February 1, 1911

On this date in 1911, a huge swath of the US was over 70 degrees F. Temperatures included 86F at Independence, Kansas, 93 degrees at Guthrie, Oklahoma and 93 degrees at Brownwood, Texas.

Screenshot 2016-02-01 at 01.39.03 AM

If this happened now, scientists would proclaim 99% certainty that it was due to man-made CO2.


About stevengoddard

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

11 Responses to February 1, 1911

  1. JPinBalt says:

    i am really not that sure. White House told me last year that record low temperatures were due to global warming and polar vortex. 2016 surface land temp could end record warm due to El Nino and PDO, and more Galvin data fudging at GISS, but all down for temp from there to call this Mann made farce, but then there will be global cooling farce. CO2, I will look at ice core data which it is following temps by sun’s flux a few hundred years boiling out of oceans as opposed to temps following CO2. Sun spot cycle 24 could be a dusie.

  2. markstoval says:

    They would blame your facts on “climate denialism”. Such stuff is just unadjusted temps and not real since it is unadjusted.

    • Oliver K. Manuel says:

      To receive and retain federal research funds, “scientists” must look for and report only the evidence that supports, rather than discredits, the favorite government dogma of the day:

      DDT kills, rather than protects, human lives.
      CO2 threatens, rather than promotes, lives.
      The Sun consumes, rather than produces H2.
      Neutrons attract, rather than repel, neutrons.

      Not surprisingly there is 97% consensus for all of the above because 97% of scientists prefer research grants, rather than spend their own funds, to support research.

      • Jason Calley says:

        No one is really surprised these days to run across self serving politicians who pretend to be public servants and statesmen. No one is really surprised to read about scam artists and grifters who pretend to be sincere religious leaders. Why on earth should we be surprised to find dishonest grant seekers who pretend to be impartial scientists?

      • darrylb says:

        Mertonian norms of science, introduced in 1942

        Communalism–All scientists should have equal access to all data/goods etc.

        UNIVERSAL ISM No bias against any scientist regardless of background

        DISINTERESTEDNESS–All scientists should act for the common scientific purpose, not for personal gain

        SKEPTICISM- Claims must be exposed to critical scrutiny.

        Yes, Oliver, all of these norms are increasingly violated. especially the last in which many would like to throw most everyone who writes on this thread in jail, or maybe hang us by our privates.

        • Oliver K. Manuel says:

          The record in rest masses of the ~3,000 types of atoms that comprise all matter is clear:

          1. The strongest nuclear force – short-range attraction of neutrons for protons and visa versa – dominates light-weight atoms like He-4, C-12 , N-14, O-16, . . . Ca-40

          2. The intermediate nuclear force – long-range repulsion between protons – builds up in heavier nuclei and successfully competes with neutron-proton attraction above A ~144 amu, inverting the position of n-p pairs from the core to the surface of heavier atoms.

          3. The weakest nuclear force – long-range repulsion between neutrons – dominates heavy atoms and causes spontaneous fission to start at A ~ 232 amu and to become dominant above A > ~254 amu

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Oliver, that “3,000 types of atoms” — I assume that is just all the various isotopes for all measured elements. Does that include different isomers as well? I mean, does spin even make a difference?

        • Oliver K. Manuel says:


          1. CORRECTION: The weakest nuclear force is short-range repulsion between neutrons.

          2. There are only 3,000 types of atoms shown in “The Cradle of the Nuclides.” Those are rest masses of atoms at rest (in lowest energy level).

          3. The neutron and the H-atom are compacted and expanded electron-proton (e-,p+) pairs. All matter, every atom, is a mixture of two forms of this one fundamental particle (e-, p+).

          That’s why Max Planck said in 1944, There is no matter as such. There is a FORCE holding these spinning sub-atomic particles together as tiny solar systems.

  3. 1saveenergys says:

    If this happened now, scientists would proclaim 99% certainty that it was due to man-made CO2.”

    Only pseudo scientists, Not real scientists.

  4. darrylb says:

    Jason Calley, the 3,000 through me for a loop also

    Oliver, I think, is talking about two of the nuclear forces, strong and weak, and they then are in confluence to relative distances between sub atomic particles.
    Each isotope may be, but is not necessarily a multiplier.
    That is consider the isotopes of H, ordinary, deuterium, and tritium, with zero, one, and two neutrons respectively. If there are variations in hydrogen, then multiply that by three.

    I just realized H is a poor example. Uranium. much better. Isotopes of mass 235, 238 and 239
    Atomic number 92. So U has respectively 143, 146 and 147 neutrons. If each isotope has specific variances, unique to uranium, then the number must be multiplied by three because of the three different isotopes.

    Isomers are different arrangements of atoms in a molecule, as in glucose is an isomer of fructose, so they would not be constituting different types of atoms.

    Spin, as in Pauli’s exclusion,– if e- are in the same orbital, (opposite spins) they have the same energies.

    So if Oliver is not here to explain, he, as I understand it, is writing specifically of the nucleus, which gives the atom its identity. –The number of protons.
    and please do not take offense if I am writing the obvious to you. I do not know your background

    —and Oliver, if you are here, I too would like an expanded explanation, thanks.
    I know much of your work, and you will be pleased that I have read some of it, involves the sun specifically its core, and in general at least similar stars and creation of non-star material like planets from it
    I also read your comments at Climate Etc, and sometimes elsewhere. I occasionally comment there

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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