‘Astronomical’ warming in Nunavut forecasts temperatures above zero next week
Warm winds pushing up from the south will bring unseasonably warm readings in parts of the territory
Iqaluit is forecasted to see a warm week and reach a high of 4 C on Monday. (Photo by Livete Ataguyuk)
While many other places across the North shiver in the cold, unusually warm weather is in the forecast for much of Nunavut through the weekend and into early next week.
Warm winds pushing up from the south are expected to bring temperatures to above zero in some parts of Nunavut, and Iqaluit is expected to reach a high of 4 C on Monday, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada.
High winds, reduced visibility and unsafe road conditions were expected Friday night, according to the City of Iqaluit, which issued a warning to residents to stay indoors.
“If we’re looking at what our normal temperatures would be on Monday, that’s maybe 30 degrees above normal,” said Jesse Wagar, a warning preparedness meteorologist with the federal government’s environmental department.
“That is just an astronomical amount of warming that this weather system is pushing towards the North.”
By Thursday, the forecast in Iqaluit drops to -13 C, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada.
But while Nunavut basks in the relative warmth, western areas like the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and Alberta are dealing with extreme cold temperatures and severe weather warnings.
In some parts of Alberta, an Arctic blast coming from the North may cause temperatures to feel as low as -50 C.
“These sorts of highly amplified flow patterns, we do see them often enough that they’re pretty normal to see through the winter,” Wagar said.
“But the extent of this one, like how cold it has been through the Northwest Territories and Alberta, and how warm it’s going to be in southeastern Nunavut and Nunavik, is unusual.
“Some of the temperatures we’re seeing in Alberta are the coldest since the ’70s. This is not normal.”
Wagar says it’s difficult to attribute this weather event to climate change, but notes climate change is bringing more frequent and extreme weather events.
The warm temperatures carry a chance of rain in Nunavik, and federal government is recommending Nunavimmiut exercise caution for dangerous icy conditions early next week.
“Some of the temperatures we’re seeing in Alberta are the coldest since the ’70’s. This is not normal”
It’s also not unknown. I believe it was New Year’s Day in 1978 when it was +5C and raining in Rankin Inlet, if my failing memory serves me right.
Of course it dropped back to “normal” soon after, and the high the last week in January was -38C. February never got above -40C, and one week in February it never went above -45C. Thankfully it warmed up after the first week in March.
You can’t argue with climate change, especially given the trends over the last 20 or 30 years, but weather will continue to surprise us, which really should be no surprise.
The problem comes with the definition of climate change. We are still coming out of the last ice age, the climate has been changing for billions of years now.
All this “wasn’t this warm / or cold since the 70’s” means that we have encountered these things before. It’s not new we just have very limited memory
You right the Mark!
It’s always being like this for many
Years.
Get with the times, it is no longer “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”, it is now “Climate Crisis” LOL!
Nunavut, the future bread-basket of Canada.
“Wagar says it’s difficult to attribute this weather event to climate change, but notes climate change is bringing more frequent and extreme weather events.”
Hmm, religious dogma from a meteorologist? Nope, just religious dogma from a bureaucrat.
Sorry S, this is science, you should learn the difference.
Does anyone know what HAARP is? anyone ever notice all the sprayed white lines in the skies over many cities and towns in our country? You can read about this “program” on line. Then ask yourself if you still think global warming is real or is it being created to fit a narrative for control. Learn and think about what is really happening.
Thanks, Dyr, but I think HAARP activity is immaterial. There is no climate ‘change’ in the sense of the dogma that is prevalent in society today. That dogma has no basis in fact but it is a solid indicator of the complacency and gullibility of the average citizen.
With zero evidence to support the doctrine of climate ‘change’ nearly two-thirds of adults are convinced that there is human-made climate. That’s about equal to the percent of society that Churchill referred to to when he said that the best argument AGAINST democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter
If you were to spend just a little bit of time on the United Nations Climate Change website, you could download and read thousands and thousands of pages of summary climate change data and evidence written by thousands of climatologists over the past couple of decades that shows Climate Change is a real thing.
As you say there is zero evidence for climate change, this is obviously and immediately contradicted by reality.
Stacking all this evidence up against your couple lines of text saying there is no such thing, while only offering ideological reasons for thinking so, it is clear you are suffering from a lack of reasoning skills.
That is the difference between real scientists and armchair pundits such as yourself. Scientists follow the truthful evidence no matter what the implications are. You on the other hand, are unwilling to accept the evidence because you dislike what this might mean for your politics.
I am sorry, but the physical world does not work that way. You, personally, have to conform to the way things actually are. The real world on the other hand is under no obligation to orient towards your personal preferences. If anyone is being gullible or complacent, it is you for thinking otherwise.
S is one of those ‘free thinkers’ who sees everything but their own thoughts as dogma or narrative. S has probably never read a serious science paper on climate change, because reading ‘propaganda’ would clearly be a waste of time to them.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s
DYR I have really nice tinfoil hat that I think would fit you perfectly
Unfortunately science is only right a fraction of a percentage of the time and politics rule over science.
Gibberish.
The United Nations defines Climate Change as follows;
“Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions.
But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.”
There is nothing wrong with this definition. The only problem I see is with your understanding of it. Remembering that specific place had a specific temperature that was the same as decades ago is neither here nor there.
As expected this story has dragged every imbecilic climate denier out of the woodwork talking nonsense about HAARP, complacency and gullibility etc. etc.. I wonder if they spend all their free time trolling the interweb for stories like this where they feel they can spew their vitriol.