[wavehunter007]

Originally Posted by Cambium

Just in case anyone missed it... The "Averages" are now changed. The decade of the 70s is eliminated and the years from 2001-2010 have been added.

This means when you hear that a day was hotter, or colder, or rainier than normal, that ”normal” will be a little different from what it was in the past.

I think some zones have changed also. haven't read the entire thing yet.

Details Here: http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/the-new-climate-normals-gardeners-expect-warmer-nights-2

So is it almost safe to say that because the temps are now slightly warmer as an average that we'll be "below" normal more often during cold spells? lol

Actually I think they (NOAA) use 30 year data sets.

They just replaced the 1970-2000 (normals) with the new 1981- 2010 (normals).

From what I read (with concern), about 90% of the USA (including the NY/NJ/CT area) have seen mean temps go up an average of 0.3 to 0.5 F.


NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center * NOAA's 1981-2010 Climate Normals

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Cambium

So is it almost safe to say that because the temps are now slightly warmer as an average that we'll be "below" normal more often during cold spells? lol

First off, what Wavehunter said is correct.

Second, it depends. If we keep getting warmer this decade then the trend will stay the same. If not, then more days that were "normal" or "slightly below" normal until now will be considered "below normal" and when they calculate the 1991-2020 normals around 2021, they'll come in cooler than now. But the trend the last 2 or 3 decades of calculating this has been for them to come in warmer each time.

[Cambium]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

First off, what Wavehunter said is correct.

Second, it depends. If we keep getting warmer this decade then the trend will stay the same. If not, then more days that were "normal" or "slightly below" normal until now will be considered "below normal" and when they calculate the 1991-2020 normals around 2021, they'll come in cooler than now. But the trend the last 2 or 3 decades of calculating this has been for them to come in warmer each time.

Having records for just a little over 100 years is funny to me...
Using only 30 years to find averages is Hillarious!

Why not just use from 1900 and find the averages? This way we can truely say if we're below, above, or average. Or just last 10 years for argument sake.

To me they are basically saying we're taking out the 1970s because it doesnt count for average weather anymore.

Or maybe it's a Global Warming thing. Now they can show the average temps rose, substantially in some spots.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Cambium

Having records for just a little over 100 years is funny to me...
Using only 30 years to find averages is Hillarious!

Why not just use from 1900 and find the averages? This way we can truely say if we're below, above, or average. Or just last 10 years for argument sake.

To me they are basically saying we're taking out the 1970s because it doesnt count for average weather anymore.

Or maybe it's a Global Warming thing. Now they can show the average temps rose, substantially in some spots.

I would normally agree with you on this, but the idea is that 30 years is long enough that one or two super-unusual events doesn't majorly skew the average, yet making it a "running" average every 10 years lets you see trends in warming/cooling, etc.

The NWS started doing it in the early 1950s with the 1921-50 run so I doubt it had anything to do with global warming.

[DanaMarley]

The fall seasons seems to be coming very slowly it seems. Seen a "few" trees with their leaves turning colours, but not that many! I'm surprised seeing as how it's late Sept!

The leaves are definitely falling, but not yet turning. I wonder how fast they are turning say up in New Hampshire or western Mass?
It's still humid out too. People are still wearing shorts & little t-shirts as the cold weather hasn't come yet. I'm not complaining mind you

[wavehunter007]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

I would normally agree with you on this, but the idea is that 30 years is long enough that one or two super-unusual events doesn't majorly skew the average, yet making it a "running" average every 10 years lets you see trends in warming/cooling, etc.

The NWS started doing it in the early 1950s with the 1921-50 run so I doubt it had anything to do with global warming.

From what I’ve read in several NOAA papers - that’s pretty close to the wisdom of why they use 30 year data sets – the anomaly gets smoothed out enough to give a realistic picture what the average climate/weather is like.

Look at tropical cyclone landfalls:

The average return period (based on 150 years of data – 1851-2000) for a hurricane striking land in the Northeast states (NY/NJ/DE/CT/MA/RI) is about once every 13 years . The Northeast had hurricane landfalls (cyclones with sustained winds of 75 mph or more) in 1903, 1916, 1924, 1938, 1944, 1954 (twice), 1960 (Donna), 1976 (Belle), 1985 (Gloria), 1991 (Bob), and 2011 (Irene). Yet, hurricanes have hit as frequently as only 6 years apart in the Northeast (1938-1944….1954-1960….1985-1991)…. and as long as 20 years (1991 (Bob) – 2011 (Irene). So the long term average is smoothed out enough to give a fair picture of what the real threat of a Northeast tropical cyclone is each year.

I feel so bad all the people who suffered though the damage that Irene caused, the storm surge damage in East Haven (and other parts of the coast) was tragic for all the people who lost their homes (or large parts of them)....but despite what most people think, we have been quite lucky in the last 20 years in the Northeast States in terms of hurricanes. In fact, despite Irene, Connecticut has still been very lucky in terms of a major hurricane landfalls; Not since Hurricane Carol (1954) has a major hurricane hit Connecticut (57 years ago).

[Cambium]

I always hate using Central Park to show stats since this is a "CT Weather Thread" but records are esier to find from there for now.

SO FAR...58.44 INCHES OF RAIN OR WATER EQUIVALENT HAS FALLEN AT
CENTRAL PARK FROM JANUARY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23...MAKING 2011 THE
NINTH WETTEST YEAR RECORDED AT CENTRAL PARK. THIS IS 21.99 INCHES
ABOVE NORMAL. JUST 0.12 INCHES OF RAIN OR WATER EQUIVALENT IS
NEEDED FOR 2011 TO TIE 2003 AS THE EIGHTH WETTEST YEAR RECORDED AT
CENTRAL PARK AT 58.56 INCHES SINCE 1869.

A LIST OF THE TOP TEN WETTEST YEARS AT CENTRAL PARK CAN BE FOUND ON
OUR WEBSITE AT
HTTP:/WWW.ERH.NOAA.GOV/OKX/CLIMATE/RECORDS/WETDRYYEARSMONTHS.HTML

[Cambium]

Consistancy of one model showing cold air returning at the end of the month is getting me confident.

Now the Euro model is in the time frame and its also showing it.

So expect 40s again end of Month around October 3rd time frame.

Dont be suprised if we see snow again on the mountains of NY,NH,VT

540 Line is the 32 degree line but remember that this is a few thousand feet above us...so at surface it should be 40s like last time. That green moisture indicates snow for mountain tops October 5th.

[wavehunter007]

Originally Posted by DanaMarley

The fall seasons seems to be coming very slowly it seems. Seen a "few" trees with their leaves turning colours, but not that many! I'm surprised seeing as how it's late Sept!

The leaves are definitely falling, but not yet turning. I wonder how fast they are turning say up in New Hampshire or western Mass?
It's still humid out too. People are still wearing shorts & little t-shirts as the cold weather hasn't come yet. I'm not complaining mind you

I always thought the concept of seasons was flawed, in the lower middle latitudes. The old English country people originally brought the concept of fall with them when they arrived in the United States. The difference of course is that much of England lies north of the 50th parallel, while areas like CT or NJ lie close to 40 latitude (700 miles further south). So the solar angle changes MUCH more rapidly in the higher latitude (45 – 55 N/S) than in the lower latitudes (poleward of 45 N/S). Locally, is there really any different from a warm 75 F, humid day in mid May, July, or September? Look at the past week, it's late Sept and it feels humid, warm...etc just like June.

I think most locations between 42 and 25 latitude have really only two seasons; A cool/cold season November through early April…and a warm/hot season from late April through October. As far as leaves changing here in the Tr-State area, still soild green here in south Connecticut. All the rain, humidity, and +70 F temps, means than the leaves will not change much for awhile.

As far as what lies ahead for much of October…the thinking is that temps might be a bit above normal across the our area and a drier pattern will develop in October. If this holds, sunny, mild weather should be the rule in October:

AccuWeather.com - Brett Anderson | New Long Range Weather Forecast Update (http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/anderson/story/55441/new-long-range-weather-forecast-update.asp - broken link)

[Cambium]

Well... NWS is acknowledging it now..

A RATHER STRONG COLD FRONT IS EXPECTED TO DIVE SOUTHWARD ACROSS THE GREAT LAKES REGION ON FRIDAY. JUST HOW MUCH MOISTURE REMAINS OVER THE REGION REMAINS TO BE SEEN. IT DOES SEEM SUB ZERO 850MB TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED FRIDAY NIGHT. THE ECMWF WANTS TO LINGER THE UPPER TROUGH AXIS OVER THE REGION WHILE THE GFS/DGEX ARE MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE. IF THE ECMWF WERE TO VERIFY...THERE WILL BE A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR A LITTLE SNOW ACROSS THE ADIRONDACKS.

Source:http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&issuedby=ALY&product=AFD&form at=CI&version=1&glossary=0&highlight=off