- #36
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
- 24,017
- 3,339
Looks like Wichita had a heat wave in 1980.Astronuc said:I don't know that it is necessarily based on temperature - but rather it is related to precipitation.
I believe the center of the country, particularly Nebraska, the Dakotas, and E. Montana have been receiving less rain.
However, http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/?n=drought (May 19.)
But I wonder what the temperatures will be like over the next decade.
There was the heat wave last year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wave
Then there is anecdotal stuff like:
or
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/newsletter/Fall2005.php
Summer Climate Summary
Somewhere, like the NCDC at NOAA, there is a temperature record, but finding or accessing it seems to be a challenge.
I found this, but it only gives temperature records for a given day, and not a continuous (with time) dataset.
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ict/climate/viewrecords.php
Here is some record temperatures near Wichita for July.
Date
July Record High/Record Low/Coolest High/Warmest Low
1 . 109 in 1980 . 58 in 1995 . 71 in 1988 . 78 in 1956
2 . 108 in 1990 . 54 in 1959 . 71 in 1915 . 80 in 1980
3 . 108 in 1990 . 53 in 1924 . 73 in 1892 . 80 in 1897
4 . 110 in 1980 . 53 in 1892 . 72 in 1915 . 80 in 1969
5 . 106 in 1980 . 51 in 1972 . 69 in 1967 . 82 in 1953
6 . 107 in 1980 . 55 in 1972 . 71 in 1904 . 79 in 1966
7 . 106 in 1980 . 55 in 1908 . 68 in 1894 . 80 in 1980
8 . 108 in 1980 . 55 in 1952 . 70 in 1896 . 82 in 1980
9 . 110 in 1980 . 55 in 1905 . 71 in 1905 . 83 in 1980
10 . 110 in 1980 . 53 in 1905 . 64 in 1895 . 81 in 1980
11 . 111 in 1980 . 55 in 1905 . 69 in 1996 . 81 in 1954
12 . 112 in 1980 . 56 in 1975 . 70 in 1953 . 80 in 1980
13 . 111 in 1954 . 51 in 1975 . 72 in 1951 . 80 in 1934
14 . 113 in 1954 . 52 in 1990 . 74 in 1973 . 81 in 1980
15 . 110 in 1936 . 55 in 1990 . 74 in 1891 . 83 in 1936
16 . 110 in 1980 . 57 in 1906 . 66 in 1967 . 82 in 1980
17 . 110 in 1980 . 57 in 1900 . 75 in 1911 . 82 in 1936
18 . 112 in 1936 . 59 in 1911 . 71 in 1967 . 82 in 1936
19 . 109 in 2006 . 61 in 1947 . 76 in 1911 . 82 in 1936
20 . 109 in 2006 . 55 in 1971 . 70 in 1970 . 81 in 1978
21 . 107 in 1974 . 53 in 1900 . 71 in 1950 . 83 in 1954
22 . 107 in 2001 . 53 in 1970 . 74 in 1961 . 80 in 1934
23 . 109 in 1936 . 55 in 1970 . 66 in 1947 . 79 in 2001
24 . 109 in 1981 . 58 in 1911 . 67 in 1947 . 80 in 2001
25 . 105 in 1964 . 58 in 1890 . 74 in 1904 . 83 in 1934
26 . 105 in 2006 . 57 in 2004 . 75 in 1996 . 79 in 1936
27 . 106 in 1986 . 58 in 2005 . 77 in 1911 . 80 in 1936
28 . 105 in 1980 . 56 in 2005 . 73 in 2004 . 79 in 1935
29 . 109 in 1978 . 55 in 1971 . 69 in 1971 . 80 in 1940
30 . 110 in 1986 . 54 in 1971 . 73 in 1903 . 78 in 1980
31 . 109 in 1934 . 53 in 1971 . 74 in 1962 . 79 in 1980
Here in Kansas City, we had a week of temperatures over 100 a few years ago, but since then the summers have been cooling. I count that by the number of days I have to run the air conditioner and my electric bill. Both have been decreasing the past few years.
Also Global Warming is no more. Due to all of the miscalculations and wrong predictions, it's now just called "Climate Change".
It appears that "Global Warming" has been replaced with just "Climate Change", global has been omitted, at least by the EPA.
"EPA's Climate Change Site replaces EPA's Global Warming Site"
http://epa.gov/climatechange/
They are now taking a more realistic approach.
"Because climate is uncontrollable (albeit influenceable by humans), the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. They also are the appropriate high-end tool for forecasting hypothetical climates in the years and centuries ahead. However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature."
The more realistic tone, the re-focusing on pollution and impacts on regional climate changes are a definite move in the right direction."