Oklahoma Heatwave Update

ScreenHunter_521 Jul. 02 10.41

Public Information – NOAA’s National Weather Service

h/t to Andy DC

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Oklahoma Heatwave Update

  1. lance says:

    this will be widely reported by the LSM….NOT…

  2. squid2112 says:

    Holy crap! … beat it by 6 degrees! … wow! That is quite a bit. I thought people there were melting in the streets (according to the MSM).

  3. mikegeo says:

    I believe there was another record low set in Amarillo.
    MeanwhileNOAA is sponsoring a 100 year celebration of the 1913 Death Valley high temp.
    The lunacy is breathtaking.

  4. Guess you’d have to look at a weather map, high and low pressure zones and think about our Jet Stream to understand how such a thing could happen.

    OK also had a never before observed 2.6 mile wide tornado just a few weeks back.

    The denial of our warming global climate system is breathtaking in all it strategically ignores.

    • gator69 says:

      What is a ‘global warming climate system’?

    • The last two years have been the two quietest tornado seasons on record in the US. But thanks for being a moron anyway.

    • Ben says:

      Without cold Arctic air plunging to the central US, you wouldn’t know what an Oklahoma tornado was. Thankfully the word “tornado” is several hundred years old, with all that implies.

      When we observe the complete disappearance of tornadoes due to “warming global climate system”, lets have lunch.

    • sunsettommy says:

      Wow does that mean in the last 1,000 years no tornado was as big the 2.6 mile wide you bring up? Sir you make no point with that because you failed to make a case of it.

      How about paying attention the fact that Tornadoes are less common than they used to be even with all those wonderful modern detection devices we have that were not available before 1960 and especially the F3-5 numbers are declining over the last few decades.

      Lastly there is no global warming going on and has not been for around 12 or so years.

  5. No sure that’s accurate Steve, – include outlier tornado events and interesting extreme events like that “derechos” and tornadoes just north of the border in Canada – I don’t share your smugness. And I know from having family in Oklahoma, they don’t share it either. Besides, global warming is about global weather patterns.

    Sorry Gator, I was pretty sloppy there – let me try that again “global heat distribution engine”
    Do a search on YouTube “Earth From Space (HD)” {sasijayaram} you can watch a fantastic 90 minute NASA tour of what I’m talking about… latest data plus state of the art animation… all observed facts and one incredible reality.

    We do have a jet stream that IS being altered because we ARE transforming our polar ice cap into a heat absorption medium – setting up all sorts of new convection patterns and such the sky above the arctic. We ARE observing our Jet Streams’ behavior getting very weird look up “Jennifer Francis” for details about the latest.

    Steve Goddard, calling me moron may make you feel better but it does not make me a moron. On the other, pretending that we and our society and our greenhouse gases haven’t initiated incredibly disruptive changes to our weather pattern… reveals a profound disconnect from the reality of this planet we depend on.

    good day,

    • gator69 says:

      “We do have a jet stream that IS being altered because we ARE transforming our polar ice cap into a heat absorption medium…”

      Pure delusion. But thanks for answering.

    • Obviously your family was not among the 50% of Okies who fled the extreme heat and drought during the 1930s and moved to California.

      Have you heard of an American author named John Steinbeck? He wrote a book called “The Grapes of Wrath”

    • miked1947 says:

      CACA: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alarmism!
      There are no Global Weather patterns. There are regional weather patterns that interact with weather patterns in other regions.
      More people are being killed by the policies people like you promote than any minor changes in regional weather events.
      BTW we do not know whether the region that is now OK has experienced a similar weather event like the 2.5 mile tornado that struck recently and that is because we lack historical references going back far enough to know.

  6. You guys are cute.

    Let’s see here:
    melting ice cap… pure delusion?
    open ocean absorbing more solar radiation… pure delusion?
    evaporation and convection patterns… pure delusion?
    Jet Streams changing character (see: J. Francis)… pure delusion?
    tornadoes a product of air masses colliding –
    – – – you know ‘warm fronts’ – ‘cold fronts’ – wind shear… pure delusion?
    a quickening drum beat of extreme weather events… pure delusion?
    Our climate being a heat distribution system… pure delusion?
    {science in a vacuum is an ugly thing >>> be brave broaden your horizons:
    Do a search on YouTube – NASA “Earth From Space (HD)” {sasijayaram} }
    ~ ~ ~

    And then to put a cherry on the cake, Mr. Goddard comes up with total disconnect, in order to sidestepping my challenge.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Like I said Steven: Science in a vacuum is an ugly thing.

    • You have no idea what you are talking about. Polar sea ice area has been above normal most of the year, and in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences blamed dips in the jet stream on global cooling.

      You are screaming slogans and have never checked any of the facts for yourself.

    • Chewer, says:

      The AGW science is called a 30+ year working hypothesis and every scientist within their respective area of expertise agree upon all defined “scientific theories”. The infant field of Climatology includes some factors that feed the model inputs and more are being realized as we speak, but the AGW crowd has attacked one of the smallest contributors to tropospheric GHG and virtually ignored the multitude of other studies affecting the global climate regimes.
      Since you believe that man has prevented an end to this inter-glacial, I’d think that would be reason for celebration.
      If you do think history will repeat itself with another glacial advance, please let me know…
      I assume you understand that inter-glacial periods consume the smallest portion of our planets history, but my assumption may be skewed.

    • miked1947 says:

      You are challenged alright! You do not appear to have a friggen clue about regional weather patterns, the polar jet. energy distribution in the atmosphere or anything else for that matter.
      Open oceans in the Arctic region reflect more solar energy than ice does due to the angle the sun’s rays strike the ocean surface.
      Evaporation and convection patterns are always changing with long term weather patterns. That has been going on since the earth has had an atmosphere.
      Jet Streams changing character, well again that is consistent with changing weather patterns but usually associated with cooling as this is the type of activity we should expect during the Fall and Winter as the Northern Hemisphere cools.
      Warm Fronts and cold fronts are normal parts of weather patterns.
      I suggest you check with your doctor about your level of meds as you are displaying symptoms of med unbalance when you refer to the “Quickening Drumbeat of Extreme Weather events”. We have experienced the least extreme weather for the last 30 years that the earth has experienced for many thousands of years.
      Climate is the study of long term weather patterns and weather is the globe’s attempt to “Equalize” the temperatures! It is a Physics thing that you probably can not understand.

      • Oh My.
        I do sense a lot of hostility around here… am I witnessing what some call “Recursive fury” in action?

        Miked you say “We have experienced the least extreme weather for the last 30 years that the earth has experienced for many thousands of years.”

        What do you base that claim on?
        Can you explain in a serious manner?
        Can you offer any legitimate links that support your claim?

        PS. – Has anyone here taken the time to watch any of the lectures by Jennifer Francis?
        Easy enough to find.
        Or have you folks managed to write her off too?
        ~ ~ ~

        Hey, just for grins: is CO2 a greenhouse gas or do you folks consider it a hoax?

        • Jennifer Francis is one scientist with a very politically convenient ad hoc theory.

        • miked1947 says:

          There are people who consider CO2 a greenhouse gas. However I am still waiting for a accurate definition of Greenhouse Gas, Because what is being described has nothing to do with real world Greenhouses.
          Who is Jennifer Francis? Is she a member of the Chicken Little Brigade that is claiming the Sky is Falling?
          I base my claims of historical references, however we are now able to better monitor weather patterns than any other time in history, but the storms have been getting weaker and less often than before and the droughts are getting shorter.
          There is a library full of reference works that support my position.

        • miked1947 says:
          July 4, 2013 at 1:33 am
          Who is Jennifer Francis? Is she a member of the Chicken Little Brigade that is claiming the Sky is Falling?
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          Your reply indicates you aren’t interested in learning about our planet’s climate.
          I say this because apparently you have no interest in hearing a thing she has to say about the data she has been studying – but you’re more than ready to insult her.
          Although, come to think of it, insults seems to be the denialists,
          oops i mean the climate science ‘skeptic’s’,
          bread and butter.
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

          please try to understand that SCIENCE is at it’s core about LEARNING and not about political agendas.
          ~ ~ ~

          PS. Arctic Amplification (Extreme Weather): Jennifer Francis June 6, 2013

        • miked1947 says:

          So Sorry! I have only been interested in weather and climate for about 50 years. Your Jennifer Francis impresses me about as much as Trenberth does. That may be due to her not taking a great many Ocean Atmosphere weather patterns into account and trying to blame everything on her pet hypothesis.
          She is talking about the Extreme weather myth. That is a fairy tale meant to scare gullible idiots like you into believing we need to spend more money chasing Unicorns and Rainbows.
          There is no real science behind the CAGW myth. Unless you consider Pathological Science a part of the realm of science.

        • miked1947 says:

          Send your Jennifer by for a chat about weather events, maybe she will learn something about extreme weather and natural variable weather patterns,. We welcome anyone wishing to learn about the weather in the real world.

        • T.O.O says:

          Perhaps Francis’s theory is based upon observation, research and study? Based on her accomplishments, I would listen very closely to what she has to say: http://www.whoi.edu/science/cinar/CVs/FrancisJ_CV.pdf

        • Perhaps both of you are completely full of shit?

        • T.O.O says:

          Perhaps Steve,
          But you have to admit, her qualifications and experience are very impressive. You may have even more impressive qualifications, but we will never know as you choose to keep them secret.

          So, for the moment, deciding whether to believe her view of the world or yours, my choice is to go with the person with the most expertise.

        • I have little respect for theoreticians who ignore empirical evidence.

        • “Based on her accomplishments, I would listen very closely to what she has to say…”

          According to her opening remarks she has been studying this particular topic for about a year and half.

    • Chewer, says:

      Why the desperation?
      Does our small amount of C02 contribution override the climate mechanisms that bring our planet from a glacial state to an inter-glacial state and back again, or not?
      Is water vapor or C02 the predominant driver in tropospheric conditions? Was there a static condition at any point within our planets history, if so when?
      How well does your friend Jennifer understand out dynamo, our planets core and its max to min temperature fluctuation (over the 675,000 – 925,000 year / magnetic reversal cycle), and what is her understanding of the particle filtering and mixing mechanisms that occur within the lower-upper troposphere, the radical/intermediate seeding at the tropopause, the absorption/reflective properties at all wavelengths within the stratosphere, mesosphere, 3-5 layers of ionosphere and the entire thermosphere’s interaction between all of them, all which reside within our magnetosphere?
      A good clue for you would be, she does not understand the physical or electromagnetic interactions, magnitudes and nature of the tides, because climatology is in its infancy and the areas of study are difficult to reach, map and measure.
      Does she have a good grip on temperatures measured at -1m through -600m?
      Does she understand the difference and implications between a dead core (like our neighbor Mars) and a live one?
      Has she assembled an accounting of the particle matter type and amount reaching our planets spheres from the sun over the past (pick a timeframe) along with the solar influence on our 0-multiple Van Allen belts?
      Is she guessing or has she finally moved AGW from a working hypothesis to scientific theory?
      I personally have worked with scientists who’ve been run out of Academia because of their integrity and inability to conform to the AGW agenda / funding donations.
      Science that ignores seeking answers for a paycheck, only to demonize a trace gas is not science!
      The end of this inter-glacial period is as certain as the next magnetospheric flip…

      • T.O.O says:

        Seeing as the extremely tiny amount of CO2 dwarfs the far larger amount of O2 and N2 in terms of greenhouse gas potential and the other mechanisms like the sun are moving in an opposite direction, then I would have to say that CO2 is the culprit. However, if and when, someone is able to find solid evidence to show that there is another culprit(s), I would be willing to change my mind.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Have you looked at the spectral chart recently?

          Here is one that should show why CO2 is not much T.O.O worry about:


          It shows that the main CO2 peak is OUTSIDE the main IR outflow from the earths surface thus not absorbing much of the outflow at all.

          and this:


          The Logarithmic scale of the quickly declining CO2 warming effect which is now near zero at 400 ppm

        • Chewer, says:

          C02 along with the other atmospheric constituents are measured where they can be monitored (36′ – 400′), whereas the electromagnetic and visible-IR interactions that occur outside that region and not measured.
          C02 is a handy scapegoat for political science, but does not meet reality, especially since the AGW science has collapsed terribly.
          I’m an equal opportunity religious dissenter, with AGW being no different.
          A + feedback with an amplification/acceleration factor of X2+ is not working and those with scientific understanding realize that!

  7. Based on a lot of data – and studies (and data) that are open to peer review and much further scrutiny !

    “ad hoc theory”
    Mr. Goddard you are making as little sense as when you started talking to me about your author Steinbeck.
    ~ ~ ~

    Are you claiming Jet Stream behavior has remained consistent this past decade?
    Oh yea, actually, it seems you’re not claiming anything, just ridiculing.

  8. stevengoddard says:
    July 4, 2013 at 12:14 am
    “You have no idea what you are talking about. Polar sea ice area has been above normal most of the year,”
    ~ ~ ~
    Hmmm, is that a fact… from where did you get that information?
    ~ ~ ~
    Here’s what the National Snow Ice Data Center has to say:
    25 March 2013
    Media Advisory: Arctic sea ice reaches maximum extent

    “Arctic sea ice reached its maximum extent for the year on March 15 at 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles). This year’s maximum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record (the lowest maximum extent occurred in 2011).

    The ten lowest maximums in the satellite record have occurred in the last ten years (2004 to 2013).”
    ~ ~ ~

    What about Ice VOLUME? Have anything to tell us about that?
    What about that late winter fracturing and recent melting as reported by NSIDC?
    Are you trying to tell me the Arctic summer ice cap isn’t in a death spiral?

    • Andy Oz says:

      You’re new here hmm, citizens challenged? There is a hell of a lot of information and references and links to datasets, peer reviewed papers and the like on Steve’s blog. Every single one of your statements has been raised by other warmists (Appell, Lazarus, Michael, tooi, et al) and shown to be unsupported by observational data. Feel free to cut and paste real climates Rapid Response Q&A paragraphs but don’t be surprised if other readers write you off as a troll.
      There have been a lot of you guys lately (or the same person with different profiles) and it is tiresome to see the exact same crap written again and again after it has already been demonstrated to be absurd. So you are a warmist. Please stop using all fossil fuels, mineral products and live in a grass hut. At least then some of us here would respect you for walking the walk. But you couldn’t survive 5 minutes like that. Enough said.

      • Here we go,
        this is really turning into a hoot.

        Now we got Andy:
        ~ ~ ~
        Andy OZ says: – There have been a lot of you guys lately (or the same person with different profiles) and it is tiresome to see the exact same crap written again and again after it has already been demonstrated to be absurd. So you are a warmist. Please stop using all fossil fuels, mineral products and live in a grass hut. At least then some of us here would respect you for walking the walk. But you couldn’t survive 5 minutes like that. Enough said.

        Interesting, I though at the start of this that we were talking about skewered presentation of some cold temps on one side of a stalled heat dome and the heat records occurring within that heat dome.

        Now we got OZ yelling at me because I’m an active member of our society.

        How phony can we get? Though this kind of transparent nonsense has carried the day… for the past decades even.

        Isn’t this is supposed to be about understanding what the science is telling us ! ?

        And incidentally I’ve live a frugal life re consumption,
        and I dare say – if all of USA/us had adapted my attitude towards consumption our children’s future would be in much, much better share that it is after decades of the Reaganomics disconnect from physical realities !

        PS. http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=20613

        • Eric Barnes says:

          Congratulations! I for one can’t wait until you are perfectly frugal.

        • terrence says:

          OH BLESS YOU, BLESS YOU, citizenschallenge!!!

          You are DOING IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!! HOW NOBLE OF YOU, how SAINTLY AND NOBLE of you, to do it FOR THE CHILDREN. You frugal SAINT, you.


      • T.O.O says:

        “There is a hell of a lot of information and references and links to datasets, peer reviewed papers and the like on Steve’s blog”

        And yet when I ask for evidence – over and over and over again — I am deflected, ridiculed and insulted. If a reference is provided, it is inevitably a link to a WUWT comment or a circular link back to another of Steve’s own opinions. Rarely are other citations provided and, more often than not, they are links to kooks who tell you that the greenhouse gas doesn’t exist or that cosmic rays are responsible and they are NEVER peer reviewed.

        You only have to read all these comments and the lack of substantiated evidence on this very blog to know I am right.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Why do you need to post this dishonest babble when you can see right at the top his blog page places to go and read what he has been posting and that often WUWT has links there in the referred article that are based on official data.

          We are still waiting for YOU to provide a rational argument for us.

        • Excellent observation T.O.O. – thanks for joining in.

          I might add:
          Not to mention the nonstop need to resort to insults and demonizing anyone who does want to discuss the substance of the science.
          ~ ~ ~

          Now that is what I’d call a dogmatic religion attitude. In fact, some of the insults around here reminds me of that long ago preacher who hated us two or three catechism students who asked questions and voiced doubt.

        • I wonder why they call Oklahoma “tornado alley?”

  9. Steven this isn’t 1975 ! – although from listening to the arguments climate science “skeptics” keep regurgitating one might be mistaken to think we are in a time warp and nothing has changed or been learned over the past nearly forty years.

    Mr. Goddard,

    You know what I find most morally reprehensible?
    I’m convinced you are smart enough to know better – but you’re trapped within your game and your dogma and fear and resentment and whatever else drives you and your friends.

    It’s truly a tragedy because your kind of thinking demands that ‘we the people’ remain blind to so much of what the objective observer can actually document happening in front of us.

    :- (

    • What I find to be morally reprehensible is people like you who claim morality based on corrupt, bought and paid for junk science.

      Government science was far less corrupt in 1975.

      • stevengoddard says:
        July 4, 2013 at 5:09 pm
        “I wonder why they call Oklahoma “tornado alley?””
        ~ ~ ~
        I wonder why you ask such a question – since it’s fairly well understood: http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/what-where-is-tornado-alley-forbes_2011-04-14

        I’m even aware that some considered Moore OK sort of a bulls eye for tornadoes.

        Now if we take those facts and think about our geosphere-biosphere-atmosphere-oceans as being a global heat distribution engine, then adding more energy, heat, moisture to the atmosphere of that system – will energize the entire system including thunder and wind storms. Hit the throttle and the engine revs – simple physics.
        ~ ~ ~
        As a side note why doesn’t an awareness of the Dust Bowel and how bad it can get in a hurry and how vulnerable people actually are make you less cavalier about these events?…

        I don’t understand how you self-justify your nasty spirited, disingenuous game.
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        stevengoddard says:
        July 4, 2013 at 2:13 am
        “What I find to be morally reprehensible is people like you who claim morality based on corrupt, bought and paid for junk science.
        Government science was far less corrupt in 1975.”
        ~ ~ ~
        Bring on the conspiracy ideation. Where’s the Beef???

        Yea, yea you are convinced it’s all been corrupted and the global community of many thousands of climatologists are spending all their time synchronizing their millions of bits data with each – all in pursuit of more funding and one-world government.

        >>> Evidence based or faith based?
        ~ ~ ~

        Your evidence?
        Let’s look at your citations – will they come from places like Heartland Institute or SPPI with it’s “brain-trust” the serial liar Lord Monckton.

        Have you ever heard of
        Science in a Vacuum – free from objection or corrections.
        Fancy sounding nonsense for a willfully gullible audience who don’t want to take responsibility for their planet or their children’s heritage.

        Why would I say that?
        Because the greater community of trained and working experts have soundly dismissed the various arguments, based on evidence and objective scrutiny.

        In the real living scientific community rejections and exposure of mistakes are opportunities to learn in order to better understand a situation. Everyone has to swallow their pride once in a while, admit mistakes and learn from them – it’s about the best evidence and processing and results possible. Then improving on that.

        But for you and Morano and Taylor, et al. this sort of love for learning has nothing to do with your outlook. Why is that?

        You refuse to see past your funny little Reaganomics political battle plan, to what is actually at stake here. Or maybe you folks just couldn’t care less :- (

        Oh yea nothing religious about those sorts of actions and convictions, ey?

    • Eric Barnes says:

      Reading the above convinces me you have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Maybe you should step outside the progressive echo chamber and actually read and understand the skeptics position here and at other blogs before commenting further.

      • Steven,
        I’m not basing morality on junk science – I am basing my morality on a good four decades of observing the science, Earth observations and the power-politico driven attack on science. And the denialists constantly regurgitated dead-horse memes. But they got the media Force behind you.

        For instance, as our pal Eric dramatized – grand insults,
        but not one bit of solid claims or information or anything to stand behind…
        whereas I’ve been happy to furnish the sources that I base my admittedly non-expert opinions on.
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

        And to be clear I have no expectation or interest in getting your confession –
        I’m just saying: Mr. Goddard, you owe yourself some serious soul searching, when it’s just between you and yourself – because I’m convinced you know all about the cons you are pulling on the gullible.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        wow cc. Your comment was a rhetorical masterpiece and a factual 0. You’ve managed to convince everyone here that you don’t know what you are talking about and merely know how to talk. Very convincing.

        • I’m not so much interesting in “convincing” you – as I am in encouraging you to look past your simple sound-bites and absorb more information – it is out there you only gotta look.

          Yea, I know statistically showing a clear connection at this early stage in our transitioning ‘climate regime’ is a challenge – But, then we do have the geo-physical realities to consider and inform our judgement.
          ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
          Excellent educational read:
          ~ ~ ~
          Also please consider… these aren’t my words:
          “However, some parts of the world are much more prone to tornadoes than others. Globally, the middle latitudes, between about 30° and 50° North or South, provide the most favorable environment for tornadogenesis. This is the region where cold, polar air meets against warmer, subtropical air, often generating convective precipitation along the collision boundaries. In addition, air in the mid-latitudes often flows at different speeds and directions at different levels of the troposphere, facilitating the development of rotation within a storm cell.

          Interestingly, the places that receive the most frequent tornadoes are also considered the most fertile agricultural zones of the world. This is due in part to the high number of convective storms delivering needed precipitation to these areas. Simply as a result of the large number of convective storms and the favorable environment, the odds are increased that some of these storms will produce tornadoes.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s