Talk:Eureka, Nunavut

Untitled

A population of 0??? Grutness|^hello? 07:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• While I cannot confirm the actual population, a population figure of "0" actually makes a little sense. First, an abandoned site (which this appears to *not* be) would have a population of 0. Secondly, areas created specifically for research (such as Antarctica) would technically have a population of 0, but have people "living" there seasonally or transiently. Third, an area set up by a corporation or for corporate development, such as Deadhorse, Alaska, also have populations of 0, though are seasonally or transiently "populated" by corporate workers. Hope this makes it a little more logical! :-) Mercer5089 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are no permanent residents; however, there is always a team of people staffing the station and conducting research. DanWeaver ca (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

QUESTION: If this is supposed to be "global," and by that, I've seen a lot of emphasis on "non-America-centric," then why are all of the American states and most American counties/boroughs/parishes afforded one of those white and red maps indicating their placement in relation to other similar political divisions? While I lack the ability to create these, somebody obviously does have this skill and has used it for American pages...why hasn't this person done so for Canadian pages like these? Even if this page is of an "obscure" topic, I feel I could argue that "Igiugig, Alaska" is equally obscure and has been afforded such a map. Thoughts? Mercer5089 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Climate

Please update ! Eureka reached 20.7C in summer 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.81.39 (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks for the info. -kotra (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Eureka reached new peak at 20.9 °C. link: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?StationID=1750 Please update. 77.38.44.85 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated and thanks for providing the source. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Though this is not confirmed in the hourly data at http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/hourlydata_e.html?timeframe=1&Prov=XX&StationID=1750&Year=2009&Month=7&Day=14 when it never got above 14.4°C --86.178.142.39 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the claim:

Even so, the temperature has never exceeded 20.9 °C (69.6 °F), first reached on July 14, 2009.

While it may be verifiable, given the concerns expressed here, we should look for additional verification before restoring. I do realize the link is a blog, which does not qualify as a wp:rs, but it isn't going to hurt to check out the claim, and err on the side of caution while checking it out.--SPhilbrickT 01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The hourly temps from the same site for that day add further doubt. While the maximum temp in a day can be, and often is, larger than the largest hourly temp, it is usually higher by tenths of a degree. The highest hourly temp on 14 July 2009 is 14.4, so a maximum daily temp of 20.9 is questionable.--SPhilbrickT 01:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It would look as if the observer mad some sort of error there. It's too high compared to the rest of the day. Other than the original source given I didn't look at the others. something lame from CBW 03:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's an error. It seems to be legit; the two days surrounding it also had highs in the 60s. There was also some controversy over the high temperature of the previous day, because it was also accompanied by a large, temporary increase in temperature. However, a number of meteorological phenomena could account for that. There were convective showers in the vicinity that day; a dry downburst could easily overcome a maritime inversion. In any case, I've e-mailed Environment Canada so hopefully they will confirm the readings in question. 72.240.53.216 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I re-inserted the deleted statement. The claim is readily verifiable by Environment Canada and the actual METAR obs show a high of 20.9C. The website expressing concerns about its strongly opposed to climate science and thus cannot be used as a source of controversy without violating Wikipedia's overarching goals at achieving a neutral point of view in its articles. The claim itself does not strike me as "obviously wrong"; the station in question is adjacent to the Arctic Ocean. Small changes in wind direction can lead to large temperature changes in the summer. A quick glance at some other days shows that the temperatures frequently oscillate with even minute changes in wind direction. There is no evidence of any temperature sensor malfunction. 72.240.53.216 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A difference of six degrees that must have occurred in less than an hour (given that it went unregistered in the hourly records) is amazing anywhere. Recorded winds, as we can read there, came from north all day but at 05:00, when they came from the west. Could it have been then, when the recorded temp was 10,3 C? So, the value of 20,9 max for 14/7/2009, that doesn't show in hourly records, is easily verifiable? I don't say it isn't, but please explain how you easily verified it, so that I can do it myself. --Xyzt1234 (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a graph of hourly temperatures for that day in Eureka, according to Climate Canada here, unprocessed - no smoothings, no nothing. The average (all temps fo the day, not the average of max and min temps) was 11,5 ºC, with a standard deviation of 1,66 ºC. A claim of 20,9 ºC is more than 5 standard deviations far off. I'm not saying it's wrong -- just really far off, and not in the hourly data. It's just as fine by be. Anyway it's weather, not climate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzt1234 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Using standard deviation to determine whether a given point is erroneous can be fraught with peril in cases like this. The data is not normally distributed. The temperature at this location can fluctuate wildly with changes in wind. Read this quote from the station manager at Eureka posted at WUWT (name and e-mail address redacted); by and large, it confirms my theory posited above. As somebody who lives near a cold body of water, I know how changeable conditions can be. This particular site apparently is surrounded by arctic waters on three sides! And, in any case, using your analysis, many of the daily highs and lows at Eureka during the summer would appear to be erroneous. Sudden changes in temperature appear to be more the norm of the climate of Eureka, as opposed to the exception.

I am the station manager of Eureka and was on site... (replaced copyvio with link to remarks The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 17:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC))

72.240.53.216 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

:Why not register an account? Then you would be able to upload images which would be very useful. The highly esteemed CBW presents the Talk Page! 02:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is safe to state that the sunshine values of Eureka is not an estimate because I saw that Environment Canada has calculated the monthly and yearly sunshine values. I have updated the climate data to the most recent period (1981−2010) which happens to include the sunshine data as well. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone has altered the Climate data table. I am not skilled at tracking things, but an extreme humidex value of 23.0 in January isn't likely, and this is way different from the 0C value in the Environment Canada CSV file referenced on the page.

With respect to fast temperature swings (rises), I live on the eastern slopes of the Rockies and get these quite often in the winter (Chinook). I think we had one about a month ago which was about 8C in something like 20 minutes.Fortran (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I just downloaded the CSV file again to check and it does give 23.0. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

What an extraordinary outlier! Or possibly not.Fortran (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's probably an error. Look at Cambridge Bay data for 1971-2000 compared to the current Cambridge Bay#Climate record high for January. There were a bunch of other stations in Nunavut with obvious errors in the source such as temperatures of 23 °C (73 °F) in the winter. I wrote to them and pointed them out. I should probably go through the NU ones again. At least they might be able to correct them before they become html pages. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've grown up with what I know as chinooks, I gather the generic name for them is foehn wind. I have found evidence that Ellesmere Island experience katabatic winds, it seems possible it can experience foehn wind as well. According to the Wikipedia articles on these topics, the highest rate of change observed to date is +27C in 2 minutes and +41C in 1 hour.The fastest negative change at the conclusion was -32C in 27 minutes. The highest sustained temperature in an event is apparently +24C. There are some interesting math and statistics to these weather problems in the arctic, so I am going to try and analyze weather data as well.Fortran (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WMO has lots of rules, I don't know that I agree with all of them. I am assuming CambridgeBayWeather, that you are from CambridgeBay. So, might as well start with data close to your home, as it is relevent, and you have personal experience. So, I got the hourly data for Dec 2013. I know little about Cambridge Bay, and never been there (the furthest north I've been is about mile 176 on the Alaska Highway). Standard statistics says -28.8C +/- 4.9C. The range in hourly changes, runs from -3.2 to 2.3, is peaked about 0 and is approximately symmetric. A hint of something odd in the negative tail. But, I would say that Cambridge Bay didn't see any Chinooks/foehn wind in December. A year ago, I would have assumed you couldn't get Chinooks, but some article about NWT said there are mountains around Great Bear Lake. But, if the rises in elevation around Great Bear Lake are mountains, it doesn't seem they are big enough to cause chinook at Cambridge Bay. And the Yukon border is too far away. As I only had 1 month of data, I used that data as a circular buffer in constructing the autocorrelation of temperature. I was expecting a peak at 0 lag, and there wasn't one. There is some positive correlation stuff at about 1-3 days lag, and some negative correlation stuff at maybe 5 days lag, but then correlations more or less tail off to 0 for larger lags. If the temperature data had the correct properties, the correlations should have been bounded between -1 and 1. They weren't, I was getting positive correlations up to about 5 at 1.92 days, and about -3 at 5.58 days lag. As the autocorrelations values are out of range, I need to change how I analyse them to get any meaning out of them.Fortran (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm from Cambridge Bay. The humidex was recorded 1 January 2007 according to the source. So if you look at the data for that day at 1100 it was -21.5 at 1200 it was +23.0 and at 1300 it was -22.7. The dew point through the three hours are consistent but the RH of 2% is a problem. Assuming they were using the same equipment we do then the temperature and dew point are manually entered and the RH is calculated. The software used will not catch the error caused by dropping the minus sign. No we don't get Chinooks here at all and no much in the way of large temperature swings. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The hourly data for Eureka (Jan 1, 2007) has been corrected. The +23.0°C reading has been corrected to a -23.0°C reading. This correction has NOT made its way into the aggregate data, but it's clear to me that the maximum humidex reading for January is just wrong. I have asked them to fix the aggregate data. Once that is complete, we can change the data here and give the correct reference. Endlisnis (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

References

PEARL in the news

Some refs to park here for the moment. Obviously they shouldn't just be dumped into the lead section, but in a PEARL section without the controversy overpowering the rest of the article.

• Allen, Kate (Mar 12 2013). "Arctic scientists see Canada slipping on world stage". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2013-02-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Allen, Kate (May 18 2013). "Arctic atmospheric research station gets funding to stay alive". Toronto Star. Retrieved 2013-02-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "High Arctic research station saved by new funding". CBC News. May 17, 2013. Retrieved 2013-02-22. Already there.
• "High Arctic research station forced to close". CBC News. Feb 28, 2012. Retrieved 2013-02-22.
• Semeniuk, Ivan (Jan 21 2014). "How Canada's Arctic lab keeps a watchful eye on climate change". Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2013-02-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Probably more to come. AndroidCat (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eureka, Nunavut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709185835/http://www.casr.ca/id-arcticviking-challenger.htm to http://www.casr.ca/id-arcticviking-challenger.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

21.9°C

Several different editors have added a record high of 21.9C on Jul 25 2020 recently. The ultimate source appeats to be this tweet but I see 20.9C, not 21.9, so I dont know whats going on. —Soap— 20:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Soap The first image is just the French version of this. However, look at this and this with a maximum of 21.6 at 16:00. There is also this with a maximum of 18.0. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply but Im done for the meantime with all climate editing aside from potential maintenance of my own edits. I threw an actual out-loud temper tantrum in my apartment a few days ago because I was so frustrated from all the climate data I've been doing recently and that tells me it's time to stop, and to avoid even edits that look simple and uncontroversial at first blush. I leave it up to you to decide whether the new temperature is verified or not, and if so whether it belongs in the table or outside it. Best wishes, —Soap— 18:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)