outcry. If that plan did materialize then who knows, maybe PDX would have gotten to 110 on August 8/10 of 1981?

 

Here's an article about the expansion and why it was squashed.

 

"The plan would have expanded the number of gates from 18 to 38 by 1972.  It would also provide a new terminal for giant Boeing 747 jetliner due out in 1969. From the beginning, this project was snarled in endless, federal red tape and public outcry from both Oregonians and neighbors across the river. To make things worse, 3 congressman from the state of Washington fought the proposal. The Washington state politicians cited environmental reasons but were really afraid that Portland airport expansion would have deleterious effects on the rival Sea-Tac International just 150 miles to the north. The fight lasted 4 years, but eventually, airport expansion into the river was not to be. In the end, the two existing runways were lengthened and improvements continued with the existing terminal."

 

http://oldpdx.blogspot.com/2015/01/xxxxxxxxxxxx-early-runway-1961-original.html?m=1

[Doinko]

Just found this thread... Shows how unthinkable widespread readings in the mid-110s West of the Cascades was.

 

[Timmy Supercell]

We should also make a thread on what the longest stretches of 90 degree days (consecutive) are in each city. Maybe also include east side cities, Pendleton/Bend/Klamath Falls/Spokane/Yakima.

In 2021 I had a stretch of 22 days in a row over 90 at KLMT from 6/24 to 7/15. That wasn't a record for them, but that was personally the longest I have ever experienced. I compare longest stretches to other years I lived there and can't believe how only two of those years barely reach 10. Though a few other waves were close calls (count being stopped by only 1 or 2 80's). I think 2017 would have had longer than 8 days in a row if not for the favorable environment for wet thunderstorms middle of that summer. It's not a coincidence IMO that 2021 sucked for convection and also had the most miserable heat out of the bunch. 

2021: 22
2020: 8
2019: 3
2018: 9
2017: 8
2016: 10
2015: 6
2014: 10
2013: 6
2012: 7
2011: 2

July 2014 would be 19 days in a row if not for a single day only reaching 81 on 7/11. 

[Anti Marine Layer]

Eureka, CA has yet to reach 90 F.

[Doinko]

28 minutes ago, Timmy Supercell said:

We should also make a thread on what the longest stretches of 90 degree days (consecutive) are in each city. Maybe also include east side cities, Pendleton/Bend/Klamath Falls/Spokane/Yakima.

In 2021 I had a stretch of 22 days in a row over 90 at KLMT from 6/24 to 7/15. That wasn't a record for them, but that was personally the longest I have ever experienced. I compare longest stretches to other years I lived there and can't believe how only two of those years barely reach 10. Though a few other waves were close calls (count being stopped by only 1 or 2 80's). I think 2017 would have had longer than 8 days in a row if not for the favorable environment for wet thunderstorms middle of that summer. It's not a coincidence IMO that 2021 sucked for convection and also had the most miserable heat out of the bunch. 

2021: 22
2020: 8
2019: 3
2018: 9
2017: 8
2016: 10
2015: 6
2014: 10
2013: 6
2012: 7
2011: 2

July 2014 would be 19 days in a row if not for a single day only reaching 81 on 7/11. 

Here's the data for a bunch of climate sites, if this belongs in another thread I can move it there:

Portland: 10 days from July 25th to August 3rd, 2009

Salem: 13 days from July 29th to August 10th, 2017

Eugene: 12 days from both July 12th to July 23rd, 1938 and July 24th to August 4th, 2021

Medford: 34 days from both June 17th to July 20th, 2021 and July 8th to August 10th, 1961

Klamath Falls: 34 days from June 28th to July 31st, 1906

The Dalles: 26 days from August 7th to September 1st, 1923

Bend: 19 days from July 20th to August 7th, 1927

Pendleton: 31 days from both June 30th to July 30th, 1906 and July 14th to August 13th, 1971.

Redmond: 28 days from June 18th to July 15th, 2021

Baker City: 21 days from July 22nd to August 11th, 1978

La Grande: 32 days from July 15th to August 15th, 1971

Ontario: 74 days from June 28th to September 9th, 1967

This is all Oregon, I might do Washington in a bit. Here's the source I used: http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?_wait=no&q=216&network=ORCLIMATE&station=ORTONO&var=high&dir=above&threshold=90&_r=t&dpi=100&_fmt=png

[Timmy Supercell]

3 minutes ago, Doiinko said:

Here's the data for a bunch of climate sites, if this belongs in another thread I can move it there:

Portland: 10 days from July 25th to August 3rd, 2009

Salem: 13 days from July 29th to August 10th, 2017

Eugene: 12 days from both July 12th to July 23rd, 1938 and July 24th to August 4th, 2021

Medford: 34 days from both June 17th to July 20th, 2021 and July 8th to August 10th, 1961

Klamath Falls: 34 days from June 28th to July 31st, 1906

The Dalles: 26 days from August 7th to September 1st, 1923

Bend: 19 days from July 20th to August 7th, 1927

Pendleton: 31 days from both June 30th to July 30th, 1906 and July 14th to August 13th, 1971.

Redmond: 28 days from June 18th to July 15th, 2021

Baker City: 21 days from July 22nd to August 11th, 1978

La Grande: 32 days from July 15th to August 15th, 1971

Ontario: 74 days from June 28th to September 9th, 1967

This is all Oregon, I might do Washington in a bit. Here's the source I used: http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?_wait=no&q=216&network=ORCLIMATE&station=ORTONO&var=high&dir=above&threshold=90&_r=t&dpi=100&_fmt=png

Thanks for the link, and its interesting how there's so many differing summers that hold these records. If I recall Spokane had the highest number of days in a year over 90 last year, which is a little different than "stretches". I never found out what KLMT's highest is (53 last year!). 

[Timmy Supercell]

Crazy that none of the 2013-2020 years even make it on this graphic.

*2015 scratches head*

[Doinko]

8 minutes ago, Timmy Supercell said:

Thanks for the link, and its interesting how there's so many differing summers that hold these records. If I recall Spokane had the highest number of days in a year over 90 last year, which is a little different than "stretches". I never found out what KLMT's highest is (53 last year!). 

The record for Klamath Falls is apparently 58 days in 1902, but that was before the airport, 1905 is second and 2021 is third.

[Timmy Supercell]

1 minute ago, Doiinko said:

The record for Klamath Falls is apparently 58 days in 1902, but that was before the airport, 1905 is second and 2021 is third.

I figured last summer had to be at least close to the top. 

Funny that I had nothing between 38 (2017) and 53 days. I bet a lot of the early 1900's go between these two figures. 

[Doinko]

3 minutes ago, Timmy Supercell said:

I figured last summer had to be at least close to the top. 

Funny that I had nothing between 38 (2017) and 53 days. I bet a lot of the early 1900's go between these two figures. 

Here's data for # of 90 degree days per year at Klamath Falls, I downloaded it as an Excel file to view easier:

http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?_wait=no&q=74&network=ORCLIMATE&station=ORTLMT&season=all&dir=above&var=high&threshold=90&year=1893&_r=t&dpi=100&_fmt=png

[Timmy Supercell]

2 minutes ago, Doiinko said:

Here's data for # of 90 degree days per year at Klamath Falls, I downloaded it as an Excel file to view easier:

http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/plotting/auto/?_wait=no&q=74&network=ORCLIMATE&station=ORTLMT&season=all&dir=above&var=high&threshold=90&year=1893&_r=t&dpi=100&_fmt=png

I guess 1992/1996 are the only 2 years that had 40-49.. You can see 1993 at that sharp drop. lol

Surprised 1993 had more than 2011 tho. 

[Doinko]

Top 10 Years by # of 90° Days in Portland