More from the “weather is not climate department”. Emphasis below mine. And it is having an effect not only on crops but tourism in the Northeast US. – Anthony
Statement as of 4:00 PM EDT on July 9, 2009
record event report … corrected
National Weather Service Gray ME
400 PM EDT Thursday Jul 09 2009
… More record cold weather for Portland Maine…
The temperature at the Portland jetport only reached 58 degrees
yesterday. This set a record for the coldest high temperature on
July 7th. The old record was 59 degrees set in 1961. To put this in
another perspective… the normal low temperature for July 7th is 58
degrees.
The low temperature on Wednesday was 55 degrees. This produced a
range of only 3 degrees between the high and low temperatures which
is a record for the smallest daily range in temperatures on July
7th. The old record was a 4 degree spread set in 1963 and 1995.
The 3 degree daily temperature range yesterday also tied the record
for the smallest daily temperature range for any day in July. The
record was established on July 16th, 1961 and occurred five more
times before this year.
The average temperature yesterday was 57 degrees… which tied 1961
as the coldest average temperature for July 7th.
The high of 58 yesterday tied July 6th of 1956 as the second coldest
high ever recorded at the Portland jetport in July. The coldest high
ever in July was 57 degrees on the 4th of July in 1992.
On the 1st and 2nd of this month Portland only reached 59 degrees
both days… setting records for the coldest high temperature each
day and also tying several other days for the fourth coldest high
ever recorded in July.
Portland has set a record cold high temperature four out of the
first eight days this month. Here is a list of the record cold high
temperatures so far this month…
Date high temp. 2009 old record high and year
July 1st 59 degrees 62 degrees in 1976
July 2nd 59 degrees 63 degrees in 1986
July 7th 60 degrees 64 degrees in 1956
July 8th 58 degrees 59 degrees in 1961
Here is a list of the coldest high temperatures ever recorded in the
month of July at the Portland jetport. Four of the ten coldest
highs occurred in the first eight days of this month…
Rank temperature date
1 57 degrees July 4, 1992
2 58 degrees July 6, 1956
58 degrees July 8, 2009 <===
4 59 degrees July 8, 1961
59 degrees July 16, 1961
59 degrees July 30, 1976
59 degrees July 3, 1987
59 degrees July 1, 2009 <===
59 degrees July 2, 2009 <===
10 60 degrees July 7, 2009 <===
11 61 degrees several dates
The normal high temperature for the month of July is 78.8 degrees.
Along with the cold weather portlanders have also had to deal with
soaking rain this month. There have been three days so far with
around an inch and a half of rain. Rainfall of 1.41 inches fell on
the 2nd, 1.57 inches fell on the 7th and 1.50 inches fell on the 8th.
The 1.41 inches on the 2nd set a record for daily precipitation for
the date… topping the old record of 1.32 inches set in 1983. The
1.57 inches on the 7th was also a record… breaking the old mark for
the date of 1.34 inches set in 1935. The 1.50 inches on the 8th was
far short of the record 3.66 inches that fell on July 8th, 1915.
Temperature records at the Portland jetport began on November 25,
1940 and precipitation records go back to 1871.
&&
Note… corrected date in second table and added normal high for July.
E.M.Smith (13:06:32) :
For right now, though, the “quick and dirty” sanity check measure says that yes, there IS something reducing the light level at ground level and it does not show up as large fluffy clouds, only as an indistinct change of sky color to a more ‘milky’ tinge.
I’m glad someone else has noticed something funny going on. I flew Paris CDG to Dulles in Washington (and back) two weeks ago. I do a lot of flying but I have never noticed it so hazy between 40,000ft and the earth before. This was on both the inbound and outbound trips a week apart.
Just to note, here in the UK after a week of extreme heat at the beginning of the month, we are back to below normal temperatures here with little change forecast for the next few weeks (unless you use the BBC that is.)
Peter (12:43:45)
“Nova Scotia here. WORST. SUMMER. EVER. The sun disappeared for 24 straight days, foggy, cold, miserable. It has been over 80 F exactly one freakish day in May, otherwise an absolute disaster. It simply cannot get over 20 C, had to use the heat several days in June and early July which is unheard of.
If you walked dow the street in Halifax with a “Stop Global Warming” T-shirt on, you would be assaulted.”
Thanks for sharing this note Peter. I spent a number of summers halfway between Halifax & Portland (near the Fundy Coast) and I remember nothing like what you describe — but I do vividly remember common multi-week streaks of 30 to 35C and sweating uncomfortably with all windows wide-open while trying to sleep.
Looks like it ain’t going to get any warmer in Cambridge either.
http://www.metcheck.com/V40/UK/HOBBIES/aviation_forecast.asp?locationID=169
My rough and ready feeling is that aviation forecasts always tend to lag the mainstream stuff. I guess minds are really concentrated if people’s lives depend on it.
E.M.Smith (12:14:12) “Basically, the cold reports are the sound of truth pushing the broken computer fantasy aside.
Bravo – clear perception.
Meteorologist worried about cold: from http://www.climatedepot.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-3854-Cincinnati-Weather-Examiner~y2009m7d13-Deadly-and-destructive-cold
Kuhnkat, this statement:
“The SST’s may have no relationship at all to the heat content of the oceans.”
just doesn’t make any sense at all.
The lower troposphere is heated by the Sea “Surface,” not the “Sub” Surface.
“”” Kum Dollison (15:09:44) :
Kuhnkat, this statement:
“The SST’s may have no relationship at all to the heat content of the oceans.”
just doesn’t make any sense at all.
The lower troposphere is heated by the Sea “Surface,” not the “Sub” Surface. “””
Pretty hard to argue with that; so what does that have to do with the heat content of the oceans ?
“”” MattB (14:21:12) :
Harold Ambler (09:45:36) :
Am spending a month in Rhode Island. Does anyone else at similar latitude or farther north perceive mild solar dimming as though from volcanic dust?
The one other thing I wory about is how much the sulfer in the dust interacting greatly with cosmic rays (see Svensmark Cosmoclimatology) causing a great increase in clouds. I know for the last several weeks here in Omaha,it has been about 6 degrees under the predicted high and it has mostly been from more clouds. They would be thick most of the morning and even if they would thin some in the afternoon it would not let in enough light to counter it. The one thing for heat we have had to deal with here has been some brutal days of high humidity. Even with the temps in the low 80’s you couldn’t work outside for long due to the high heat index. (and that is with the clouds overhead) “””
So with those days of high humidity, and high heat index; just why the hell are there clouds overhead. If the humidity and heat index were higher; those clouds would no doubt be lower; and vice versa.
When you cut all four legs off a frog; they become stone deaf, and won’t jump no matter how loud you yell at them.
George
“Pretty hard to argue with that; so what does that have to do with the heat content of the oceans ?”
Okay, that does it. I’m thoroughly confused.
If the Sea “Surface” is heating up that will warm the lower levels, right?
And, it will disperse heat upwards, right?
I think what we’re tippy-toeing around, here, is that solar minimum, or not, clouds don’t seem to be forming rapidly enough to prevent the Oceans from heating up.
I think we’re making the same mistakes the AGW crowd is making. We’re trying to “explain away” data, and make it fit our “theory d’jour,” rather than observe the data, and compose an appropriate theory.
It’s raining cats and dogs here right now. It’s chucked down more than three inches of rain in the last few hours and roads in low lying areas have been turned into fords. This is the same type of weather that the Met Office failed to forecaste for the last few years. But then, if they keep forecasting a “barbecue” summer year on year they’ll get it right sooner or later.
Good news from the UK front. The Daily Express, a mianstream national daily newspaper, has finally cottoned on to the fact that AGW is going to cost us all dear and put it on the front page.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/113555/Energy-bills-to-rise-by-230-
Even Monbiot seems to be attempting a U turn – of sorts. I can’t be sure because I found most of his frothing at the mouth rambling unreadable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/13/climate-change-emissions-uk
OR, maybe it has Nothing to do with clouds, and it’s, entirely, a case of the Trade Winds going “Quiet,” or the “Wrong” Direction, or “One, and then the Other.”
Whatever it is, we’re not going to figure it out if we waste all of our time arguing with the thermometer.
I’m a little grumpy today and it pleases the {self-snip} out of me that you invited Flanagan to ‘shut the hell up.’
We’ve been on Cape Cod a month (been coming since ’77). This is the first time in decades we’ve not even taken the window air-conditioner out of the van.
Unfortunately, what a camera sees, and what a human eye sees, may be two quite different things; and unfortunately, what a film camera sees, and what a digital camera sees, are also two different things.
What planet earth reacts to in all its aspects we describe as “Radiometric” quantities; measured simply as “Watts per whatever geometry factor”.
What the human eye responds to we refer to as “Photometric” quanitities; and this is the most screwed up area in the entire Physics curriculum; with an army of obscure Units. Nevertheless, there are some standard terms such as Lumens (which loosely relates to Watts), and Candela (aka old “candlepower”), which is Lumens per steradian;a nd so on.
The trouble is that there are atleast two recognised human eye standards; those so called “Photopic” or normal eye vision;a nd the “scotopic” or very low light eye vision, and the two are quite spectrally different.
Then historically the market for photometric measuring equipment; was the movie industry; and to them all that mattered was that the total integrated area under the light measuring curve matched the standar definitions; they didn’t care too much about point to point wavelength accuracy.
Then along came LED light sources, that have relatively narrow color spectra; and solid state lasers, that are even narrower. Now the market, and the manufacturers cared about the point to point spectral accuracy of their readings to match the standard; and photometric sensor makers were obliged to filter their sensors to more accurately reflect the change in eye sensitivity with color (wavelength).
They got that down pretty damn good, and then there came a disaster; Blue LEDs happened; and absolutel none of the filtered sensors that did well on read. orange or even yellow LEDs was worth a damn at measuring blue LEDs.
Now digital cameras come up with a new problem that film cameras didn’t have. The digital sensor maker puts an individual color filter on each and every single pixel in their sensor; often red/green/blue in what is known as the “Bayer” pattern of two diagonal greens, plus a red and a blue; nothing to do with Aspirin. Sometimes the color complement yellow/cyan/magenta is used instead; and there are technical reasons for that.
But silicon sensors whether CCD, or CMOS, are also very IR sensitive (near IR 700-1000 nm), and some digital cameras ignore that and don’t put IR blocking filters in their lenses; which are a pain in the A*** for the camera lens designer.
So trying to guess what planet earth sees, or what the human eye sees, versus whatever your camera sees is a hazardous occupation.
And then just when you think you have it right; the “per whatever geometry factor” gets in and spoils everything. Like the south polar climatologist who told me he was measuring solar flux at the south pole; so he tipped his sensor upside down, thinking it naturally would read the emission from the snow/ice surface; emission comprising IR and or reflected light.
Sorry; the Optics geometry is not the same for those two situations; so his attempts at reflectance measurments were all bust. That comes from being a climatologist, and not a physicist skilled in the optics art, or at least the art of radiometry.
George
BBC news: “Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.” and in the same article: “Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March. ”
Doublethink at its finest. Welcome to 1984.
Well they couldn’t use “Global Warming” – that would be obviously illogical. By using “Climate Change” they can hide the sub-textual message which is…
Man Made Emmisions of CO2 Cause…
[1] Catastrophic Global Warming…
[2] Catastrophic Climate Change…
[3] Climate Chaos…
(and if temps keep going down, I expect to start hearing)
[4] Catastrophic Global Cooling.
In all statements, man and his emissions are the driving force behind the “predicted catastrophy”.
While the sub-text is maintained in all statements, then the rational for the taxation and/or restriction of energy use, and the growth of government and ponzi markets remain.
Very cold on the other side of the world too (yes I know its their winter!)
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/tasmania-as-cold-as-ice/12251
and
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/chill-gripping-the-west/12282
as well as North Carolina
http://www.mtn18.com/latest_news/2009/07/unusual-cold-weather-at-grand-mtn.html
Flanagan inspired me to find some balance! Sorry! 🙂
OT: talking about some peer reviewed paper of realclimatology, here is the latest hilarious justification for a “pause” in the warming: Swanson, K.L. and A.A. Tsonis, 2009: Has the climate recently shifted? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022.
One needs to appreciate the complete absence of meteorological FACTS in this mathematical construction to understand how separated from reality our realclimatologist are.
Kum Dollison, you surely need to brush up on atmospheric circulation… if you care of course.
It does look downright chilly today: http://maps.wunderground.com/data/ndfdimages/T200907140000_us.png
REPLY: Ah Zeke….I see you fell for it. Of course it does when a color scheme that uses “warm” colors like yellow at 50F and higher is used. This is a central problem to certain map presentations I’ve covered before here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/26/color-and-temperature-perception-is-everything/
and here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/28/coloring-the-models-climate-change-through-color-change/
Here is a temperature map that doesn’t look so “alarming”
http://www.intelliweather.net/imagery/intelliweather/tempcity_nat_640x480.jpg
Chill out. – Anthony
I live on the west side of Puget Sound, a little north of Seattle. Every day for years I have gone out around 12:45 pm. with an old incident light meter and measured the brightness. On clear summer days I usually get a reading of 5625 ft. candles. On rainy days like yesterday I may get a reading of 150 f.c. When it is clear this summer, I usually get 5625 f.c. Therefore, I don’t think there is some global solar dimming going on.
Second topic: Watermelons are mostly city sissies and project a lot. They would indeed be in serious trouble if anything disrupted the complex supply system that makes city life possible. Since they are sissies that scares them badly. Since they are phonies, they can’t tell the truth to themselves about themselves. Hence, projection.
Ever so slightly off-topic, but you really have to see the last paragraph of the following article on the tragic situation in the Peruvian antiplano to believe it:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/13/2624141.htm?section=world
While I’m off-topic, here’s another interesting story regarding the global cold outbreak:
http://www.planetski.eu/news/611
Eastern Ontario agricultural reality check. Another two weeks of these cold nights (10C) and the corn and soyabeans will be non-productive. If this persists, ther just maybe some food shortages!!
It’s amazing how much alarmism goes into coloring these maps. I think most folks would figure that green should be a pleasant temperature, maybe around 70 – 75°F [≈21 – 24°C]. Instead, look at what they do:
NOAA’s map: click. [Note this is an anomaly map.]
Zeke’s propaganda map: click
USHCN map animation; the original draft map morphs into the final, adjusted version [while temps stay the same] : click
Here’s one from our friend Michael O’Ronayne: click. Notice temps stay the same between the Draft and Final version. [source]
No wonder the warmists don’t want to debate.
If you keep visiting this site – you can’t help but be exposed to the science and the empirical evidence that shows that the notion that Man Made Emissions of CO2 will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming is a Myth.
I speculate that our friend “Flanagan” is…
[1] (Most Likely – I.e. I think that he is being honest) A True Believer, and the constant collision with the facts of “no warming” is creating considerable emotional tension for him which is starting to intrude into his posts.
OR
[2] (Least Likely (but possible)) An agenda driven individual who sees the facts of “no warming” as a growing threat to the realisation of his agenda, and hence creating considerable emotional tension for him which is starting to intrude into his posts.
I could of course be wrong.
The “desertec” project (solar power from north africa) is nothing else but a big game of Eon and RWE to gain money from the government for a lot of studies, fees and subsidies. Nobody here really believes it will happen, because the electric energy from africa will be delivered for prices nobody will pay if to stay competive on the world market.
With all the cold stories being posted on here one has to wonder about the validity of the AMSU temp readings ticking and accelerating upward like a runaway train with no conductor.
If this is so and they rise up like this every day for 3 more months to match SST’s we could every tree and plant in the southern hemisphere combust by early next year, and if they started doing than we can say it’s officially the end of life on Earth O.o
Seriously that will probably not happen, but a scenario that may be said out loud by alarmists.
Frank Lanser, great response towards Flanni AKA, Flannigan. He’s a Chemical Engineer thinking being an expert in AGW will bring him acceptance. He’s been hanging around another site, http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php lately and gives info with no backing. Haven’t seen him post since last week. It’s been a breath of Fresh Air. A commented Alarmist! Anthony, its great to see you set him straight.