backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by FastEddieLB.. on Sep 17 at 10:50 AM


  (Source: tehrantimes.com)
Ten U.S. states experienced their hottest summer yet

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) most recent State of the Climate Report, released on September 8, claims that the summer of 2010 was the fourth hottest summer on record for the United States.

The NOAA has been conducting the State of the Climate Report since 1895, taking factors into account such as storm patterns, precipitation and temperature. Results are compiled at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC. 

Of the lower 48 states, only seven had normal temperatures through the months of June, July and August. 10 were classified as "above normal," 29 were "much above normal," and two were "below normal."

For the summer of 2010, 10 states experienced their warmest summer ever. These states were Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The Southeast had their warmest summer ever while the Northeast had their fourth warmest and the Central states had their third warmest. 

The above normal warmth occurred mostly on the eastern side of the country, setting temperature records in cities like Asheville, NC, Tallahassee, FL, Wilmington, DE, Tenton, NJ, Philadelphia and New York City. 

Precipitation trends were off as well. For the first five months of the year, the Upper Midwest received no rainfall. When the summer months hit, heavy rainfall swarmed the area. States like Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa and Michigan had their wettest summer in the top 10 this year, while Wisconsin experienced their wettest yet with 6.91 inches of rainfall above average. On the other hand, the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast experienced below average levels of precipitation due to a lack of tropical weather activity and a high pressure system.

As far as weather goes, Minnesota is set to break its record of 74 tornado's from 2001 while wildfires have settled down in the Western states due to milder weather. 

The NOAA's State of the Climate Report for August can be seen here



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Please
By Dr of crap on 9/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By mdogs444 on 9/15/2010 8:56:47 AM , Rating: 1
More of the same. Warmer weather is caused by global warming, and colder weather is caused by effects of global warming.

My toaster just stopped working this morning. I bet that's because of global warming too, right Tiffany?


RE: Please
By kaoken on 9/15/2010 9:16:42 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, it causes weather extremes.


RE: Please
By theapparition on 9/15/2010 10:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Best part of this is when a year has higher than average temperatures, AGW proponents are quick to point it out. When lower then average, they are just as quick to point out that one years data does not equal climate change. So despite having one of the warmest summers on modern record (just after one of the coldest winters in record), that one data point does not equate to a trend. Fact is, overall yearly temperatures have trended downward since 2000. We'll see what 2010 average brings, but I have a feeling it won't be much different from previous years.

One thing I am certain of though, is that there are people screaming for money to fix this "problem".


RE: Please
By TSS on 9/15/2010 12:57:21 PM , Rating: 3
Well... It's likely that if global warming wasn't used as an excuse people would find other things to blame and get research budgets for.

....wait a minute. It's been getting hotter since the 70's and more and more research funds have been allocated to global warming since the 70's.....

Oh. My. God. The money is causing global warming! Quick! send it all to Al Gore, he'll rid us of this problem!


RE: Please
By tomvs123 on 9/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By drycrust3 on 9/15/2010 1:50:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is only the recorded data, facts, and scientific hypothesis' created by climatologists. An opinion is worthless without one of these cited (which thankfully this article does from a reliable resource).


Excuse me, but it wasn't your so called "non-climatologists" who "tweaked" their raw data to fit their theory, it was climatologists! The person, who ever they are, that alerted us to this was most likely a "non-climatologist", and the journalists that broadcast it around the world are "non-climatologists". The only thing "climatologists" did was to excuse this!
So let us go through your requirements: climatologists corrupted their raw data, so that is useless; climatologists over emphasis or ignore known facts, so we don't know how significant those facts are on a world wide basis; and climatologists allow only their friends to peer review their science, so we don't know how reliable it is.
quote:
I can confirm that arguing with stupid people only makes you dumber

Will you ever understand why what "climatologists" did was wrong?


RE: Please
By theapparition on 9/15/2010 4:00:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
No one intelligent cares what a non-climatologist thinks about global warming

Great point! That's why I guess I won't listen to the leadership of the AGW movement (IPCC), of which not a single one of them has any qualifications in climate theory.

Like Rajendra Pachauri, who has a background in engineering and economics.

quote:
I can confirm that arguing with stupid people only makes you dumber

Another great point!
Which is exactly why I won't attempt to converse with you further.


RE: Please
By callmeroy on 9/16/2010 12:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
HAHA....best reply I've seen in a while. :)

SLAP IN DA FACE! :)


RE: Please
By jimbojimbo on 9/15/2010 2:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One thing I am certain of though, is that there are people screaming for money to fix this "problem".
Well, they won't try to fix anything but they will scream for money to conduct research to further support said "problem" no matter what.


RE: Please
By rtrski on 9/15/2010 11:01:24 AM , Rating: 3
Well, for a welcome change, Tiffy didn't include the obligatory hints that it was related to global warming or climate change, unless I missed it in my reading. She simply reported the statistics. Still, given obvious cant of her past blog posts, it's obvious why she would bother to add this one.

On top of that, anyone who thinks the plural of "tornados" needs an apostrophe still isn't scoring too high on the journalism standards scale.

BTW Tiffy K - do you plan to correct your whole "major global warming denier recants" posting now that the person in question has gone into detail about how he's been misrepresented in a Wall Street Journal editorial? Or do you only report when stories match your agenda?


RE: Please
By Botia on 9/15/2010 12:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish that Mr. Gore had never invented Global Warming.


RE: Please
By BZDTemp on 9/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Please
By kfonda on 9/15/2010 4:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Bartender: You really think the world's gonna end?
Ford: Yes.
Bartender: Shouldn't we lie down? Put paper bags over our heads or something?
Ford: If you like.
Bartender: Would it help?
Ford: Not at all.


RE: Please
By Zehar on 9/15/2010 7:23:20 PM , Rating: 2
Classic :)


RE: Please
By Spuke on 9/15/2010 9:04:48 AM , Rating: 2
It would be nice if I could search those old reports from their website but it only goes back to 1998.


RE: Please
By ebakke on 9/15/2010 9:11:30 AM , Rating: 2
Nonsense! It's a government report, so obviously you can/should blindly trust their findings. And if you don't, you're on your own.


RE: Please
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/15/2010 9:17:26 AM , Rating: 4
Yep, blindly trust their findings from 1895, 75 years before NOAA even existed.


RE: Please
By bug77 on 9/15/2010 9:25:14 AM , Rating: 2
You close-minded denier! BOOOOO!!!


RE: Please
By Dr of crap on 9/15/2010 9:33:31 AM , Rating: 3
Can we PLEASE not do a believers vs non-believers thing again. It's the same old thing and ALL of you know you won't convince anyone to change their side. It's like polictics and religion, you're not going to get anything but thristy from all the yelling!

Let's just say that there are warming believers and those that don't believe, and leave at that.

But I think we can all believe that there were no reports from 1985!


RE: Please
By marvdmartian on 9/15/2010 10:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, we should stick with calling each other INFIDELS and NUTJOBS instead!! ;)

Here, let me get these out of the way for everyone:
"OMGWTFBBQ!!!!1!!11!!! It's the GLOBAL WARMINGS!!!"
"It's Obummer's fault!!"
"George W Bush is to blame!!!"
"Libtards!"
"Neocons!"

There, is everyone happy??


RE: Please
By RivuxGamma on 9/15/2010 9:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Short answer: no.

Opinionated answer: Yes, because everyone, (there are exceptions, duh, but almost everyone), loves to be so goddamned polarized that they view the opposition as an enemy. They find it much easier to hate and blame something with a religious fervor than they do to take time and think about the issue.

Why do you think Glenn Beck is so popular? Hint: it's not because he's a snappy dresser.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 11:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I think we can all believe that there were no reports from 1985!


1985??? Don't worry, in 2015 at the entrance to the Hilldale subdivision, I'll knock out old man Tannen with his knuckle cane, hijack the Delorean from Doc and Marty, go back to '85 and get the data we need.

See my respoonse to the OP.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/...

How accurate these are might be another matter, but it should be useful in illustrating a trend.


RE: Please
By RivuxGamma on 9/15/2010 9:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
Great link. I went to the bottom and selected year 1900.

This was at the top of the page:
quote:
Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.


Ahhh...

Just when I think I can't have less faith in huge manatees...


RE: Please
By marvdmartian on 9/16/2010 8:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
While you're back there, go to Hawaii, and see if you can get a copy of Obama's birth certificate.

Whether you can get it or not, one way or the other, we'll either shut up the birthers or the ones that whine about the birthers. ;)


RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 10:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 10:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
The following link is found in the first part of the original article. This shows data back to 1900 from what I can see. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/...

But I'm not sure where the other five years' data is. Maybe I missed something, but regardless I couldn't give a crap about "climate change". Clean air, yes. Climate change, no.


RE: Please
By LRonaldHubbs on 9/15/2010 11:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting, but I'm not sure that's what they were referring to in the article. The article says:
quote:
The NOAA has been conducting the State of the Climate Report since 1895, taking factors into account such as storm patterns, precipitation and temperature.

But the NOAA has only been around since 1970, and their archive of 'State of the Climate Reports' only goes back to 1998, so I think that either '1895' is a typo or that whole sentence is simply incorrect.


RE: Please
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 2:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
I see. Fair enough, but the NOAA has been around since then in one form or another. From the NOAA website 'About' page:
quote:
NOAA's roots date back to 1807, when the Nation’s first scientific agency, the Survey of the Coast, was established.


RE: Please
By kattanna on 9/15/2010 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
while they have been around in some fashion for that time, its also very hard to believe some of their current findings.

just recently one of their satellites was found to be giving very bad readings, like say 400+ degrees around lake michigan. search for "NOAA 16" for more info.

now, im not saying the earth as a whole isnt warming, thats entirely possible since we are in between ice ages, but if you spend some time going over the agencies data over the years and more importantly their methods, one cannot help but be left wondering, WTF?!?


RE: Please
By Enoch2001 on 9/15/2010 2:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
They have been publishing a state of climate since 1895?? Not even going to believe that one.


Ummm... k... why? Do you think it's too hard to believe that they had thermometers back then or something? Or that the record keeping abilities of a pre-computerized civilization was just unfathomable?

As an atmospheric science major, I can attest that the NOAA have in fact published this report since 1895.

Care to share your disbelief?


RE: Please
By Enoch2001 on 9/15/2010 2:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
For the uninitiated, a little back history on the nation's oldest scientific agency can be found here:

http://www.history.noaa.gov/noaa.html


RE: Please
By roadhog1974 on 9/15/2010 9:14:14 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was a typo, hot dang.


Test planet..
By InvertMe on 9/15/2010 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 3
What we need is a test planet. One that we can load with carbon emissions to see what happens. Then one side or the other would have to concede and shut up.

I wish people would stop talking about global warming and just focus on pollution and reducing our waste/consumption. Those are real tangible issues. Then if global warming is true it would probably get resolved at the same time.




RE: Test planet..
By goku on 9/15/2010 10:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
We already have that... it's called "Venus"..


RE: Test planet..
By bug77 on 9/15/2010 10:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're on to something.

However the point was to observe what happens as CO2 levels go up. Venus can't help you much there.


RE: Test planet..
By Camikazi on 9/15/2010 10:36:36 AM , Rating: 3
Wouldn't Venus being closer to the sun kind of mess up the experiment?


RE: Test planet..
By goku on 9/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Test planet..
By kattanna on 9/15/2010 12:33:23 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wouldn't Venus being closer to the sun kind of mess up the experiment?


correct.

it also doesnt help that the "day" on venus is actually longer then its year. while the planet only takes 225 days to go around the sun, its "day" is equal to 243 earth days. imagine how hot it could get here if the noon time sun lasted 100 days.

so venus, even though similar in size, makes a VERY poor "test" planet


RE: Test planet..
By geddarkstorm on 9/15/2010 1:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
Venus's temperature is due to the extreme pressures of the atmosphere, not simply the composition (which consists highly of sulfuric acid). If one goes high enough in the Venus atmosphere (49.5 km) that the pressure is the same (1 bar) as here, the temperature of Venus is very similar to Earth's and only sightly hotter (closeness to the Sun). See http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm for the pressure/altitude/temperature curve of the Venusian atmosphere.


Jump the Gun Much?
By DougF on 9/15/2010 9:17:43 AM , Rating: 4
Last time I checked, "Summer" in the U.S. is usually defined as 21 June to 20(ish) September. Tell you what, let's let the season run it's course, THEN look at the data and compare to previous summers. It may be just the same result or it may change, but either way it will have more accuracy and look less biased.




RE: Jump the Gun Much?
By XZerg on 9/15/2010 9:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot vouch for this summer being the hottest but can definitely vouch for past winter was one of the warmest in the near past. Here in Toronto the winter gave something like 2 inches of snow the entire winter.

Maybe this is what is skewing these averages due to very early high temperatures. Although these results should not be averaged as such in the first place.


RE: Jump the Gun Much?
By bug77 on 9/15/2010 9:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
Where I live, it was the nastiest winter ever. According to the meteorologists.


RE: Jump the Gun Much?
By XZerg on 9/15/2010 10:26:09 AM , Rating: 2
I should mention that the normal amount over the course of winter is something like 100+ inches (over the entire winter, not a day or a week...).


RE: Jump the Gun Much?
By Nutzo on 9/16/2010 11:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
Out here in Southern California, we have had one of the coolest summers on record. We've been averaging about 10F degrees below normal.
It's been good for my electic bill, but not so good for swimming.


An Incovenient point...
By Deville on 9/15/2010 11:51:34 AM , Rating: 5
Here in southern California, we have enjoyed the mildest summer I can recall in, well, EVER.

Climate change? Sure. I'll concede the point that climates change. But climates have ALWAYS changed. Ice Ages, glaciers, melting ice caps, and all. Climates change. So what?

The whole debate is dumb.




RE: An Incovenient point...
By TSS on 9/15/2010 1:07:57 PM , Rating: 3
Considering Al Gore set up a Carbon Credits company 2 years before his Inconveniant truth movie, I have to comment that in this whole debate, there's atleast 1 smart guy to be found.


RE: An Incovenient point...
By lainofthewired on 9/15/2010 1:49:08 PM , Rating: 1
I don't give a shit what caused it, I'm glad we only got something like 2 weeks of absurd heat. Seeing those dark clouds in July was bliss...


RE: An Incovenient point...
By FastEddieLB on 9/17/2010 10:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Central California I've experienced the first summer in my 23 years of existence where I didn't have to switch my flanel sheets for linen because of how cold it was.


Accurate, but misleading...
By nct on 9/15/2010 10:58:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
As far as weather goes, Minnesota is set to break its record of 74 tornado's from 2001


I live in Minnesota, and I can say that we have not seen an unusually high frequency of tornado occurences. What we did see is one freakish weather event that totally skewed the data.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/dpp/news/minnesota/...

A single large storm system basically doubled the tordado count for the state. To represent that as somehow being an indication of dangerous climate change is the usual complete misrepresentation of facts and manipulation of data I've come to expect from this author and the AGW crowd in general.




RE: Accurate, but misleading...
By nct on 9/15/2010 11:01:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
doubled the tordado count


Good thing I didn't give Tiffany sh*t about "tornado's" :P


Not a record?
By deeznuts on 9/15/2010 7:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
By definition, if the earth was warming, each year or almost each year should be a record. If it's not, then the trend is downwards. :)




RE: Not a record?
By deeznuts on 9/15/2010 7:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Neither this blog post, nor the original article, tells us what the warmest years are. 1998 perhaps? Could it be we have moved from hottest, to 2nd hottest, to 3rd hottest, to now 4th hottest? Who knows. They don't [want to] tell us.

From the same source.
quote:
Summer Temperatures Lower Than Normal Over Most of US

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/40473


RE: Not a record?
By roadhog1974 on 9/15/2010 10:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
some simple points,

Local != global
US != world
Point Data != trend
Annual != seasonal

Now I am sure you know all those things,
so putting those together we can get all sorts
of wonderful things such as

USA experiences Hottest ever summer(example) (regional,seasonal)
Oregon experiences cooler than usual summer
(local,seasonal)
USA experiences average year (regional, annual)
World experiences coolest year recorded(global, annual,
point data)
Global temperaterature from 1905 is on upward trend
expected to peak in 2020 (global, annual, trend)

Just becuase most blogs aren't worth the electrons
they use, does not mean you have to help increase the
noise to signal ratio.


Things they don't tell you:
By dgingeri on 9/15/2010 11:15:52 AM , Rating: 5
1. During the period of 900AD through 1300AD, there was a period of warm weather in Europe called "The medieval warm period" where they were growing grapes and making wine in Scotland that rivaled France's wine industry. We still have been that warm. This also happened to be the biggest period of % increase of population in our history before industrialization.

2. most of the "global warming" comparisons start they comparisons with the coldest year of what is called "the little ice age" during a year when it showed in Boston. Famine was rampant during these years since the growing seasons were so much shorter. Plague and flu ran rampant, killing millions due to people spending more time indoors because of the cold weather. Potato and grain fungus grew rapidly and affected large amounts of crops, leading to a severe shortage of food beyond the limited supply from the short growing seasons. I don't know about you, but I would rather not go back to those days.

3. during the "medieval warm period", a great Native American civilization developed in the North American southwest because rainfall was abundant and it was possible to grow lots of food in what is now desert. It turned into a desert right about the same time as the start of the "little ice age." The same thing happened in South America as well. Note that while the current warming trend increases, the wild fires in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California are calming down. (Despite what you may be told by the media, wild fires have always, since long before man, been a strong force in this same area. They are not caused or increased by man's effects on the area. Most are caused by lightning strikes on dead trees that haven't been cleared. Man's clearing and regrowing of the forest actually helps prevent many of these wild fires.) The large Native American civilizations actually fell because of the droughts during the "little ice age", destroyed by the lack of food.

4. the models the climatologists are trained to use keep solar radiation, the biggest contributor of heat to the planet, at a constant level. Solar radiation that reaches the earth can vary by as much as 10% year to year. Also, they keep night time radiation to space on the night side of the planet at a constant rate equal to a cloudy night. Night time radiation of heat can vary by as much as 75% depending on cloud cover, and much of the world has more clear nights than cloudy nights.

5. the Carboniferous era of our planet, about 450-350 million years ago, the period with the most prolific growth of life in our planet's history, had CO2 levels at about 7 to 10 times of the levels we have today. Where do you think the carbon came from that went into making the oil and coal we use today?

I don't believe the warming is caused by man because their models are fatally flawed. Even if they weren't flawed, They show us returning to a weather pattern far more useful and healthy to humanity than the era we exited.

The fact of the matter is that oil and coal have enabled our race to significantly advance our properity and technology. It has enabled equalization between aristocracy and the common people, and even endangered the whole concept of aristocracy. With technology and cheap energy, we have made men equal. The proponents of global warming know this, and they want to stop it. they want to become a new aristocracy. The new princes of the media and the barons of Hollywood want to put people down and prevent us from showing our equality.

They know pushing out oil and coal as sources of cheap energy would cripple the economy, destroying the equality we have right now. They know we are developing alternate sources of cheap energy, and they push harder and harder to cripple our world economy before these can be established. They claim "Oh, we need to get rid of oil NOW!" because they know that alternate forms of cheap energy would cement the freedom and equality we have right now. If we get the chance to finish these alternate sources of cheap energy, (like nuclear power) it will spell the end of their attempts to enslave us all. They don't want us to get the chance.

The global warming pushers just want to become the new kings of the world. They don't care about the future of the world. They know how to do it. It's not a conspiracy, it is just greedy men climbing on the bandwagon and steering it the way they want it to go, just like socialism and welfare. Don't listen to them. Don't believe them.




BUT WAIT...
By JimboK29 on 9/15/2010 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
It makes sense that 2010 was warmer following the 2006 spike in the Multivariate ENSO index. Recall the 3 year lag following a spike in El-Nino which occurred back in 2006 when the 'global warning' hoopla spiked.

Your headline is deceiving regarding "...in US history". The method temperatures were recorded in 1895 ARE NOT the same as they are today where we use satellite data - not just the rural temperatures. You are comparing apples to oranges.

We're headed into the a strong La Nina. I offer you to keep an eye on the temperatures in 3-4 years from now (there is that lag again) as we swing the other way in this cycle of what nature does. Already we've had one of the coldest polar summers recorded, but I will leave that for another discussion.




RE: BUT WAIT...
By ppardee on 9/15/2010 3:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, man! I completely forgot about the Multivariate ENSO index!


Los Angeles "Summer"
By firechiefsta on 9/15/2010 12:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why dont you include the areas that were the COLDEST. Los Angeles has experienced the COLDEST Summer since 1875. There were 6 days along beaches that were sunny in July. The ocean water temperature was on par with spring/fall, and even some days cooler than in the winter time. But i guess that just Global warming (because any change in WEATHER is merely called... umm, weather?)




RE: Los Angeles "Summer"
By fic2 on 9/15/2010 7:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
I think that Colorado has been one of the best summers since I moved here 15 years ago. Not sure but I think we only had 2 days above 100. The nights are also back to what they were when I moved here - chilly.

It was also one of the coolest winters - we set a record of something like 112 days below 60F. Breaking the old record of 90 days (I think the # of days for each is correct).


By tlbj6142 on 9/15/2010 10:14:28 AM , Rating: 2
It has definately been very hot this summer in Ohio. Not sure about records. But I do know that July '09 was the 2nd-4th coldest July on record for most cities in the state. That was a nice summer.

Anything above 80F just sucks.




Sigh...
By Spivonious on 9/15/2010 10:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
74 tornado's


Really?




Volcanos
By Ammohunt on 9/15/2010 1:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
The wierd weather in the northern hemisphere can be directly attributed to the icelandic Volcano erruption. If its a global affect then the southern hemisphere has the potential to have the 4th hottest summer on record as well.




ok
By jtopps on 9/15/2010 2:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
So what?




Meaningless data
By ppardee on 9/15/2010 3:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is merely trivia. The fact that this is the 4th hottest summer in the US says nothing about the history or state of the world climate. Since it isn't OUR climate alone that is important. It is hotter in some parts of the world than others. Thats the way it works.

And, since this is the 4th hottest summer, logic would say that we are NOT in a run-away warming trend. If we were, this would be the hottest summer on record. If the hottest summer were last year, we are now cooling. The statement that "Climate Change" is any extreme or abnormal weather pattern means that Al and Pals can claim theoretical victory any time the weather is not what we want it to be.

More importantly, temperature increase != energy increase and energy increase != temperature increase. If you put a thermometer in a glass of water on a hot day, then add ice to the water, the temperature will drop even though the energy content (after the ice has been added) will continue to increase. After the water has cooled to a fairly stable temperature, the ice will continue to melt and the energy in the glass will increase and the temp will remain fairly stable. After the ice has totally melted, the temperature of the water will rise fairly rapidly. This spike in temperature doesn't mean that there has been a huge increase in the input energy. The same amount of energy (actually, exponentially less, IIRC) will be absorbed into the glass as had been when it had ice and had a stable temperature.




Cold Northwest
By Peleg on 9/15/2010 6:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's just my luck that I live in Oregon, one of the 2 states that actually got colder this summer. I could have used a nice warm day at the beach!




By RivuxGamma on 9/15/2010 9:34:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be really interested in finding out if they used the same instruments, methods, and locations that they did in 1895.




Read this.
By JKflipflop98 on 9/15/2010 9:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Now that you have the whole picture, which way do you think the little temperature indicator is going to go?




Wtf California?
By mrkun on 9/16/2010 4:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
California just had the coolest summer that I can remember.




"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki