Canada is Cooling Since 1998 at -0.279C/Decade

If you take Environment Canada’s monthly summaries from 1998 to April 2015.

Use only the station with pre-calculated Normals  (anomalies from 1981-2010 avg).

Average them on a 1×1 grid and then graph the data:

Canada Monthly Summary Analysis - 1998 to 2015 - 'Normals' Anomaly - 1x1 Grid - All Provinces

10 thoughts on “Canada is Cooling Since 1998 at -0.279C/Decade

    1. “Climate Normals and Averages are used to summarize or describe the average climatic conditions of a particular location.

      At the completion of each decade, Environment Canada updates its Climate Normals for as many locations and as many climatic characteristics as possible. The Climate Normals, Averages and Extremes offered here are based on Canadian climate stations with at least 15 years of data between 1981 to 2010.”

  1. Thank you very much. I have been following these types of analyses on a number of blogs but don’t have a data background. Do you know i) is the record used here adjusted or raw data ii) are the locations and recordings reasonably constant (“at least 15 years of data” over a period of 30 years does not sound strong and in the Enviro Canada glossary there is also reference to 1971-2010 iii) what happens to the slope if you go back to 1981 or whatever is the starting point for “quality” data that Enviro Canada holds (I see they have data going back to the 1800s but presumably that would have to be tested for quality of instrumentation and soundness of recording etc). Appreciate I could figure out that last question on my own—if I took the time to figure out a graphing function–but maybe you have looked at it already.

  2. Thanks. Do you read euanmearns.com ? He is also occasionally goes through actual data records around the world. Just using the Mk III eyeball I would say that what you are finding in the Canadian record is fairly consistent with what he shows in several other parts of the globe. My questions really came out of his commentary because he also digs into what the quality of the local records are.

    1. Different timeframe.

      I checked one stations data (Kelowna because I grew up there) and found out a lot of recent data is missing.

      2005, -1.6, , -9999.9,M, 6.9, , 10.5, , -9999.9,M, 17.1, , 21.1, , 21.4, , 15.0, , 10.2, , 3.3, , -0.2, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 19.9, , 9.5,
      2006, 3.5, , 1.1, , 5.1, , 10.5,E, 15.1,E, 19.5, , 23.2, , 21.0, , 16.3, , 9.6, , -9999.9,M, 0.2,E, -9999.9,M, 1.5, , 10.2,E, 21.2, , -9999.9,M
      2007, -1.9, , 1.7, , 6.5, , 9.8, , 15.4, , 17.5, , 22.8, , 19.9, , 15.4, , 9.1, , 3.4, , -0.3, , 9.9, , 0.0,E, 10.6, , 20.1, , 9.3,
      2008, -9999.9,M, 2.3, , 5.0, , 7.5, , 15.5, , 17.8, , 22.1, , 20.4, , 15.0, , 9.2, , 5.4, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 9.3, , 20.1, , 9.9,
      2009, -9999.9,M, -0.2, , 2.9, , 8.6, , 14.6, , 20.0, , -9999.9,M, 21.5, , 16.7, , -9999.9,M, 5.9, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 8.7, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M
      2010, -9999.9,M, 4.1, , -9999.9,M, 10.8, , 12.7, , 17.3, , 21.4, , 21.2, , 15.4, , 11.3, , 1.7, , 0.0, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 20.0, , 9.5,
      2011, -0.2, , -1.0, , 5.3, , -9999.9,M, 13.1, , -9999.9,M, 19.7, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 9.3, , 3.5, , 1.1, , -9999.9,M, -0.4, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M
      2012, -0.2, , 0.0, , 4.8, , 9.7, , 14.3, , 15.6, , 22.4, , 22.0, , 17.0, , 9.8, , 4.8, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 0.3, , 9.6, , 20.0, , 10.5,
      2013, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, 9.0, , 15.5, , -9999.9,M, 22.9, , -9999.9,M, 17.2, , -9999.9,M, 3.4, , -2.3, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M
      2014, 0.6, , -2.1, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -1.3, , -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M, -9999.9,M

      1. Thank you for your response.
        Shared your graph on social media & was directed to the Ministry’s temp. results.
        I would like to think our Canadian scientists are doing honest work

Leave a comment