Temperatures dropped to a record low in Prince Edward Island overnight Tuesday, with reports of frost throughout the province.
An official record low of 3.8 C was set early Wednesday morning at Charlottetown airport.
The previous record for that date was 5.1 C, set in 2005.
Bob Robichaud, a meteorologist with Environment Canada, said that to his knowledge, frost has never been reported before in July in P.E.I.
“That 3.8 we got last night kind of sticks out as being lower than some of the other records for anytime in early July,” Robichaud told CBC News on Wednesday.
“So we’re looking at a significant event,” he said.
Environment Canada has issued a frost risk warning in low-lying areas of the province for Wednesday night. The temperature is expected to dip to 4 C.
The forecast for Thursday, however, calls for sunny skies and a temperature of 22 C for the province.
JAN (14:37:29) :
tallbloke (11:42:00) :
http://cache.backpackinglight.com/backpackinglight/user_uploads/1225544577_08198.png
The bird in the oven seems very small though, is that the same kind of bird sometimes referred to as a Chicken Little?
“The sky is falling!”
To use an old British phrase:
Their goose is cooked.
And as my grandfather used to say:
“Two to a duck, you and the duck!”
Thank you rbateman & anna v for the links.
Citations of the 1998 paper can be found here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-ref_query?bibcode=1998GeoRL..25.2269B&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST
Other Baranyi & Ludmany pubs can be found in these directories:
http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/publ/
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/
Examples:
Baranyi, T. & Ludmany, A. (2005). Symmetric or asymmetric energy transfer from Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections to the magnetosphere depending on the solar dipole.
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/BaranyiLudmanyASR2005.pdf
http://fenyi.solarobs.unideb.hu/publ/BaranyiLudmanyASR2005.pdf
Baranyi, T. & Ludmany, A. (2005). Geoeffective and climate-influencing solar and interplanetary conditions.
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/BaranyiLudmanyHOB2005.pdf
[Figure 2 in ^this one is interesting.]
Baranyi, T. & Ludmany, A. (2006). Possible north-south asymmetry related to the mean Bz of interplanetary coronal mass ejections.
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/BaranyiLudmanyASR2006.pdf
Baranyi, T. & Ludmany, A. (2003). Semiannual behaviour of monthly mean of Bz component of geoeffective (Kp>3) coronal mass ejections.
http://fenyi.sci.klte.hu/publ/BarLudESA2003.pdf
Also, Kalevi Mursula does research on this:
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/
James (14:05:27) :
I put climate change denial on the same plane as Holocaust denialism.
In a few short years time James, you will feel so ashamed of that statement.
Go in peace.
Pamela Gray,
It’s child’s play to show that the following are related:
SOI, trade winds, atmospheric angular momentum, length of day, rate of change of CO2 concentration, SST.
So what is driving these things?
Do you really want us to stop thinking beyond “What came first? Chicken or Egg?”?
Judging from your comments, I recommend brushing up on the following (for starters):
A) applied multivariate regression analysis.
B) wavelet analysis (& multi-scale analysis more generally).
The work does NOT stop at recognizing main effects. Once the main effects are understood, there are secondary (& higher-order) effects and interactions to study.
It is sensible to start on the Pareto (80/20) Principle, but the era of easy hits has passed and an era of far greater challenge is upon us. Many accept this; understandably, some long for the easier days of the past (when simple linear regression was enough).
Will you be joining us in accepting today’s challenge? Or will you be staying behind, reminiscing about the easier days of the past, and reinventing the wheel?
I mean no offense, but you are disrupting the harmony of hard-working people who accept today’s challenge. I invite you to join us in the hard work.
The Willie Soon and Susan Bulianas paper on the evidence for the MWP can be downloaded free here:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf
And speaking of weather, yesterday Chicago had its coolest July 8th in 114 years.
John W. & JAN
Nice try! However, the key word in John’s exposition is “mystical” and thus unexplainable.
Mystical = having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence
James (14:05:27) and those that replied to James
A little clarification please! Are you referring to warming of Earth’s atmosphere because of the additional CO2 entering the atmosphere resulting from activities of humans and some very dire, even catastrophic, changes in Earth systems?
I ask because “climate change denial” – as so expressed – is not something I have found to exist.
Oh! Just exactly what would be the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere today if humans still lived as they did a few thousand years ago?
tallbloke, I’ve seen this woodfortrees graph you’ve posted a few times:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2009/mean:43/detrend:0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2009/scale:0.001
(Note that I’ve widened it in time.)
As you can see in the following, switching from 43mo to 39mo does not alter the pattern much:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2009/mean:39/detrend:0.5/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2009/scale:0.001
I think this is (roughly) what you’re really going after:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2009/isolate:156/mean:39/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1850/to:2009/scale:0.001/offset:-.05
As tormentors will be quick to point out, the wiggles don’t all match. However, as we know, we would not expect them to since there are other strong signals interfering on both shorter & longer timescales.
So, what happens once one starts taking those into account?
The most obvious problem for phase concordance is the Chandler wobble phase reversal centred at ~1931. This phase-relationship-disruption is strongest for plus/minus a decade, but it also extends over a wider era.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriod.PNG
Bumpiness — phase-relationship-disruptions.
Sun-Skeptics: See the work of Vondrak & Gross – top experts in their field — and conduct wavelet & cross-wavelet analyses to see the time-timescale spectra for yourself. (Be sure to keep confounding in mind – for example solar UV effect on LOD.)
I’ve shared some intro-level notes on wavelets – & links to Gross & Vondrak papers – over here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/another-paper-showing-evidence-of-a-solar-signature-in-temperature-records/
The phase relationship in the last woodfortrees graph settles down noticeably in the early 1950s. See section 3.2, particularly figures 10 (upper panel) & 11, of Vondrak (1999) for important supplementary info:
http://www.yspu.yar.ru/astronomy/lib/Rotation.pdf
SSTs are generally out-of-phase with solar variables before ~1931 at solar-cycle-timescale and in-phase afterwards, with the exception of an interval defined above. The opposite is true for at least one precipitation variable (Pacific NorthWest) which I have studied.
Important:
Make the distinction between different timescales.
This is what wavelet & time-integrated methods are all about. The relationship might be between variable X at timescale A and variable Y at timescale B — and the timescales might vary on top of that – and there are other variables (it’s multivariate) and other timescales (multi-timescale) at play – so expecting to see a simple linear correlation is a clear sign of incomplete thought.
The preceding does not mean disentanglement is hopeless.
Landscheidt was finding mysterious phase reversals and betting heavily on the sun. Interestingly, his phase reversals are a whole lot less mysterious if one takes earth orientation parameters into account.
Every single phase-anomaly in the last woodfortrees graph needs to be explained. Once the Chandler wobble is taken into account, a big anomaly (a phase reversal) is qualitatively simplified. The next steps:
1) Move from rough qualitative conditioning towards increasingly quantitative conditioning (perhaps via interaction terms).
2) Look for the next-biggest conditioning factor(s) & isolate the intervals of their most profound influence.
Clearly this is challenging, particularly due to:
a) the varying timescale (i.e. nonstationarity) of ENSO, which produces a fairly-overwhelming-at-times signal.
b) multi-channel nonstationary harmonics (which means signals are camouflaged, even though present).
Although it may be challenging to master the conditioning, there is no reason to suspect that barriers cannot be overcome to better-isolate the solar-temperature phase-relationship …and once the phase-relationship is better-isolated, perhaps the amplitude puzzle will be less puzzling.
The goal is not to prove “sun explains everything”; rather the goal is to work out the details of all of the relevant variables in support of deep understanding of the whole picture.
The presence of frost in a location, where “…frost has never been reported before in July,” indicates a change in the planet’s climate. Whether this is good or bad, the future will no doubt reveal in due time, however I believe this was predictable. What really surprised me was when you wrote that, “Environment Canada has issued a frost warning…” this can be seen as another indicator of atmospheric and global climate change reverberating to a noticeable event in P.E.I. or it could just be playing it safe, needless to say, I have read many articles from National Geographic about rising sea ice and polar bears, to come to believe that our oceans are rising, and if that correlates strongly with climate change, and it’s many categories ranging from frost to severe snow, then the future will no doubt be interesting to observe. However, this is just a present opinion and more reading is necessary until a complete conclusion can be made about climate change, it’s existance, and it’s impact.
Pamela Gray,
What is the sound of one hand waving? Now I know after reading your post. Slight changes in CO2 are magnified by all kinds of feedback effects. Slight changes in solar output? Nope. They are measured straight up, apparently.
While I am sure that air temp correlates with sea surface temp better than solar, I didn’t get the part of your explanation that elucidates the causes of sea temp changes. You make the point that noise doesn’t necessarily cancel to zero over a finite time horizon, which I agree with. I liken the climate to Brownian motion, however; I don’t find the idea that there are zero forcings changing the climate very convincing myself. And I don’t think you can prove it to be true either. In fact, under your theory, nobody can prove anything, which might be true. But just because the noise is huge compared to the signal, does not prove that there is no signal.
TJA “But just because the noise is huge compared to the signal, does not prove that there is no signal.”
Tallbloke “Yesterday’s science is smartly presented, neatly cut and dried and blow waved. Tomorrows science is at the bottom of a muddy trench covered in grit and obscured by muddy waters of unknown density.”
On both counts….BRAVO!
Chris
Norfolk, VA
@Ohioholic and Paul Vaughan: Thanks for the links, I’m checking them out.
I recommend this 1 minute to add a new perspective on the global climate business….because that is exactly what it is we are getting…..the business…minute 6:30…in 1992 the “baron” introduces his idea to vacuum up all the ugly CO2, make lots of dry ice, and then ship it to the poles to manitain the climate…of course there will be a slight charge his new green bank will require to make this whole save the world thing happen…in his own rothschildish words here…..I am not kidding….
James (14:05:27) : I put climate change denial on the same plane as Holocaust denialism.
James, that just demonstrates your lack of critical thinking skills. I deny climate change caused by people. Now I have a passel of jewish relatives and friends. I’m fairly certain that they are comfortable with my position on the holocaust. That you can’t see the difference speaks volumes about you and says nothing about me.
Just to make myself completely clear: I am absolutely certain that the climate changes. In fact, I think it naturally changes far more than the AGW Advocates accept or allow for. We had the Roman Optimum, the Iron Age Cold Period, the Med. Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and dozens of other extreme events (not the least of which are ice ages and global tropical swamps).
chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
So I’m very comfortable with the notion that climate changes. I am also able to do simple math fairly well and can see that the extent of these changes swamp anything we can do to change climate. And we don’t know why those natural changes happen so we have no idea what is coming next in climate change, what direction it will go, or how to stop it. Though there are a few interesting ideas:
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
We do know that this interglacial is nearing an end and the most probable direction is toward a whole lot of cold. We just don’t know in which millennium it will happen (or even if it already started in the LIA – see, a 100,000 year long event that comes in waves is hard to see from our short tiny little lives with our near zero length perspective on time…)
I can also do computer programming and some more subtile math well. This, applied over many dozens (hundreds?) of hours looking into the temperature record and the manipulations of it done by computer codes like GIStemp has lead me to a simple conclusion: Most, by a large margin of the 90% order of magnitude most, of the “A” in AGW comes from computer fantasies working on broken data. The only warming of significance is in the dreams of computers.
Now I did not come to this as an article of faith, as the AGW True Believers do. I came to it starting from thinking “WOW, AGW is an interesting thing and important, I ought to learn about it!”. And the more I looked and the more loose ends I chased down, the more I let go of my AGW belief and slowly moved to skeptic, and now to simple rejection of AGW. I worked through the muck, mud, and details that 99.9% plus of everyone ignores. “Why? Don’t ask why, down that path lies insanity and ruin… -emsmith.” (Lets just say I have a compulsivity to completeness and detail that borders on high function Aspergers.) And at the end of the trail I found that the AGW story does not hang together. It is far more holes than bucket.
Now you want to link a well researched and well understood observation of the facts and history of “global temperature” manufacture with a mindset that particularly does not look at the facts of history and does not do any historical research. That is, at it’s best, naive and at it’s worst, propaganda. I’ll let you decide where on that axis you fit.
When I look at the kind of “thinking process” used by the Holocaust deniers, I see a tendency to start from a conclusion as ask “Given this conclusion, what assumptions can I draw?”. Strangely enough, I see the same thought process in the AGW community. I’ll leave it for you to decide if any dots need connecting…
So, James, please put me firmly in the group that absolutely, publicly and proudly denies that AGW is happening. That is where the facts, science, and history lead. But tie that to the Holocaust and, well, several of my relatives shed blood shutting down the death camps ( 101 st Airborn for one Grandad who liberated a camp or two. One Jewish Uncle was landed at Normandy and walked his way across the continent… ) well, lets just say that you will look pretty silly, at a minimum.
So please let go of the propaganda and the emotionalism. Look at the facts, the science (and how badly some of the AGW “work” is done), and get a perspective on our scale in time and space. We are but nits on the rump of fleas on the tush of the elephant of climate. Then take a deep breath and think a bit about it all. In the end the clear answer is that we don’t matter much, or at all, and the planet is going to do things we do not ken and can not control. That is just observing the truth, nothing more, with no political nor emotional baggage. James, the truth shall set you free.
Re: TJA (18:52:13)
I don’t see noise playing a big role, but I can see how a complex jumble of signals appears noisy upon casual inspection.
Roger (07:42:05) : I too noticed that the HadCET data service link brings the response “The requested URL is unavailable at this time. The following error was reported: Failed to connect to server.” and that this has been the case since 30th June.
Roger, rampant speculation on my part, but as a former computer geek, I feel compelled to come to the defense of my fellow geeks 😉
There was a wide spread DDOS (distributed denial of service attack) on government facilities in the USA at the start of July. It is possible that they were also hit in this attempt and were not as able to stop it.
It is also possible that the server is just having issues and some times it takes days or weeks to get things fixed. It all depends on how much money was available and how many working backup tapes there are.
I have personally had the sinking pit feeling of putting a backup tape on a crashed machine to reload it and discovering that the backup job had run, just never put anything on the tapes… This, BTW, is why I would periodically go into the computer room and just make a tape of the whole system. Once a quarter or so. Then read it. Just in case the formal set was garbage… Once bitten, twice armed with mace and a set of tall leather boots 😉
So before tossing rocks at the folks, consider that they might be working very hard to recover from some very bad situation…
I really hope that Pamely Gray is right because if this is just the start and the trough will be in 2030, I might have to renew my passport and put up with DHS goons again in the future … to feal some heat like I used to daily when I lived South of Glacial Till for a few years.
On the other hand, the barycentric tidal torque planets>sun whatever model seems so damn obvious to me that whatever twists and turns everyone else makes … it only gives me pause to consider how they will reconcile their intellectual investments into reality when it becomes irrefutable. Then there are those who will have to answer for their political stupidity and arrogance at that time … it will look good on them.
This is not a new movie, it is into several generations of reproductions …
Paul Vaughan (18:20:36) :
Paul, The 39 month smoothing looks good. It takes someone like yourself with exceptional skills with the stats tools you have brought to the table to untangle the complex web of climate perturbing influences through the discovery of correlations and the anti-correlating factors which affect them. Probably the best contribution I can make is to use my engineer trained brain to consider the various factors and their relative energies to help keep a perspective and generate ideas for possible mechanisms. I will carry on working through the wavelet tutorial you linked to see how much of it sinks in too.
A couple of questions:
1)Is the Chandler wobble a contra-rotation like the equinoctal precession?
2)The data is with respect to a reference frame. What other known motions have been removed?
3)How much difference does the 18.6 year lunar cycle of rising and falling declination make to earths absolute polar motion?
4)I wonder how much the moons declination cycle affects the jet stream’s latitudinal variation too, could that amplify an effect on the chandler wobble through AAM?
Anyone else who has clues should join in, this is an open source climatology which will be built through co-operation rather than the claim and counter claim of individual competing ideas. There is no grant money at stake, so hopefully this shouldn’t be too difficult to achieve. 🙂
TJA (18:52:13) :
We used to think that deep-space imaging from urban areas was impossible. The noise of the light pollution forming a barrier beyond which no signal could be removed. That the signal was hopelessly buried in the noise.
Then someone noticed that others were getting signal beyond the barrier that was deemed impossible to penetrate.
Turns out that the concept of the signal buried IN the noise was wrong. The signal was in ADDITION to the noise. The trick was to take many samples of short duration.
True, you don’t get as deep in a given amount of time as one would in a non-light polluted environment, but you still get deeper than the “barrier”.
I have faith that removing (subtractive) other signals from the mass of signal will result in isolation of what is sought.
James (14:05:27) :
I put climate change denial on the same plane as Holocaust denialism.
Who here is denying climate change. Apart from you , that is, since you appear to think the climate can only change through the activities of humans.
“I can see how a complex jumble of signals appears noisy upon casual inspection”
Philosophically speaking, every pop of static on your AM radio listening to a Cubs game out of Chicago in a pickup truck in northern Wisconsin has a physical cause and a given sufficient investigation, a scientifically valid explanation. Doesn’t mean it has any bearing on the outcome of the game, or your understanding of it, if it were missing. Noise.
Philosophically speaking, the cubs game has naff all to do with understanding climate.
Apparantly random events are only random if you don’t know what the underlying phenomena and their cyclicities are doing.
As Leno Tonti told a motorcycle journalist who commented on how noisy the Moto Guzzi le Mans was
“Eez notta noise, eez a music.”
rbateman (02:49:07) :
Turns out that the concept of the signal buried IN the noise was wrong. The signal was in ADDITION to the noise. The trick was to take many samples of short duration.
I think there is a good analogy to the wavelet analysis Paul Vaughan is advocating here.
Dan Lee (20:25:32) :
I suspect the clean-up (reduction) of particulates, aerosols, and sulfates during the warming period may have something to due with the suddenness of cooling. Don’t forget a solar minimum contributes another straw for the proverbial camel. Recession is another factor especially to UHI and possibly GHG reduced emissions, also.