July 2011: Most extreme July on record for the U.S.
According to the National Climatic Data Center's Climate Extremes Index, July 2011 was the most extreme July on record (since 1910) with a value of 37%. The Climate Extremes Index is created by merging the various climate indicators (drought, flood, extreme heat, extreme cold, etc.) into an index that can be tracked over time. This month's record CEI was due to extreme warm minimum temperatures across the country, wet northern Plains and Great Lakes, extreme warm maximum temperatures, and the severe drought across the South and Gulf Coast.
It was the fourth warmest July on record for the nation, and the fourth warmest month overall with an average temperature of 77°F. Extreme heat continued to bake the South, and Oklahoma and Texas both had their warmest months on record. Oklahoma's statewide average temperature was a remarkable 88.9°F in July, which is the warmest monthly statewide average for any state in any month. Dallas, Texas hit or exceeded 100°F on 30 out of the 31 days in July. For the entire South climate region, which comprises Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi, July 2011 was the warmest month on record for any of the climate regions.
As we noted in a previous blog, an unprecedented area of exceptional drought covered the United States in July, the largest area in the history of the U.S. Drought Monitor. 75% of Texas was in an exceptional drought, and the entire state of Oklahoma was in moderate to exceptional drought in July. The NCDC estimates that it would take 20 inches of rain to end the drought in one month in the worst hit areas of Oklahoma and Texas.
Figure 1. Texas and Oklahoma had its hottest and the state of Washington had its 11th coolest July on record last month, according to the NCDC.
Figure 2. Texas had its second driest July on record, and Oklahoma had its 9th driest according to the NCDC. California continues to be wetter than average, and last month was its 8th wettest July on record.
Angela
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 — Blog Index
Link
NWS HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL PREDICTION CENTER CAMP SPRINGS MD
958 AM EDT WED AUG 10 2011
VALID 12Z SUN AUG 14 2011 - 12Z WED AUG 17 2011
THE NEW 00Z/10 ECMWF ENSEMBLE MEAN HAS GOOD CONTINUITY FROM ITS
PREVIOUS 12Z MEAN. THE NEW 00Z ENSEMBLE SPAGHETTI PLOTS SUGGEST A
HUNG BACK UPPER TROF OVER VA/THE CAROLINAS DAYS 6-7. IF
CORRECT...THIS SHARP TROF OR SHEAR AXIS COULD INTERACT WITH
TROPICAL ENERGY OFF THE S ATLANTIC COAST IN ABOUT A WEEK.
THE FLOW PATTERN WILL FEATURE AMPLIFIED TROUGHS ALONG BOTH THE
EAST AND WEST COASTS...WITH RIDGING IN BETWEEN...AND SHORTWAVES
ROUNDING THE WESTERN TROUGH INTO WESTERN AND CENTRAL CANADA.
10,900.75
-339.02-3.02%
Nope. a gulf storm most likely will not be developing anytime soon. All this heavy rain coming off the gulf is thanks to deep tropical moisture combined with a weak upper trough ans weak disturbances sliding along the trough helping to aid the already moist, unstable air mass.
Just imagine how heavy these storms would be if we had strong upper disturbances sweeping through...
Anyway though, all the energy aiding storm development is from a mid-latitude upper trough. This type of weather situation is not favorable for tropical cyclone formation.
I was thinking that it's nice to have this weakness in August however, I was also thinking that it will leave the door open for a different pattern to potentially take shape in September.
Yeah man! And look at NOAA's facts on Florida weather, most of Florida's rain historically does not come from tropical cyclones. A lot of our weather is related to the tropics, and may be tropical in nature thanks to a very warm atmospheric air column all the way up and high moisture, but not actual tropical cyclones.
Obviously, we have gotten very serious flooding rains from tropical cyclones, but most rain in Florida is not associated with them.
Imagine though, with as much rain as we have been getting in the Tampa Bay area. If we got a tropical cyclone with 10 inch rain amounts we would get some serious urban flooding.
That is a false statement. If there were no holes in the AGW theory, it would be a theroy.
Again, speaking a of who is brow beating who;
The broadcasting system that ignored information about "ClimateGate" before it went public is now being told to pay less attention to scientists who question global warming.
The BBC Trust wants the British Broadcasting Company to instead pay more attention to those who affirm catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, citing scientific consensus that global warming is caused by human activity.
Link
Good update Grothar, i tend to agree with u although i think the first storm will likely recurve well away from the Eastern Seaboard!! Too early to tell though u may well be correct!!! Thanks for your insight!!!
Maybe you guys are just hanging out with the wrong kind of women? lol
Then the jet skis come out along Bay Shore ...
Yep, them too..and unfortunately, I see the Bahamas getting slammed this year..most of those scenarios brought those hurricanes right up through them as well
"Can honest Abe be too honest?"....lol, cracks me up everytime I see it.
Here's what happened: a large group of climate change "skeptics" filed official complaints with the BBC Trust, stating that there wasn't enough anti-AGW coverage on the Beeb. Since the BBC's mission is to maintain truth and accuracy in everything, the Trust did a very thorough investigation, and--much to the dismay of those "skeptics" who'd filed those complaints--announced that, given the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, the network had been giving too much air time to the "skeptical" side of the debate.
The thing is, not all "data" are equal. If 999 scientists are convinced that the earth is spherical, while a lone quack swears that it is most definitely flat, who is being served by giving that flat-earther's demonstrably false opinion the same amount of air time as those scientists? Hint: it's not the BBC-supporting public.
you are most likely right, In my experience of living down here that regardless of what triggers it...multiple days of backwards flow can spark a small disturbance out there. With the waters out so hot it could happen quickly if the dynamics were there...but i guess they are not! :)
hahaha my street is flooded right now, I can practically take a jet ski down it myself, watch for pics, I will try and post pictures of my flooded street later.
Twice this past week, a storm has been moving into our area FROM the west (naturally) yet the the copy writer states that the storms --"are moving westward".
It is a black mark on weather reportage and on the Wunderground.com that this person seemingly has the opposite definition for the term *westward* than the rest of the world has.
Yeah its just not the type of weather situation to support tropical cyclone development. Personally, I will take massive amounts of heavy storms any day without having to worry about hurricanes, its exciting but at least I know nobody is getting hurt :)
Leave people alone, I'm sure someone just made a mistake more than once and didn't realize how they were wording it.
I make mistakes like that myself sometimes, yet I know for sure which way is westward and eastward of course.
00Z EURO
Complete waste of time. If this summer did not convince a climate skeptic nothing will. They are completely beyond the appeal of reason.
Nice spin! The problem you have, or wish you didn't have, is that there is not one lone voice but many. The BBC has a long history of over-reporting the AGW theory, not the opposite.
Here is the problem from my standpoint. The AGW crowd are hell bent on making thier theory fact. While there is good evidience to support thier claims, there is also evidience that doesn't support thier theory. Most AGW deniers see the agenda. They often look past facts because of the agenda. It is much like the believers and the atheists. The atheists don't want the believers ramming religion down thier throats at every turn. The believers think they are right and feel they can prove it beyond doubt. However, they cannot as it requires a little bit of faith to believe. The same is true for the AGW crowd. They claim they can prove thier theory without doubt, but they cannot. It still requires a little bit of faith. The scandles, missing science, misleading hypothesis and people like Al Gore keep people from having any faith, as it should.
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics
very touch and go with Earl from the NHC..
EARL IS MOVING 310-315 DEGREES AT ABOUT 14 KT. FOR THE NEXT 36 OR
SO...THE HURRICANE SHOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE GENERALLY NORTHWESTWARD
ON THE SOUTHWESTERN SIDE OF A LOW/MID-LEVEL RIDGE OVER THE CENTRAL
ATLANTIC. AFTER THAT...EARL IS EXPECTED TO TURN NORTHWARD AND THEN
NORTH-NORTHEASTWARD AS IT ROUNDS THE END OF THE RIDGE AND ENTERS
THE WESTERLIES ASSOCIATED WITH A DEEP-LAYER TROUGH MOVING INTO THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES. THE TRACK GUIDANCE IS IN GOOD
AGREEMENT WITH THIS SCENARIO. HOWEVER...THERE ARE SOME SMALL
DIFFERENCE IN THE MODEL GUIDANCE THAT COULD HAVE LARGE IMPLICATIONS
IN TERMS OF IMPACTS. THE GFDN...NOGAPS...AND UKMET FORECAST THE
CENTER TO PASS NEAR OR OVER THE NORTH CAROLINA COAST AND NEW
ENGLAND. THE OTHER MODELS ARE FARTHER TO THE EAST...KEEPING THE
CENTER OFFSHORE. THROUGH 48 HR...THE NEW FORECAST TRACK IS SIMILAR
TO THE PREVIOUS TRACK...KEEPS THE CENTER OFF THE NORTH CAROLINA
COAST...AND LIES JUST WEST OF THE CENTER OF THE GUIDANCE ENVELOPE.
AFTER 48 HR...THE GUIDANCE ENVELOPE HAS SHIFTED A LITTLE TO THE
WEST...AND THE NEW FORECAST TRACK DOES LIKEWISE TO BE IN THE CENTER
OF THE ENVELOPE. THIS PART OF THE TRACK IS CLOSER TO THE NEW
ENGLAND STATES THAN THE PREVIOUS FORECAST.
Buy a self-propelled. Work smarter, not harder.
Now that is funny. I suspect you mean climate change and not AGW. Sure, it has been hot this summer and though many believe the climate may be changing, a hot summer doesn't confirm it. Nor does a few hot summers.
Dear admin,please block all the accounts with name 'jason' in nick
Very well put
therein lies the difference... facts speak to a warming globe and man's contribution to it, whereas denial of facts stems from a belief that the 'fact-drivers' are agenda driven... so who are the believers here??? you might want to put on your 'supporting evidence' gloves for this round ;)
Better reading...
Link
Sorry for not having the time to waste on this, but I already wasted enough of my life on creationists.
You cannot be convinced. evidence means nothing to you. You have closed off most of your brain.
Goodbye!
It's an observation, not a wishcast.. A wishcast is calling it a fish storm right away.
Viewing: 1051 - 1101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 — Blog Index