Another entry from the weather is not climate department, this time courtesy of Tom Skilling, WGN-TV meteorologist.
Chicago has its coolest July 8 in 118 years
- By Tom Skilling
- July 9, 2009
For the 12th time this meteorological summer (since June 1), daytime highs failed to reach 70 degrees Wednesday. Only one other year in the past half century has hosted so many sub-70-degree days up to this point in a summer season — 1969, when 14 such days occurred.
Wednesday’s paltry 65-degree high at O’Hare International Airport (an early-May-level temperature and a reading 18 degrees below normal) was also the city’s coolest July 8 high in 118 years — since a 61-degree high on the date in 1891.
Rains on Wednesday were bothersome but generally light in the city, where 0.20 inches fell at Midway Airport. Heavier rains were recorded well west and southwest of Chicago, including an unofficial report of 0.93 inches at DeKalb and 0.60 inches in Pontiac.
Sunshine re-emerges Thursday and should boost temperatures back into the 80s. Southeast winds off Lake Michigan will limit shoreline highs to the mid-and-upper 70s. An isolated thunderstorm may bubble to life in far western sections of the area late in the day
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gary from Chicagoland (19:04:20) :
The Oulu website, http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/,
is still showing a record neutron count with a couple recent tiny dips. Does it respond that quickly to the few sunspots we have seen recently?
The Ap geomagnetic index is up slightly from January.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Ap.gif
I guess we all wait to see what solar cycle 24 does.
If your head is in the freeser and your butt in the stove, on average your allright
C’mon Trevor read before you bark. – Anthony
I did, my (/sarc) that I placed at the end didn’t come out, force of habit putting it in tags. 🙂
Gary P (20:21:02) :
Oulu Cosmic Rays is still showing a record neutron count with a couple recent tiny dips. Does it respond that quickly to the few sunspots we have seen recently?
Almost all neutron monitors [incl. Oulu] have begun to trend down. This is to be expected as the downturn should come 6-12 months after solar minimum which we passed sometime last autumn, so everything makes sense. The latest spate of spots will not have any effect for some time.
The Ap geomagnetic index is up slightly from January.
When checking Ap, remember that there is a 25% semiannual variation.
I guess we all wait to see what solar cycle 24 does.
ain’t that the truth. But it is not at all certain that the solar cycle has anything to do with the climate beyond a [hardly measurable against the natural background noise] 0.07C degree solar cycle variation.
Same sort of thing happening here in Colorado. June was the second wettest June since 1872 (missed the record by 0.1 inches), and June was -3.2 deg F below normal. So far this summer we have had only 2 days over 90 deg F here in Denver as of July 8.
I have also noticed that it seems the forecasts tend to always over shoot the actual highs for the day. The Forecast for yesterday was for a high of 95, but it only hit 90 at the official location, and here on the west side of town it was in the high 70’s late in the afternoon, only hitting the 80’s well after the normal peak heat of the day.
If my perception is accurate, that would imply that the forecast models are anticipating higher heating each day that we are seeing, which would imply that their forecasting rules are not matching up with reality for some reason.
It would be interesting to see if others are seeing a similar pattern that the forecast for the next day high temp tends to miss the mark low more often than you would expect from a random error and might indicate the forecasts have a warm bias.
This is an “unscientific” observation, just a perception from several days where my activities depended on reaching certain high temps (for example I was painting a roof yesterday and needed good hot weather to cure the paint properly). This afternoon as I was finishing up, it was so cool and over cast near noon I contemplated knocking off early because I suspected it might cloud up and rain or be so cool the paint would not dry properly before morning dew set in.
As you can see below for July the departure from normal is dominated by negative departures.
================
000
CXUS55 KBOU 091014
CF6DEN
PRELIMINARY LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (WS FORM: F-6)
STATION: DENVER CO
MONTH: JULY
YEAR: 2009
LATITUDE: 39 52 N
LONGITUDE: 104 40 W
TEMPERATURE IN F: :PCPN: SNOW: WIND :SUNSHINE: SKY :PK WND
================================================================================
1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
12Z AVG MX 2MIN
DY MAX MIN AVG DEP HDD CDD WTR SNW DPTH SPD SPD DIR MIN PSBL S-S WX SPD DR
================================================================================
1 92 57 75 3 0 10 0.04 0.0 0 9.9 33 350 720 80 4 13 39 360
2 79 56 68 -4 0 3 T 0.0 0 8.6 29 180 420 47 5 3 36 180
3 87 61 74 2 0 9 0.01 0.0 0 7.1 36 320 562 63 6 3 47 330
4 77 54 66 -6 0 1 0.19 0.0 0 8.2 28 20 522 58 8 13 38 20
5 78 52 65 -7 0 0 0.30 0.0 0 7.0 26 240 518 58 6 13 31 230
6 84 54 69 -3 0 4 0.03 0.0 0 7.9 31 20 628 70 5 13 41 10
7 87 56 72 -1 0 7 0.00 0.0 0 7.8 21 70 870 98 4 26 70
8 90 56 73 0 0 8 0.00 0.0 0 8.1 16 120 840 94 2 20 120
================================================================================
SM 674 446 0 42 0.57 0.0 64.6 5080 40
================================================================================
AV 84.2 55.8 8.1 FASTST 606 68 5 MAX(MPH)
MISC —-> # 36 320 7148 71 # 47 330
================================================================================
NOTES: SUNSHINE DATA ARE RECORDED BY COOP OBSERVERS AT THE FORMER STAPLETON
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT.
# LAST OF SEVERAL OCCURRENCES
COLUMN 17 PEAK WIND IN M.P.H.
PRELIMINARY LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA (WS FORM: F-6) , PAGE 2
STATION: DENVER CO
MONTH: JULY
YEAR: 2009
LATITUDE: 39 52 N
LONGITUDE: 104 40 W
[TEMPERATURE DATA] [PRECIPITATION DATA] SYMBOLS USED IN COLUMN 16
AVERAGE MONTHLY: 70.0 TOTAL FOR MONTH: 0.57 1 = FOG OR MIST
DPTR FM NORMAL: -2.2 DPTR FM NORMAL: 0.05 2 = FOG REDUCING VISIBILITY
HIGHEST: 92 ON 1 GRTST 24HR 0.40 ON 4- 5 TO 1/4 MILE OR LESS
LOWEST: 52 ON 5 3 = THUNDER
SNOW, ICE PELLETS, HAIL 4 = ICE PELLETS
TOTAL MONTH: 0.0 INCH 5 = HAIL
GRTST 24HR 0.0 6 = FREEZING RAIN OR DRIZZLE
GRTST DEPTH: 0 7 = DUSTSTORM OR SANDSTORM:
VSBY 1/2 MILE OR LESS
8 = SMOKE OR HAZE
[NO. OF DAYS WITH] [WEATHER – DAYS WITH] 9 = BLOWING SNOW
X = TORNADO
MAX 32 OR BELOW: 0 0.01 INCH OR MORE: 5
MAX 90 OR ABOVE: 2 0.10 INCH OR MORE: 2
MIN 32 OR BELOW: 0 0.50 INCH OR MORE: 0
MIN 0 OR BELOW: 0 1.00 INCH OR MORE: 0
[HDD (BASE 65) ]
TOTAL THIS MO. 0 CLEAR (SCALE 0-3) 1
DPTR FM NORMAL -1 PTCLDY (SCALE 4-7) 7
TOTAL FM JUL 1 0 CLOUDY (SCALE 8-10) 0
DPTR FM NORMAL -1
[CDD (BASE 65) ]
TOTAL THIS MO. 42
DPTR FM NORMAL -18 [PRESSURE DATA]
TOTAL FM JAN 1 136 HIGHEST SLP M ON M
DPTR FM NORMAL -85 LOWEST SLP 29.63 ON 8
=================
Larry
The Warmist propaganda machine is quick to jump on any ‘record high temperature’ reports. I don’t see anything wrong with reporting this.
Leif Svalgaard (20:57:03) :
But it is not at all certain that the solar cycle has anything to do with the climate beyond a [hardly measurable against the natural background noise] 0.07C degree solar cycle variation.
You forgot to multiply that by 22/7R^2 for the positive feedbacks. Sorry, lame but I just like to say pi r squared. It is true, yet not at the same time. 🙂
How is it determined that there are no feedbacks to solar forcing?
We won’t see these events mentioned in mainstream media however, only ones which show a higher temperature than “average”. Well said G. E. Smith.
ohioholic (21:34:51) :
How is it determined that there are no feedbacks to solar forcing?
Because it has been hard to show that there is a larger signal, that everyone [or most] can agree on [a hallmark of accepted fact 🙂 ]
Madman (17:03:37) :
The Texas Panhandle has been free of the heat wave until this week. Very wet June, and the high (the one that sets in over Texas every summer) has just expanded up our way. Lots of cool temps in that period, and the night of the Fourth, everyone was putting on jackets to watch fireworks.
Leif Svalgaard (20:57:03) :
“But it is not at all certain that the solar cycle has anything to do with the climate beyond a [hardly measurable against the natural background noise] 0.07C degree solar cycle variation.”
Dr Svalgaard, we of course respect your client, Mr. Sun’s right to scientific representation and we appreciate your participation in these informal interviews. As you may be aware Mr. Carbon was formally charged with carrying heat after investigations into climate irregularities. We now find that we need to reopen investigations, as a key witness against Mr. Carbon has been found to be a heavy abuser of Bristlecone pine extract. While we are prepared to overlook minor variations in TSI levels, which your client claims relate to personal use, we feel that this does raise questions about Mr. Sun’s character. We also have unconfirmed reports linking some of Mr. Sun’s activities with known heavies such as Mr. Jupiter. In light of this information we would like to ask that Mr. Sun surrender his passport and remain contactable should we need further assistance with our inquiries. 🙂
Is this a question of which has more influence over the Earths climate?
…and the two answers are…
A. The sun, our nearest star and powerplant of the entire solar system, or…
B. The 0.000038 (380- millionths) of CO2 in the Earths atmosphere
…man, that is a toughie!
Leif Svalgaard (21:47:36) :
I assume that means that most things have been looked at, and all that is left is unconventional stuff like cosmic rays? I wondered if you have read Gregory Ryskin’s paper on the ocean flipping the magnetic fields?
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/11/6/063015/njp9_6_063015.html
That is some unconventional thinking. It also made me ponder if those flux events could somehow charge the oceans for just this sort of thing.
Condsidering UHI accounts for 4F … wow! Probably the coldest since the last minimum.
I just saw on the Los Angeles news about 5 minutes ago that tomorrow we could break a record for the most consecutive days below average temperature, with today having been day 50 of below average temperatures! Can’t believe they are even reporting that here in Los Angeles….maybe that is the “hip” new trend…reporting on LOW temps. I personally will take the lower temps…it’s usually over 100 every day at this time of year in my area of LA. (There can be 20 or even 30 degree differences within the city of LA on any given day due to valley, mountain and beach areas)
I have an agenda. I fully admit it. My agenda is to take the money that is going to be spent on a non-problem, and spend it on a real problem that makes my blood boil. Child molestation and child pornography. As a parent, this is a far more pressing issue in todays society than the idiocy of trying to control our climate. The pro-AGW contingent claims that we should reduce Co2 for our children and grandchildren. What a farce. The money that will be thrown away could go to solving real problems instead. Let’s protect our children from creeps so they really can have a future, unscarred and unharmed. Imagine what a trillion dollars would do for officers in charge of crimes against children units around the country. Thank you for allowing me to rant. Anthony or moderators, delete if you see fit, …..
Hello from the Czech Republic. We are also experiencing colder than normal June – July so far. I was just wondering if it could be linked to Mt. Redoubt eruption. Does anyone know about it?
Regards. Jan
Weather is when the models can make a reasonable prediction for a few days and climate is what happens after that.
Konrad (22:11:09) :
we would like to ask that Mr. Sun surrender his passport and remain contactable should we need further assistance with our inquiries. 🙂
As his representative, I’m fully authorized to deny any misdeeds he might be accused of.
jorgekafkazar (19:50:29) :
Actually, he has sort of an excuse. The Environmentalists will throw every lawsuit you can imagine across your path if you dare to run a new transmission line, plus the public is very wary of high KV’s crossing thier land.
If you want to run new lines, expect a knock-down drag-out fight. You’ll get it.
“is anyone claiming that the climate where they live has changed in the last fifty years. Where I live the winters went from very cold and dry to warm and wet abruptly in 1988. I drew what for me was the obvious conclusion that this couldn’t be because of global warming because of the abrupt change. Last winter reverted to type.
Don’t forget the US is one of the few regions in the world having rightnow slightly lower-than-normal temperatures.
http://www.climat-evolution.com/article-33431441.html
Western Europe, Siberia, India, China, Alaska, etc. had quite large positive anomalies. Following this NCEP/NCAR reconstruction, the global anomaly was .5 (which should be close to the GISS one).
Here in South Bend, NOAA’s preliminary monthly summary has our mean temperature at 6.7° below normal. Chicago at O’Hare is -5.4°.
Does anyone know when NOAA will change their climate normals from 1971-2000? In 2011 to cover the period from 1981-2010? Thinking about it, if the overall cooler recent years were included, there wouldn’t be quite as much of a departure from the norm.
One other question: Has anyone calculated the average temperature for the past 30-40 years, omitting the coldest and warmest years and comparing that to previous records?
There are a lot of food plants that do not grow well at less than 70 F for prolonged periods. Gardens, and crop yields, are going to be low from Chicago north…
Crops are generally divided into “cool season” and “warm season” crops (with the added group of “tropical” for things that need consistently hot temperatures, but are normally not grown in the USA other than in Hawaii and Florida.)
The “cutoff” between the two ranges is not as precise as we might like, but it is at right about room temperature. About the Chicago temperatures…
Normally, “cool season” crops are only grown in late fall or early spring (or winter in places like California). “Warm season” crops are grown from late spring through summer. Corn, tomatoes, common beans and green beans, squash, melons (and more). None of these will do well at temperatures with cool nights and daytimes peaking below 70F.
You can get a good crop from cold season plants at those temperatures: Kale, peas, cabbages, spinach, some lettuces, radishes, turnips, potatoes. but only if you knew ahead of time that you needed to plant them…
I surely hope that farmers in the cooler regions can learn to adapt rapidly.
For me, only my purple pod “green beans” are producing. They are the most cold tolerant. Last year at this time I had more Kentucky Wonders than we could eat (I still have about 18 pints from the batch canned last year…) This year, I have some short K.W. plants with a few flowers, but no beans yet. I’ll be lucky to get yield by August… I have some cabbages that are still happy. “Normally” by July any cabbage plants I have left alive are dying and drying out in the heat… I let these run to seed. They are now producing their second seed crop of the year. A bit bizarre…
This is the problem that gardeners and farmers all over the planet face. How to continue to produce food at the same levels as in the past while conditions change year to year. What make this even more difficult, is that there is a general reduction in yield with lower temperatures for any given plant. So you can grow something in the cold, just not as much as you could in the heat…
The upper limit is about 120F and above. Only a few plants are happy at those temperatures. At 110F all sorts of things are happy, including rice and peaches, as Anthony can attest near Chico. But as mid summer rises above 120 F and growth slows from heat stress, you gain growing time at the cooler ends of the seasons. This means that the planet would continue to produce more food until all of the growing areas are as hot as Phoenix Arizona… (Actually hotter. Break even is when heat stress loss in summer would be the same as cold loss in winter had been. For places like Nome that would be incredibly hot…)
We have lots of room to the “upside”; not so much to the low side. We start to lose crop yields as soon as temperatures drop at all. All crop growth pretty much halts at freezing. Think about it…
Anyone with a garden has a wonderful thermometer that integrates the degrees x days with fine precision and accuracy. Not all that surprising when you figure that you can make a clock based on flower opening times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linnaeus'_flower_clock
and even determine your latitude… (onions, for example, come in different “day length” types that the set bulbs at particular lengths of day. So the date at which they form bulbs depends on your latitude…)
I’m very comfortable with my garden climate station. And it’s shouting at me that things are cool, and getting colder.
So I’m going to take my planting calendar and slide things in a month or two. Basically, this is now “late August, early September” compared to the past and it’s time for me to start planting my Fall garden Things that need a little heat to get started, but can “finish” in the cool of late fall / early winter.
I’m also going to be pulling my “short season” seeds to the top of the archive. 45 day tomatoes. 50 day corn. 25 day radishes. Oh, and I think I’ll start an early kale bed and try some buckwheat as a fast ‘catch crop’. No time like the present to start preparing…
Chicago gardeners need to start looking at “winter crops”…
BTW, China is demanding a currency system overhaul (per CNBC World) and seem to have figured out that the US Dollar is in trouble (i.e. they want to dump their dollars, but no so anyone notices them doing it). Watching the G8 meeting will be interesting. There is exactly zero chance of getting China to buy into the AGW agenda. Go China!
I morally disagree with the popular comments that “something is just weather not climate”. It is true in the sense that one can isolate “weather” and “climate” questions, to some extent, according to the timescales.
However, what’s wrong is the hidden indication that the “weather” doesn’t matter while the “climate” does. It’s just false. In the real life of any human, animal, plant, company, or nation, what matters at any moment is the weather.
If the climate were “significantly” warming, according to a practically meaningful definition of “significantly”, that would inevitably mean that the frequency of cold records would plummet rapidly – according to a Gaussian profile. Why?
Well, if you imagine that the temperatures oscillate with normal distribution around a “central” value but this “cental” value also has an increasing trend, it is clear that the probability distribution for temperature “T” in the year “Y” will be schematically of the form exp(-(Y-T)^2). So if you choose a record low “T” you want to break, the probability that you break it decreases as exp(-Y^2) with the year, with some constants inside.
The warming becomes significant exactly at the point when this exponential starts to become essentially zero, faster than exponentially. So if we’re still observing record low temperatures essentially as frequently as we would expect in a stationary random world, it simply means that the climate is not significantly warming.
The weather is perhaps not the climate, but it is the weather, and not the climate (a hypothetical long-term abstraction of the weather), that actually matters and influences the people and events. The fluctuations of the “weather” by 10 degrees of Celsius – in days or weeks – are real and the fact that people and others can easily survive it simply means that changes comparable to 10 degrees are not such a big deal. That’s why it is completely ludicrous to talk about practical consequences of a temperature change by 1 or 2 °C per century.
There won’t be any. Only sophisticated statistical analysis involving average over the Earth as well as time is needed to observe such small changes, and even with this analysis, such a change remains controversial because it’s too small relatively to the errors. A normal being located at a random place or trajectory on the planet can’t possibly reliably detect such a change, and even if she could detect it, it can’t visibly influence her, especially not with a sign that could be predictably negative.