Past Weather Events Discussion 1800s to present

[snow_wizard]

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:

 

92

92

93

93

92

 

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 - 61

100 - 65

98 - 70

104 - 72

100 - 72

92 - 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.

[BLI snowman]

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.

[BLI snowman]

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.

[Deweydog]

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 - 61

100 - 65

98 - 70

104 - 72

100 - 72

92 - 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.

[wx_statman]

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 - 61

100 - 65

98 - 70

104 - 72

100 - 72

92 - 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.

[wx_statman]

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.

[snow_wizard]

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.

[BLI snowman]

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.

[Jesse]

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?

[BLI snowman]

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. 

[Front Ranger]

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 - 61

100 - 65

98 - 70

104 - 72

100 - 72

92 - 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.

[BLI snowman]

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.

[wx_statman]

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?

[BLI snowman]

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.

[wx_statman]

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.

[BLI snowman]

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. 

[wx_statman]

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.

[wx_statman]

What do you have on February 1858 btw???

[BLI snowman]

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: 22/16

2/15: 16/13 (2.20" of precip)

2/16: 31/21

2/17: 44/30

 

Fort Steilacoom:

 

2/12: 30/25

2/13: 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)

[wx_statman]

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: 22/16

2/15: 16/13 (2.20" of precip)

2/16: 31/21

2/17: 44/30

 

Fort Steilacoom:

 

2/12: 30/25

2/13: 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!

[IbrChris]

A few slides from my "PNW Winters 1870-2014" power point:

Jan 1875



Dec 1879



Jan 1883



Feb 1883


 

[IbrChris]

DJF 1892-93 snowfall

 

[IbrChris]

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.