snow_wizard Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 Just by looking at Eola numbers it looks like a pretty major heat wave peaked between July 3-7 that year. Their 2pm obs were: 9292939392 This station was most likely located in the Eola Hills at 500+ elevation, judging by their snowfall statistics. So add a couple degrees to arrive at valley floor numbers. And a few more degrees considering peak heating in early July occurs between 4-6pm. You're talking five straight days where Salem was making a run at 100 degrees. Hmmm. The Seattle records show 4 days of 100 or higher and the San Juans had a few days in the 90s I believe. Unheard of for the San Juans. I'm going to have to look again to be sure. The Seattle numbers are insane. Like I say I would have dismissed it if not for the San Juan temps. 7/3/1870 through 7/8/1870 88 - 61100 - 6598 - 70104 - 72100 - 7292 - 65 Interestingly the rest of the month looked perfectly typical so I doubt it was a case of the thermometer being in a bad spot. Quote Death To Warm Anomalies! Winter 2023-24 stats Total Snowfall = 1.0" Day with 1" or more snow depth = 1 Total Hail = 0.0 Total Ice = 0.2 Coldest Low = 13 Lows 32 or below = 50 Highs 32 or below = 3 Lows 20 or below = 3 Highs 40 or below = 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 That's some serious duration. I'm kinda surprised they didn't score lower minimums though. Looks like a January 1930 type profile where minimums were much colder once you got away from the immediate Portland/Vancouver area. A few days where the outflow there was obviously very strong, and snow fell in the valley but not the Portland area. Fort Steilacoom's numbers are kind of underwhelming in January 1868 once you get past midmonth, but they did have 14 straight highs of 33 or lower. Clearly a lot of jet suppression and fake cold. A lot like January 1930. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 I remember when the OCS had a table of fort and signal service data from the 1840's-1870's era on their website. This was maybe in the early 2000's? They had a monthly average of 37.1 for Ft. Vancouver in March 1850. I've always been curious about that month since. Looks like it was a beast. March had some legitimately cold weather in that era. Almost every year had highs in the 30s and lowland snow in March. However, we also still had the occasional torch that would be impressive even by today's standards. Interesting mix. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deweydog Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 Hmmm. The Seattle records show 4 days of 100 or higher and the San Juans had a few days in the 90s I believe. Unheard of for the San Juans. I'm going to have to look again to be sure. The Seattle numbers are insane. Like I say I would have dismissed it if not for the San Juan temps. 7/3/1870 through 7/8/1870 88 - 61100 - 6598 - 70104 - 72100 - 7292 - 65 Interestingly the rest of the month looked perfectly typical so I doubt it was a case of the thermometer being in a bad spot.UHI. Quote My preferences can beat up your preferences’ dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 Hmmm. The Seattle records show 4 days of 100 or higher and the San Juans had a few days in the 90s I believe. Unheard of for the San Juans. I'm going to have to look again to be sure. The Seattle numbers are insane. Like I say I would have dismissed it if not for the San Juan temps. 7/3/1870 through 7/8/1870 88 - 61100 - 6598 - 70104 - 72100 - 7292 - 65 Interestingly the rest of the month looked perfectly typical so I doubt it was a case of the thermometer being in a bad spot. I have a really hard time believing those numbers for Seattle. I dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 March had some legitimately cold weather in that era. Almost every year had highs in the 30s and lowland snow in March. However, we also still had the occasional torch that would be impressive even by today's standards. Interesting mix. March appears to have been a solid winter month in that era. I have also noticed that our springs have gotten less extreme in modern times, especially March and April. We don't really pull off early heat waves on the level of 1897, 1904, 1906, 1926, 1934, or 1947 anymore...but we also don't get true Arctic air past March 1st as often as we did in those days. 1897 and 1906 both drove home the point. Arctic air in mid-March followed by 90 degree weather in mid-April in both years. We haven't seen either extreme happen in modern times, let alone in the same year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow_wizard Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 A few days where the outflow there was obviously very strong, and snow fell in the valley but not the Portland area. Fort Steilacoom's numbers are kind of underwhelming in January 1868 once you get past midmonth, but they did have 14 straight highs of 33 or lower. Clearly a lot of jet suppression and fake cold. A lot like January 1930. Fort Steilacoom still had a monthly average of 26.8. Pretty cold. Quote Death To Warm Anomalies! Winter 2023-24 stats Total Snowfall = 1.0" Day with 1" or more snow depth = 1 Total Hail = 0.0 Total Ice = 0.2 Coldest Low = 13 Lows 32 or below = 50 Highs 32 or below = 3 Lows 20 or below = 3 Highs 40 or below = 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 March appears to have been a solid winter month in that era. I have also noticed that our springs have gotten less extreme in modern times, especially March and April. We don't really pull off early heat waves on the level of 1897, 1904, 1906, 1926, 1934, or 1947 anymore...but we also don't get true Arctic air past March 1st as often as we did in those days. 1897 and 1906 both drove home the point. Arctic air in mid-March followed by 90 degree weather in mid-April in both years. We haven't seen either extreme happen in modern times, let alone in the same year. March 1852 looks like a fun one. Looks like a pretty massive wet snow event on March 1 at Fort Steilacoom, then a roller coaster ride the rest of the month. Fort Vancouver had a 37/35 day on March 18, then a quick rebound up to 80/41 on March 23, which was followed by a 50/27 day on March 24. This was following one of our more mundane winters of that era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jesse Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 March 1852 looks like a fun one. Looks like a pretty massive wet snow event on March 1 at Fort Steilacoom, then a roller coaster ride the rest of the month. Fort Vancouver had a 37/35 day on March 18, then a quick rebound up to 80/41 on March 23, which was followed by a 50/27 day on March 24. This was following one of our more mundane winters of that era. How is that even possible? Backdoor cold front? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 How is that even possible? Backdoor cold front? Early spring heat spikes tend to be really short lived, but maybe a backdoor front. We've seen some similar crashes in recent years, like April 1999 and April 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Front Ranger Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 Hmmm. The Seattle records show 4 days of 100 or higher and the San Juans had a few days in the 90s I believe. Unheard of for the San Juans. I'm going to have to look again to be sure. The Seattle numbers are insane. Like I say I would have dismissed it if not for the San Juan temps. 7/3/1870 through 7/8/1870 88 - 61100 - 6598 - 70104 - 72100 - 7292 - 65 Interestingly the rest of the month looked perfectly typical so I doubt it was a case of the thermometer being in a bad spot. Three straight 70+ lows is insane...and makes those highs more believable, in my opinion. 1 Quote A forum for the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 14, 2014 Report Share Posted December 14, 2014 Fort Steilacoom still had a monthly average of 26.8. Pretty cold. It was still impressive there, just not much precip and a lot of highs near 40 with cold lows. Towards the end the cold became more low level and snowcover fueled, so it stayed much colder to the south. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 March 1852 looks like a fun one. Looks like a pretty massive wet snow event on March 1 at Fort Steilacoom, then a roller coaster ride the rest of the month. Fort Vancouver had a 37/35 day on March 18, then a quick rebound up to 80/41 on March 23, which was followed by a 50/27 day on March 24. This was following one of our more mundane winters of that era. Yeah that seems improbable. Are these numbers from 3 daily obs or is it true max/min data? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Yeah that seems improbable. Are these numbers from 3 daily obs or is it true max/min data? 3 daily obs. It definitely looks overdone, but Fort Steilacoom's data generally backs up the crash. It shows 69/45 on March 23, 52/41 on March 24, and 44/38 on March 25. This after a 37/19 day on March 16. It was clearly a very impressive month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 3 daily obs. It definitely looks overdone, but Fort Steilacoom's data generally backs up the crash. It shows 69/45 on March 23, 52/41 on March 24, and 44/38 on March 25. This after a 37/19 day on March 16. It was clearly a very impressive month. Interesting. Yeah it almost looks like someone spliced different obs together at Fort Vancouver...maybe a day missing in there or something. Pure speculation on my part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Interesting. Yeah it almost looks like someone spliced different obs together at Fort Vancouver...maybe a day missing in there or something. Pure speculation on my part. The data gets cleaner after 1855, but even then there are some really questionable numbers. Fort Steilacoom has some sketchy stuff, such as during the January 1857 blast. They reported 43/6 on January 7 and 37/2 on January 8. Fort Vancouver was 30/8 and 26/2 on those same days. Pretty unlikely, I figure. Fort Steilacoom also has a 52/11 day from the early December 1858 event. Chances of that being accurate are pretty much nil, especially considering that Fort Vancouver was 27/9 on the same day! Someone left a thermometer out in the sun, I figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 The data gets cleaner after 1855, but even then there are some really questionable numbers. Fort Steilacoom has some sketchy stuff, such as during the January 1857 blast. They reported 43/6 on January 7 and 37/2 on January 8. Fort Vancouver was 30/8 and 26/2 on those same days. Pretty unlikely, I figure. Fort Steilacoom also has a 52/11 day from the early December 1858 event. Chances of that being accurate are pretty much nil, especially considering that Fort Vancouver was 27/9 on the same day! Someone left a thermometer out in the sun, I figure. I'm loving the stats. Even with the bad data mixed in, its still awesome that we have hard numbers from that era locally. Plus it seems like the numbers that are clearly off the wall can be pretty easily identified and flagged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 What do you have on February 1858 btw??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLI snowman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 What do you have on February 1858 btw??? Awesome event. December 1968 like. Fort Vancouver: 2/12: 42/33 (0.15" of precip)2/13: 33/30 (0.55" of precip)2/14: 22/162/15: 16/13 (2.20" of precip)2/16: 31/212/17: 44/30 Fort Steilacoom: 2/12: 30/252/13: 30/15 (0.10" of precip)2/14: 15/12 (0.25" of precip)2/15: 17/10 (1.20" of precip)2/16: 25/20 (0.50" of precip)2/17: 35/25 (0.47" of precip) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wx_statman Posted December 15, 2014 Report Share Posted December 15, 2014 Awesome event. December 1968 like. Fort Vancouver: 2/12: 42/33 (0.15" of precip)2/13: 33/30 (0.55" of precip)2/14: 22/162/15: 16/13 (2.20" of precip)2/16: 31/212/17: 44/30 Fort Steilacoom: 2/12: 30/252/13: 30/15 (0.10" of precip)2/14: 15/12 (0.25" of precip)2/15: 17/10 (1.20" of precip)2/16: 25/20 (0.50" of precip)2/17: 35/25 (0.47" of precip)That's ridiculous on a number of levels. Starting with the fact this occurred in mid February! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbrChris Posted December 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 A few slides from my "PNW Winters 1870-2014" power point:Jan 1875Dec 1879Jan 1883Feb 1883 1 Quote The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbrChris Posted December 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 DJF 1892-93 snowfall 1 Quote The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbrChris Posted December 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2014 The data gets cleaner after 1855, but even then there are some really questionable numbers. Fort Steilacoom has some sketchy stuff, such as during the January 1857 blast. They reported 43/6 on January 7 and 37/2 on January 8. Fort Vancouver was 30/8 and 26/2 on those same days. Pretty unlikely, I figure. Fort Steilacoom also has a 52/11 day from the early December 1858 event. Chances of that being accurate are pretty much nil, especially considering that Fort Vancouver was 27/9 on the same day! Someone left a thermometer out in the sun, I figure. Seems odd that multiple sites would have had issues in the same event...I'd venture to guess the readings were taken too close to the ground though, perhaps around a meter high. Quote The Pacific Northwest: Where storms go to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.