Niagara

1. 1

   What is written

   The NGA catalogue dates field visits to four months of 1856 and describes a Canadian-side composition assembled from several viewpoints in the studio. The canvas is dated 1857; no painted weather day is established.

   • His first trip was in March 1856Franklin Kelly, Corcoran catalogue (2011), p. 112
   • He was back in July and then in September and OctoberFranklin Kelly, Corcoran catalogue (2011), p. 112
2. 2

   Records of those days

   • ECCC TORONTO, Climate ID 615835070.9 km from the falls reference. 123 daily entries in the four visit-month envelopes; each month remains separate.
   • Computed sun and rainbow coneApproximate NOAA solar positions and NWS primary-bow radius. Illustrative solar hours, not weather observations or a fit to the canvas.

   Not found or not yet searched

   • Fort Niagara is closer (20.5 km), but all its visit-month measurement fields are blank.
   • Exact visit days and a unique compass-calibrated viewpoint remain unestablished. The original artist letters, a dated sketch inscription and original exhibition-review scans were not verified.
   • No local weather witness, sunshine series or river discharge record has been established. The Toronto archive’s exact historical instrument and site continuity are not reconstructed.
3. 3

   Each claim tested

   • Does the canvas preserve the weather of one field visit? Unknown. Multiple visits and a composite studio view are documented; the monthly envelopes cannot identify a painted day.
   • Does the rainbow establish that rain fell? No. A sunlit spray bow requires droplets and illumination; a rainfall total at Toronto cannot establish either at Niagara.
   • Can geometry date the rainbow? No. Computed cone orientations show how solar height changes the bow; the painted viewpoint and angular scale are not calibrated.
4. 4

   Verdict

   A carefully constructed view can look immediate without preserving a single weather moment. Regional daily records give the documented visit months a setting; local light, spray and flow remain unresolved.

   • Partially agreesRegional context for the documented visits Daily station data survive for the four named months; dates of presence within them remain unknown.
   • UnknownWeather and rainbow in the finished canvas Neither the regional records nor illustrative geometry establish an observed sky or a dated rainbow.

What this cannot tell you. Separate whole-month arithmetic means of ECCC daily mean temperatures; separate sums of daily liquid rainfall (mm) and snowfall (cm). No averaging between stations or across visit months. Blank flag plus a finite numerical value is accepted; T is retained as a trace encoded as zero for precipitation sums. Missing or other flags become null with a reason. A monthly value needs every calendar date and accepted component. A total with traces is the sum of measurable amounts, with unquantified trace amounts additional; T does not mean no precipitation. Snowfall centimetres are not millimetres of rain or snow depth on the ground. One-year regional context, no historical rank, modern normal or anomaly. Historical instrument/exposure and observing-day changes are not homogenized. No local sunshine, cloud register, discharge or artist-session link has been established. No unique Canadian-side viewpoint, compass calibration, angular scale or spray elevation is established for the composite painting. These positions describe possible cone orientations at the falls, not proof that a cone intersects the painted spray. A negative top elevation places the entire bow below the astronomical horizon; spray below eye level can still intercept it. No weather, sunlight occurrence, rainbow sighting or painted hour is inferred.