- Thread starter
- #441
Hardly.
But when someone admits that they are an oil company shill, there's no need for me to waste my time.
More record temps
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
Hardly.
But when someone admits that they are an oil company shill, there's no need for me to waste my time.
- Thread starter
- #442
Warmest summer on record in Texas....
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A massive heat wave is expected to develop over much of the central and eastern United States beginning on Friday with heat index values that could reach 115 degrees.
The big story for the coming weekend will be the building heat," said Jim Keeney, a National Weather Service meteorologist. "It looks like it's going to be a long-term heat wave."
In the thick of the heat wave is Oklahoma where Governor Mary Fallin asked Oklahomans to pray for rain this Sunday.
"The power of prayer is a wonderful thing, and I would ask every Oklahoman to look to a greater power this weekend and ask for rain," Fallin said in a news release on Thursday.
Fallin on Thursday also issued a ban on outdoor burning for the western half of the state because of the extreme drought conditions.
"The number of wildfires we have had over the last few months is extremely tough on our state firefighters," Fallin said.
"It's a drain on their resources as well as a physical drain. Anything that can be done to minimize fires will help to keep both our firefighters and the public safe. I'm asking all Oklahomans to be vigilant and to do their part in preventing fires."
Earlier this year Texas Governor Rick Perry asked Texans to pray for rain because of the drought there.
As of July 12, about 72 percent of Texas and 43 percent of Oklahoma are experiencing the worst possible drought conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
On Thursday, 10 states were under heat advisories or watches, down from earlier in the week when 24 states were on the list.
"The worst states are Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana," said Victor Murphy, a weather service meteorologist, who said Texas is seeing the warmest summer on record so far.Another blast of heat to hit U.S. - Yahoo! News
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A massive heat wave is expected to develop over much of the central and eastern United States beginning on Friday with heat index values that could reach 115 degrees.
The big story for the coming weekend will be the building heat," said Jim Keeney, a National Weather Service meteorologist. "It looks like it's going to be a long-term heat wave."
In the thick of the heat wave is Oklahoma where Governor Mary Fallin asked Oklahomans to pray for rain this Sunday.
"The power of prayer is a wonderful thing, and I would ask every Oklahoman to look to a greater power this weekend and ask for rain," Fallin said in a news release on Thursday.
Fallin on Thursday also issued a ban on outdoor burning for the western half of the state because of the extreme drought conditions.
"The number of wildfires we have had over the last few months is extremely tough on our state firefighters," Fallin said.
"It's a drain on their resources as well as a physical drain. Anything that can be done to minimize fires will help to keep both our firefighters and the public safe. I'm asking all Oklahomans to be vigilant and to do their part in preventing fires."
Earlier this year Texas Governor Rick Perry asked Texans to pray for rain because of the drought there.
As of July 12, about 72 percent of Texas and 43 percent of Oklahoma are experiencing the worst possible drought conditions, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.
On Thursday, 10 states were under heat advisories or watches, down from earlier in the week when 24 states were on the list.
"The worst states are Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana," said Victor Murphy, a weather service meteorologist, who said Texas is seeing the warmest summer on record so far.Another blast of heat to hit U.S. - Yahoo! News
Last edited:
What crime on this board led to you losing all of your rep? Hmmmmm? Once a perjuror allways a purjuror chrissypoo. What lie did you get caught telling?
- Thread starter
- #444
- Thread starter
- #445
Record Events for Fri Jul 8, 2011 through Thu Jul 14, 2011
High Temperatures: 489
Low Temperatures: 123
HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View
High Temperatures: 489
Low Temperatures: 123
HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Huh. To work in an organization automatically means you shill for one. Good to know.
So the fact that I'm a government employee in a public sector union that wants to see it busted doesn't fit into this cozy little worldview of yours does it?
Of course your logic means that you're an ecofascist shill for some government funded fraud study. Yo do realize this if course.
- Thread starter
- #447
Already during July, 882 record high temperatures have been tied or set across the U.S. At the same time, drought is more extensive than any time since at least 2000. Over the weekend and next week, the drought will worsen in many areas while a remarkable burst of humid heat surges north and then east.
The U.S. Drought Monitor released Thursday showed 29 percent of the country in drought, and 12 percent of the country in exceptional drought, the largest extent on record (though records only go back to 2000).
Extreme heat wave to spread across U.S., drought conditions to worsen - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post
The U.S. Drought Monitor released Thursday showed 29 percent of the country in drought, and 12 percent of the country in exceptional drought, the largest extent on record (though records only go back to 2000).
Extreme heat wave to spread across U.S., drought conditions to worsen - Capital Weather Gang - The Washington Post
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #448
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
To my denier, clueless retard compadres..............this is a must read.It will bring a gigantic-ass smile to your face, especially when you realize that stuff like this is happening ALL over the country = a rejection of this global warming nonsense and a return to common sense.
Like I keep saying..........nobody gives a rats ass about the science.
From todays Columbus Dispatch...........
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan
Lower natural gas prices and policy concerns also affected decision
Friday, July 15, 2011 02:51 AM
High costs have trumped high hopes in the quest to reduce globe-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
A day after American Electric Power said it would halt a project to bury carbon dioxide deep beneath a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, experts say the decision reflects a seismic change in the economics of generating electricity.Since AEP announced its $668 million "carbon-capture" plan in 2009, estimates of the cost of the technology have grown. Natural-gas prices also have plummeted, and Congress has been unable to agree on a system for regulating carbon dioxide.
"Urgency has been diminished," said Chris Lafakis, an energy economist for Moody's Analytics.
Those same dollars might be better spent on building natural-gas-fired power plants, he said.
"It's a very different kind of world we're looking at now," said Kenneth B. Medlock III, an energy economist at Rice University in Houston.
One of the key differences is that Congress isn't close to an agreement about carbon regulation. As recently as 2008, many observers viewed such a deal as inevitable and those assumptions made carbon capture seem more feasible, he said.
Industry officials say clean-coal research is still very much alive. Southern Co. is testing a similar carbon-dioxide system at its Barry power plant in Alabama, said Revis James, director of the Electric Power Research Institute's Energy Technology Assessment Center.
"The stoppage of work at Mountaineer is not going to fundamentally change what we are going to do," James said, referring to the name of the AEP plant.
A new coal plant with carbon capture would cost $137 per megawatt-hour, according to the most-recent forecast from the Energy Information Administration. That is based on the estimated cost of construction and operation in 2016. The amount is more than double the cost from a gas-fired plant, which is $62.
Those numbers do not reflect the costs to modify plants such as Mountaineer.
AEP officials said the decision was tied to the sluggish economy and lingering uncertainty about federal energy policy. Spokesman Pat Hemlepp said the rising cost of carbon capture was not a significant factor, noting that "costs always rise" on construction projects
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan | The Columbus Dispatch
ANd go google the success of the northeast RGGI scam. Its in the toilet......a BS carbon reducing effort between states. Nobody cares about it in 2011.
And it leaves me laughing....................my ass off. Because all the OCD bozo's in here..........but especially Rolling Thunder..........think this shit is marching forward unabated because there is a consensus on the science.
PS........the operative word in the above article is????
How about............seismic
Like I keep saying..........nobody gives a rats ass about the science.
From todays Columbus Dispatch...........
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan
Lower natural gas prices and policy concerns also affected decision
Friday, July 15, 2011 02:51 AM
High costs have trumped high hopes in the quest to reduce globe-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
A day after American Electric Power said it would halt a project to bury carbon dioxide deep beneath a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, experts say the decision reflects a seismic change in the economics of generating electricity.Since AEP announced its $668 million "carbon-capture" plan in 2009, estimates of the cost of the technology have grown. Natural-gas prices also have plummeted, and Congress has been unable to agree on a system for regulating carbon dioxide.
"Urgency has been diminished," said Chris Lafakis, an energy economist for Moody's Analytics.
Those same dollars might be better spent on building natural-gas-fired power plants, he said.
"It's a very different kind of world we're looking at now," said Kenneth B. Medlock III, an energy economist at Rice University in Houston.
One of the key differences is that Congress isn't close to an agreement about carbon regulation. As recently as 2008, many observers viewed such a deal as inevitable and those assumptions made carbon capture seem more feasible, he said.
Industry officials say clean-coal research is still very much alive. Southern Co. is testing a similar carbon-dioxide system at its Barry power plant in Alabama, said Revis James, director of the Electric Power Research Institute's Energy Technology Assessment Center.
"The stoppage of work at Mountaineer is not going to fundamentally change what we are going to do," James said, referring to the name of the AEP plant.
A new coal plant with carbon capture would cost $137 per megawatt-hour, according to the most-recent forecast from the Energy Information Administration. That is based on the estimated cost of construction and operation in 2016. The amount is more than double the cost from a gas-fired plant, which is $62.
Those numbers do not reflect the costs to modify plants such as Mountaineer.
AEP officials said the decision was tied to the sluggish economy and lingering uncertainty about federal energy policy. Spokesman Pat Hemlepp said the rising cost of carbon capture was not a significant factor, noting that "costs always rise" on construction projects
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan | The Columbus Dispatch
ANd go google the success of the northeast RGGI scam. Its in the toilet......a BS carbon reducing effort between states. Nobody cares about it in 2011.
And it leaves me laughing....................my ass off. Because all the OCD bozo's in here..........but especially Rolling Thunder..........think this shit is marching forward unabated because there is a consensus on the science.
PS........the operative word in the above article is????
How about............seismic
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
IDK..........Id say for the alarmist mental cases, its just about time to call in Gigantor................
Ask me how much fun it is to come in here all the time and keep winning?????????????????????????
Ask me how much fun it is to come in here all the time and keep winning?????????????????????????
Last edited:
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
To my denier, clueless retard compadres..............this is a must read. It will bring a gigantic-ass smile to your face, especially when you realize that stuff like this is happening ALL over the country = a rejection of this global warming nonsense and a return to common sense.
Like I keep saying..........nobody gives a rats ass about the science.
From todays Columbus Dispatch...........
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan
Lower natural gas prices and policy concerns also affected decision
Friday, July 15, 2011 02:51 AM
High costs have trumped high hopes in the quest to reduce globe-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
A day after American Electric Power said it would halt a project to bury carbon dioxide deep beneath a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, experts say the decision reflects a seismic change in the economics of generating electricity. Since AEP announced its $668 million "carbon-capture" plan in 2009, estimates of the cost of the technology have grown. Natural-gas prices also have plummeted, and Congress has been unable to agree on a system for regulating carbon dioxide.
"Urgency has been diminished," said Chris Lafakis, an energy economist for Moody's Analytics.
Those same dollars might be better spent on building natural-gas-fired power plants, he said.
"It's a very different kind of world we're looking at now," said Kenneth B. Medlock III, an energy economist at Rice University in Houston.
One of the key differences is that Congress isn't close to an agreement about carbon regulation. As recently as 2008, many observers viewed such a deal as inevitable and those assumptions made carbon capture seem more feasible, he said.
Industry officials say clean-coal research is still very much alive. Southern Co. is testing a similar carbon-dioxide system at its Barry power plant in Alabama, said Revis James, director of the Electric Power Research Institute's Energy Technology Assessment Center.
"The stoppage of work at Mountaineer is not going to fundamentally change what we are going to do," James said, referring to the name of the AEP plant.
A new coal plant with carbon capture would cost $137 per megawatt-hour, according to the most-recent forecast from the Energy Information Administration. That is based on the estimated cost of construction and operation in 2016. The amount is more than double the cost from a gas-fired plant, which is $62.
Those numbers do not reflect the costs to modify plants such as Mountaineer.
AEP officials said the decision was tied to the sluggish economy and lingering uncertainty about federal energy policy. Spokesman Pat Hemlepp said the rising cost of carbon capture was not a significant factor, noting that "costs always rise" on construction projects
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan | The Columbus Dispatch
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan | The Columbus Dispatch
ANd go google the success of the northeast RGGI scam. Its in the toilet......a BS carbon reducing effort between states. Nobody cares about it in 2011.
And it leaves me laughing....................my ass off. Because all the OCD bozo's in here..........but especially Rolling Thunder..........think this shit is marching forward unabated because there is a consensus on the science.
And Sam's take on the k00ks insistence that they are winning???
PS........the operative word in the above article is????
How about............seismic
Like I keep saying..........nobody gives a rats ass about the science.
From todays Columbus Dispatch...........
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan
Lower natural gas prices and policy concerns also affected decision
Friday, July 15, 2011 02:51 AM
High costs have trumped high hopes in the quest to reduce globe-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
A day after American Electric Power said it would halt a project to bury carbon dioxide deep beneath a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, experts say the decision reflects a seismic change in the economics of generating electricity. Since AEP announced its $668 million "carbon-capture" plan in 2009, estimates of the cost of the technology have grown. Natural-gas prices also have plummeted, and Congress has been unable to agree on a system for regulating carbon dioxide.
"Urgency has been diminished," said Chris Lafakis, an energy economist for Moody's Analytics.
Those same dollars might be better spent on building natural-gas-fired power plants, he said.
"It's a very different kind of world we're looking at now," said Kenneth B. Medlock III, an energy economist at Rice University in Houston.
One of the key differences is that Congress isn't close to an agreement about carbon regulation. As recently as 2008, many observers viewed such a deal as inevitable and those assumptions made carbon capture seem more feasible, he said.
Industry officials say clean-coal research is still very much alive. Southern Co. is testing a similar carbon-dioxide system at its Barry power plant in Alabama, said Revis James, director of the Electric Power Research Institute's Energy Technology Assessment Center.
"The stoppage of work at Mountaineer is not going to fundamentally change what we are going to do," James said, referring to the name of the AEP plant.
A new coal plant with carbon capture would cost $137 per megawatt-hour, according to the most-recent forecast from the Energy Information Administration. That is based on the estimated cost of construction and operation in 2016. The amount is more than double the cost from a gas-fired plant, which is $62.
Those numbers do not reflect the costs to modify plants such as Mountaineer.
AEP officials said the decision was tied to the sluggish economy and lingering uncertainty about federal energy policy. Spokesman Pat Hemlepp said the rising cost of carbon capture was not a significant factor, noting that "costs always rise" on construction projects
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan | The Columbus Dispatch
High costs bury AEP's carbon plan | The Columbus Dispatch
ANd go google the success of the northeast RGGI scam. Its in the toilet......a BS carbon reducing effort between states. Nobody cares about it in 2011.
And it leaves me laughing....................my ass off. Because all the OCD bozo's in here..........but especially Rolling Thunder..........think this shit is marching forward unabated because there is a consensus on the science.
And Sam's take on the k00ks insistence that they are winning???
PS........the operative word in the above article is????
How about............seismic
skookerasbil
Platinum Member
daveman
Diamond Member
Who has done that, and where? Degree of difficulty: You have to use their actual words, not the voices in your head.
- Thread starter
- #455
- Thread starter
- #456
Record Events for Sat Jul 9, 2011 through Fri Jul 15, 2011
High Temperatures: 477
Low Temperatures: 151
HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View
High Temperatures: 477
Low Temperatures: 151
HAMweather Climate Center - Record High Temperatures for The Past Week - Continental US View
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #457
Peaked around 1999-2004 from the maximum of 23 and hit bottom in 2007-2010 for the long minimum that we have been in. .05 to .075c of temperature change.
2010 0.62+.075=.695c
2005 0.62+.01c=.63c
1998 0.60+.01c=.61c
2003 0.58
2002 0.58
2009 0.56+.05c=.61c or as high as .635c if you go with .075c
2006 0.56+.033=.590c
2007 0.55+.033=.585c
2004 0.54
2001 0.52
So from 2007-2010 you need to add .033-.075c to each one of those temperatures compared to 1999-2004 period.
2005-2006 I'd add .01 to .02c
1998 about the same
1988-1994=1999-2004
1994-1996=2007-2010
Do you think I did it right?
Last edited:
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
your aim is pulling a little to the right. Try again and hit the correct lane on the range.
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #459
Here is the top ten when 1999-2004 solar output stays the same over the decade.
2010 .695c
2005 .63c
1998 .61c
2009 .61c(again I could of went to .635)
2006 .59c
2007 .585c
2003 .58c
2002 .58c
2004 .54c
2001 .52c
I totally threw out the rss data or anything that favored higher. A real warmer would of went with the rss!!!
Remember 2002, 2006, where fully nino years. 2002 into early 2003 where nino...
late 2007 through the mid part of 2009 where nina.
1999-2001 where nina, 2002 through first part of 2003 nino, 2004 is a mix bag, 2005 mix bag---I'd give it a slightly positive neutral. 2006 was above normal enso with a nino, 2007 the last part had a nina, 2008 you get the picture. 2009 started out within a nina, so at least to oct-nov time frame was under its effects. Nino started in the later part around August-sept time frame. The lag works both ways!
A full blown nina or nino events has -.25c to +.25c if the event is very strong. 1998 had .23+ for case in point. 2008 could of been close to -.15-.18c...Not totally sure.
2010 when you think about it honestly is much like 2005 in the way the enso worked.
2005 started out with a .3-.5c section 3.4, but after sept it went to about opposite of that...In away when you think about the way the lag works=2005 was a positive enso overall.
Same with 2010. You can have 1.8c nino for a month or two, but it was counter by a equal nina later. The lag makes sure it doesn't totally balance either, but goes alot like 2005.
It comes down to 1# solar cycle and 2# sulfur emissions to go into the missing warmth from 2005 to 2010.
2010 .695c
2005 .63c
1998 .61c
2009 .61c(again I could of went to .635)
2006 .59c
2007 .585c
2003 .58c
2002 .58c
2004 .54c
2001 .52c
I totally threw out the rss data or anything that favored higher. A real warmer would of went with the rss!!!
Remember 2002, 2006, where fully nino years. 2002 into early 2003 where nino...
late 2007 through the mid part of 2009 where nina.
1999-2001 where nina, 2002 through first part of 2003 nino, 2004 is a mix bag, 2005 mix bag---I'd give it a slightly positive neutral. 2006 was above normal enso with a nino, 2007 the last part had a nina, 2008 you get the picture. 2009 started out within a nina, so at least to oct-nov time frame was under its effects. Nino started in the later part around August-sept time frame. The lag works both ways!
A full blown nina or nino events has -.25c to +.25c if the event is very strong. 1998 had .23+ for case in point. 2008 could of been close to -.15-.18c...Not totally sure.
2010 when you think about it honestly is much like 2005 in the way the enso worked.
2005 started out with a .3-.5c section 3.4, but after sept it went to about opposite of that...In away when you think about the way the lag works=2005 was a positive enso overall.
Same with 2010. You can have 1.8c nino for a month or two, but it was counter by a equal nina later. The lag makes sure it doesn't totally balance either, but goes alot like 2005.
It comes down to 1# solar cycle and 2# sulfur emissions to go into the missing warmth from 2005 to 2010.
Last edited:
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #460
2010 .695c-.01c=.685c
2005 .63c-.01c=.62c
1998 .61c-.23c=.38
2009 .61c-.01c=.6c
2006 .59c-.05c=.54c
2007 .585c+.025c=.56c
2003 .58c-.025c=.555c
2002 .58c-.075c=.505
2004 .54c
2001 .52c+.05c=.525c
2008 .49c+.033c+.1=.625c
What it would looks like if solar stayed 1999-2004 and attempt at canceling some of the effects of the enso. Of course
2010 .685c
2008 .625c
2005 .62c
2009 .6c
2007 .56c
2003 .55c
2006 .54c
2004 .54c
2001 .525c
2002 .505c
1998 .38c+.025=.405c
I edited to lower 1998 as I made a mistake...But most likely the main reason is the fact NO powerful nina unlike 2010 countered the global temperatures. So warm temperatures could last throughout the year. 2005 didn't have this or even 2006.
I will keep working on 1998...
O'hell I will keep working on the whole thing.
One more thing this doesn't account for the sulfur, which a negative forcing that has increased within the past 5 years.
2005 .63c-.01c=.62c
1998 .61c-.23c=.38
2009 .61c-.01c=.6c
2006 .59c-.05c=.54c
2007 .585c+.025c=.56c
2003 .58c-.025c=.555c
2002 .58c-.075c=.505
2004 .54c
2001 .52c+.05c=.525c
2008 .49c+.033c+.1=.625c
What it would looks like if solar stayed 1999-2004 and attempt at canceling some of the effects of the enso. Of course
2010 .685c
2008 .625c
2005 .62c
2009 .6c
2007 .56c
2003 .55c
2006 .54c
2004 .54c
2001 .525c
2002 .505c
1998 .38c+.025=.405c
I edited to lower 1998 as I made a mistake...But most likely the main reason is the fact NO powerful nina unlike 2010 countered the global temperatures. So warm temperatures could last throughout the year. 2005 didn't have this or even 2006.
I will keep working on 1998...
O'hell I will keep working on the whole thing.
One more thing this doesn't account for the sulfur, which a negative forcing that has increased within the past 5 years.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump's bluff in Iran is a 'disaster' of his own- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 3
-
European allies say Russia is helping Iran more than the U.S. has acknowledged, sources say
- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 3
-
What do you think about the new Putin biographic film The Wizard of the Kremlin trailer (2026)?- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Europe seeks to increase deportations as some warn of Trump-like tactics- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 2
-
Not impossible, just requiring organization that we never gave them credit for
- Started by Old Rocks
- Replies: 3
