Cincinnati 5NW (Ronald Rothhaas Jr) - August was very cool averaging 2.5F below normal.  On the 12th we saw a record tying low high of 66F and a record low low of 51F.  August rainfall was only slightly above normal but since virtually the entire monthly total fell in two seperate events which lasted only a few hours each the month seemed dry.

Cleves 3NW (James F. Davis)- August was 3.7F below normal.

Kent 2W (Eric Wertz)August 2004 was cooler and wetter than normal.  Measurable precipitation occurred on 16 days.  The heaviest 24 hour precipitation was 0.97" on the 20th in conjunction with a low pressure system.  A notably wet period was the 19th - 21st with 2.54" falling over those 3 days.  The monthly total precipitation was 4.55".  Thunderstorms occurred on 5 days and fog was noted on 4 days.  A record low temperature of 47F was observed on the 6th with another record low of 42F on the 22nd.  Only 1 watch (flood) was issued this month on the 28th.  Winds were light in August with the monthly high gust only reaching 26 mph on the 10th.

Kidron 1N (Ronald Hahn) -  August 2004 was a cool, wet month.  Most of the rain fell during the last 14 days of the month.  temperatures averaged more than 2 below normal, while rainfall was 2.96" above normal.  The .26 on the 1st actually came prior to midnight on July 31st.  new rainfall records for the date were set on the 18th (1.41"), 20th (1.88"), and 29th (1.12").  The 1.12" on the 29th nearly all fell in the half hour from 6:05 - 6:35 p.m.  This was the 3rd wettest August in my records dating back to 1963. 

Munroe Falls 1SW (Larry Huff)-  

Ottawa 4E (Phil & Bonnie Higley) One of the coldest Aug. recorded since 1997.  The other coldest was back in 1999 when I had a Ave. Mean temp. of 69.2F.  We was Above normal in Precip. also. Like 1.91".  Brrr.........

Perrysville 4W (Katie Gerwig) -  Temperatures averaged 1 lower than normal.  Rainfall was much below normal the first half of August.  The 18 - 31st saw 7 days of rain with 5 thunderstorm days for a total approximate precip of 1" abve normal.

Ravenna 1E (Rich Rabatin) - J

Ravenna 1SE (Gary Locke)  August was a cool month with very little weather to speak of.  My mean temperature was just over 4 degrees lower than August 2003.  There were only six thunderstorm days.

Springfield (Dick Groeber) The first two thirds of the month were cool and dry with near or at record low temperatures and only one date of measureable rainfall. The last third was warmer with the bulk of the rainfall.

Thompson 5SW (Vance Lunn)- August was pleasant with periods of seasonalbly warm weather alternating with periods of cool weather.  There was no hot weather, the mid-80's being the warmest it got.  Highs were mostly in the 60's and 70's with several 80+ days recorded.  Lows ranged from the 40's to the 60's.  Rainfall was frequent but light.  Other weather included 4 days with thunder and 7 days with fog.

Wooster 7N (Jack Sisler) August, 2004 was the coldest and second wettest August on record since records began in 1991 at this location. The mean temperature was 67.2 degrees which was only five-tenths of a degree colder than the previous record for August set in 1997. The month continued the trend of no 90-degree temperatures for this summer thus far. Included with this cold August were three low temperature records on the 14th, 17th and 22nd, the lowest of which occurred on the 22nd with 44 degrees. Precipitation was more than 1.5 inches above normal with the second highest 24-hour precipitation recorded on the 19th with 2.36 inches.



OWON # Station Mean Max Temp Mean Min Temp Mean Temp High Temp Date Low Temp Date Total Prec Max 24hr Prec Date


Prec Days

Total Snow Max 24hr Snow Date #  1"+ Snow Days Max Wind Gust Date
119 Akron 1W 75.7 59.4 67.6 86 2,3,27 48 22nd 3.18 0.87 20,21 13         27 16th
A Akron-Canton 76.5 57.7 67.1 86 2,3 48 6,22 6.15 1.98 18,19 13         31 19th
82 Centerville 1W 79.6 59 69.3 91 19th 47 8,12 2.01 0.66 20th 8         26 4th
A Cincinnati 80.2 61.0 70.6 90 19,28 50 7,15 3.51 1.43 4th 8         31 28th
13 Cincinnati 5NW 79.8 62.2 71 90 19th 51 12,15 3.76 1.57 29th 9            
A Cleveland 76.7 59.5 68.1 88 27th 49 22nd 2.46 0.91 31-1 11         36 27th
55 Cleves 3NW 82.1 60.7 71.4 93 19th 49 15th 2.98 1.26 4th 8         24 5th
A Columbus 79.6 61.5 70.6 89 19,28 53 6,16 3.43 1.11 20th 9         47 4th
A Dayton 78.2 59.9 69 88 19th 49 12,16 5.15 2.69 20th 8         38 28th
22 Kent 2E 77.7 56.9 67.3 88 2nd 42 22nd 3.86 0.87 19 15         14 5,6
430 Kent 2W 75 56.4 65.7 85 3rd 42 22nd 4.55 0.97 20th 17         26 10th
2 Kidron 1N 79.6 59 69.3 90 2nd 46 22nd 7 1.88 20th 13         24 19th
87 Lagrange 2SW 78.1 57.5 67.8 91 2nd 48 22nd 4.42 1.24 28th 9         24 10,17
A Mansfield 76.4 56.8 66.6 86 27,28 47 6th 2.56 1.17 18,19 11         39 19th
51 Middleburg Heights  2N               2.62 0.83 19th 10            
25 Munroe Falls 1SW                                  
32 North Ridgeville 1N                                  
106 Newcomerstown 1S 81 55.6 68.3 89 2,3 49 6th 6.34 1.87 19th 19         40 20
15 Ottawa 4E 77.4 58.4 67.9 87 3rd 47 6,12 5.1 2.54 29th 12         35 18th
79 Perrysville 4W 77.4 57.6 67.5 86 2,3,27 46 14th 4.36 1.96 20th 11            
101 Ravenna 1E 82.9 64.1 72.6 92 2nd 55 6th 3.15 0.91 19th 13         21 27th
121 Ravenna 1SE 77.45 56.65 67.05 90 2nd 45 22nd 3.8 0.94 19th 13            
33 Rockbridge 4W 79.9 60 70 89 19,28 51 6th 1.52 .57 26th 11            
1 Springfield 2 80 61 70 90 2nd 51 16th 3.28 1.5 20th 6         22  
112 Sugarcreek 2SW 77.5 58.1 67.8 86 2,3 45 22nd 5.55 1.31 20th 15         27 19th
98 Thompson 5SW 74.6 56.8 65.7 87 27th 45 22nd 1.75 0.45 28th 15         11 6th
117 Tiltonsville 80.9 62 70.2 90 2nd 53 6th 6.04 2.56 20th 16         40.2 20th
A Toledo 77.2 58.9 68.1 88 3rd 48 12th 4.10 1.64 27,28 12         32 25th
16 Wooster 7N 77.2 57.2 67.2 86 2nd 42 22nd 5.22 2.36 19th 14         39 19th
A Youngstown 76 56.3 66.1 85 3,27 41 22nd 4.07 1.26 20,21 14         36 27th
OWON # Station Mean Max Temp Mean Min Temp Mean Temp High Temp Date Low Temp Date Total Prec Max 24hr Prec Date


Prec Days

Total Snow Max 24hr Snow Date #  1"+ Snow Days Max Wind Gust Date

 = Airport         



Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 8:52 am

Subject: July Data


Munroe Falls weather was the second coolest July since records began in

1992 with a mean temperature of 69.6 degrees. Last year was 69.7. Coolest

was July 2000 with 67.7 degrees.

This July was the 6th driest July since 1992 with a total precipitation of





High temperature 88

Low temperature 53

Mean high temperature 79.6

Mean low temperature 59.6

Mean temperature 69.6


Precipitation 3.06

Greatest 24 hour precipitation 0.84


2 fog days

8 thunder days


Larry Huff

Munroe Falls 1SW

Summit County


Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 9:39 am

Subject: July 2004 in Newcomerstown


Average High ----- 81.7 or 3.7 degrees below normal

Average Low ----- 62.9 or 2.0 degrees above normal

Mean Temperature ----- 72.3 or 0.8 degrees below normal

Rainfall was ----- 7.23" or 3.77" above normal

Avergae High Wind Gust was ----- 15.2 mph

Highest Temperature was ----- 89 on the 13'th

Lowest temperature was ----- 52 on the 24'th

Heaviest 24 HR rainfall was ----- 2.37" on the 10'th-11'th

Highest Wind gust was ----- 26 on the 4'th

Three days had over one inch of rainfall, one of those three had over two inches, and rain fell on 19 of 31


Cooling Degree Days ----- 229.1

Heating Degree Days ----- 1.3

Thunder Days ----- 5

Average Wind Speed ----- 2.2 mph

Don Keating #106

Newcomerstown 1S


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 12:37 pm

Subject: montly reports


Phil & Bonnie Station

4-E Ottawa, Ohio

Lat: 41" 01' 18" N

Long: 83" 59' 00" W

Elev.: 740'Ft.

Ave.; Max.; 81F Highest was 89F on 22th

Ave.; Minn.; 61.6F Lowest was 52F on the 9th

Ave.; Temp.; 71.3F (Below by 1.7F)

Precip.; 3.85" (Above by 1.05")

24 hour-1.17" on the 22nd

Highest Baro.; 30.16" on the 24th

Lowest Baro.; 29.54" on the 4th

Highest Wind Speed 40 M.P.H. on the 22th

There was 12 days with precip. out of 31


Putnam, Co.


Date: Sun Aug 1, 2004 3:48 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] July Data



Statistics for Ravenna 1SE for July 2004:


High temperature 90 (7-1-04)

Low temperature 54 (7/23/04)

Mean high temperature 80.61

Mean low temperature 60.29

Mean temperature 70.45


Total Precipitation 2.97

Greatest 24 hour precipitation 0.59 (7-14-04)

14 Days with Precipitation

5 Thunderstorm Days


No severe weather events were reported during month. Month was pretty dry,

especially compared to July 2003 when I tallied 17.39 inches of rain for the

month. July 2003 was also slightly warmer with a mean temperature of 71.11



Gary Locke

Ravenna 1SE

OWON #121


Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 7:17 pm

Subject: Severe Weather Potential Tomorrow




Looking at some models and reading some weather statements I would

be quite concerned about severe weather in Ohio for Wednesday,

especially late in the day. Models are bringing a 1000mb surface low

from Illinois into western Ohio by tomorrow night with a frontal

boundary running northeast/southwest across Ohio. Some other

indicators of severe weather for late tomorrow are indicated on this

mornings ETA models indicate strong directional and speed shear over

Ohio; surface winds from the south/southeast and 30-35 knots from

the south/southwest @ 850mb. Combine all this with temperatures in

the 80's and dewpoints in the 70's by the end of the day would make

the atmosphere quite volatile. Having low pressure so close to Ohio

this time of year is unusual but with such a contrast in

temperatures between now and by Friday it doesn't surprise me.


The SPC 1730 UTC discussion is saying model soundings are supportive

of tornadoes because of shear but bow echoes may be a more likely

scenerio. Ohio, as of this time period, is still in a slight risk

for tomorrow but I wouldn't be surprised to see us be upgraded to a

moderate risk by Wednesday morning.


Other thoughts or discussion?



Wooster 7N


Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 7:52 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Severe Weather Potential Tomorrow


I saw on the radar that Iowa is getting hit with some severe

thunderstorms right now, and in context of our hot and heavy conditions

today, my nose tells me your hunch is well worth it!


I suppose I'll be tuned in to 146.46 much of the afternoon and evening.


Anyone else watching Hurricane Alex? E-mail me personally

( if you want to discuss hurricanes this season.

I'm always watching them.





Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 8:07 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Severe Weather Potential Tomorrow



You know, when I read the AFD this afternoon from

Cleveland, it mentioned the possibility's of isolated

tornadoes, I thought maybe they were putting the cart

before the horse. But like you, after looking at the

latest models, it maybe a reality.

This has been a fairly quiet summer as far as severe

weather goes. But it seems that lately, our most

severe weather around here has been in late summer and

early fall.

So, we will just have to wait and see what develops

with this vigorous cold front.


Rich Rabatin

Ravenna 1E


Date: Tue Aug 3, 2004 9:14 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Severe Weather Potential Tomorrow


Liz and Group;

I had a reading of 90 degrees @ 2:29 for a high. Only the second time in 2004 I have hit 90+.

I'm always willing to talk about Hurricanes and Tropical Storms too. You can e-mail me anytime you wish. :-

) I had a hunch for some odd reason that Alex was going to become a Hurricane before it was even a TS.

Don't ask me how, I just knew. Nope, not psychic!

Severe weather tomorrow huh? Hmmmmm. I currently work delivering produce to stores and roadside

places for a huge produce farm just outside of Newcomerstown. So if I observe any severe WX tomorrow, I'll

post it.

Don Keating


Date: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:31 pm

Subject: What do you think of this?


I've heard the grumblings before. Do y'all think there is anything to this?



Expert Warns of Devastation Unleashed by Collapsing Volcano

Expert Warns of Devastation Unleashed by Collapsing Volcano

By John von Radowitz, Science Correspondent, PA News

World leaders were today urged to wake up to the threat from a collapsing mountain which at any

moment could unleash a massive tidal wave on the east coast of North America.

A chunk of a volcano in the Canary Islands the size of the Isle of Man is on the brink of falling into the

sea, a leading expert warned.

Scientists believe it could break away when the Cumbre Vieja volcano in La Palma next erupts.

If that happened a giant tsunami, or massive wave, reaching heights of more than 500 feet would be sent

racing across the Atlantic at the speed of a passenger jet.

Around nine hours later it would hit the Caribbean islands and the east coasts of Canada and the US.

After travelling 4,000 miles the wave would be lower and wider but still 20 metres - 50 metres (66ft -

164ft) high.

Stretching for many miles, it would home in on estuaries and harbours and sweep up to 20 miles inland,

destroying everything in its path.

Boston, New York, Washington DC and Miami would be virtually wiped off the map and tens of millions of

people killed.

Leading expert Professor Bill McGuire today said close monitoring might at best provide two weeks

warning of the disaster.

But although the danger had been known about since the 1990s, no-one was keeping a proper watch on

the mountain.

The two or three seismographs left to pick up signs of movement in the rock were not capable of

detecting a looming eruption weeks in advance.

"What we need now is an integrated volcanic monitoring set up to give maximum warning of a coming

eruption," said Prof McGuire, director of the Benfield Grieg Hazard Research Centre at University College


"The US government must be aware of the La Palma threat. They should certainly be worried, and so

should the island states in the Caribbean that will really bear the brunt of a collapse.

"They're not taking it seriously. Governments change four to five years and generally they're not

interested in these things."

A monitoring station equipped to look deep into the heart of the mountain and spot the early signs of an

eruption might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Prof McGuire.

In comparison, the US was spending four million dollars (2.2 million) a year scouring the skies for

kilometre-sized asteroids which were much less of a threat.

Speaking at a briefing in London, Prof McGuire said the mountain could split apart literally the next time

the volcano erupts.

Cumbre Vieja last erupted in 1949. The next eruption could occur this year, or not for the next 1,000


Any evacuation plan would have to be based on the forecast of an eruption, since once the collapse

happened it would be too late.

Yet it could be a false alarm. Several eruptions could come and go before one of them sent the mountain

side crashing into the sea in a matter of minutes.

Prof McGuire acknowledged that the decision to depopulate the eastern seaboard of the US would not be

an easy one.

"I don't honestly know how we handle that," he said. "As scientists all we should really do is advise people

of what we think the risks are."

The wave-front from the collapse would spread out in a crescent, striking the west African coast with a

wall of water more than three hundred feet high in two to three hours.

Its northern side would also brush against Europe. Within three to four hours, a 33ft high wave would

smash into the south coast of England, causing immense damage.

Unlike a normal wave, the tsunami would not break rapidly but just keep coming, said Prof McGuire.

"You're not talking about the destruction of the UK economy, but very serious damage along the south

coast," he said.

Trying to stop the mountain collapsing was simply out of the question, he said.

He had done a calculation which showed it would take 35 million years to dig out the dangerous part of

the volcano and move it away.



Date: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:28 pm

Subject: Re: What do you think of this?


Amber and Group:


I did a little background research on this Professor McGuire. He

also authored a book called "The End of the World" that explains the

potential catastrophes facing our planet and the probabilities of

these taking place. His critics say, although his findings are

interesting, he tends to go off the deep end.


The one statement he makes regarding this volcano eruption mentions

it could occur this year OR not for the next 1000 years.


I personally don't think there is much credibility to this. Sounds

like he has too much time on his hands.



Wooster 7N


Date: Thu Aug 12, 2004 7:40 pm

Subject: Summer In Name Only




According to the calendar Summer is still here and will be for

another five weeks but I think we are all asking when did it even

get here. For the month of August my mean highs have been almost

four degrees below normal. I still have not had any 90-degree

temperatures this summer and if the current weather pattern

continues I don't forsee any for the second summer in a row.


Precipitation-wise I'm about 1.25" below normal for August with only

two days of measurable precipitation.



Wooster 7N


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:30 pm

Subject: effents on weather


Does anyone else feels the same way as I do about us

here in N.W.O. or N.E.O. that Hurricane's or Tropical

storm have effents on our weather here??

I feel since there been 2 Hurricane's & a tropical storm

went up along the eastern sea board our weather here

been turning cooler for this time of season. I also feel that

we WON'T see any 95F or greater temperature reading for

the rest of this season...The last couple of night we been

having low temperature's here in the low 50F, Saturday we

had a Low temperature of 54F & for today(Sunday) we

had a low temperature of 53F. This is getting to feel like

early FALL.......I have trees around here that is started to

changed color already..Could Fall be just around the


With this type of weather change I feel that we just might

see our first frost by Labor Day or a week of so there

of..Any coments???


Putnam, Co.


Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:01 am

Subject: Unusual weather?


To one and all - this is my soapbox statement for the time being...


Florida should have known better.


Over the last couple of years, people have been talking about unusual

weather -- El Nino, exceptional dryness in the southwest, drought in

the western half of the grain belt, and recurrent hurricanes along the

East Coast.


Unusual? Not in my mind.


Whether or not you believe in global warming, we seem to be seeing an

increase in dangerous weather events here in the U.S. But how much of

it is our own fault? We have built in the desert on speculation that

the current rainfall amounts, irrigation and aqueducts will be enough

to sustain growth. But we forget that there's a reason why it is

called the "desert." We have built on floodplains and called recent

events "hundred year floods," forgetting that there's a reason why

they're called "floodplains." We have built on low-lying coastal areas

around the Everglades, forgetting that the Everglades were always a

swamp. Even here in Cleveland, we've built in areas that used to be

wetlands, and now people are up in arms because their basements have



We have been blessed with "good" weather for so long that we forget

what "bad" really is. In my opinion, what we've seen is a swing back

towards the normal, which is becoming increasingly inconvenient as

we've taken advantage of abnormally calm and predictable scenarios.


Global warming? I don't know. We don't have enough records to really

determine the long-term cycles on this earth. What I would do, though,

is look at the history we do know - for example, that Florida was

regularly hit by hurricanes well before the buildup of coastal areas.

We forget about the 1920s hurricanes that killed hundreds of people in

Miami and around Lake Okeechobee. Other histories tell us about

cyclical droughts in the Midwest, and a southwestern U.S. that was

uninhabitable except in tiny enclaves nestled atop mesas or in canyons.


We've come to expect that weather will be predictable. What seems more

predictable to me is our own belief that we can tame nature for our own

use. A healthy respect would be more wise.






Elizabeth Stapleton -


Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:02 pm

Subject: Re: Unusual weather?


My two-cents worth..


Excellent statement, Liz!..and very well written I must add.


I concur with your thoughts.


Matt Higgins

Lodi 2S


Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:13 pm

Subject: Re: Unusual weather?


Liz and Group:


Couldn't agree with you more. I see it more as a cycle and not a

trend. Too many people only want to make comparisons on what's been

happening over the last few years and not the last several decades

or more. I have never believed in global warming and never will in

my life time. There are too many facts out there that will dispute

this taking evidence on what has happened over many years and not

just a short time span. You always here from the proponents because

they're the ones that make the more exciting news coverage.


Also, I've heard some criticizm on the path forecasts of Hurricane

Charlie from the news media and some of the public. However, if they

were paying close attention the Port Charlotte/Ft. Myers area were

still under a hurricane warning. Too many people were relying on

the "direct path" it was forecast to take and not that of the width

of the path. To me, just another example of being too complaisant.


Speaking of global warming, I haven't had to worry about that here.

I'm running over four degrees below the mean temperature and broke

two low temperature records, including this morning with a

temperature of 47 degrees breaking the previous record for the date

of 53 set in 1992.


Good topic of conversation Liz. Other opinions?



Wooster 7N


Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:35 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Unusual weather?


My three cents:


Liz you make some good points and I have to agree with you for the most

part. As some of you may know by now, I work with developers on a day to

day basis from a regulatory standpoint. You are quite right in your

statements about how people have disregarded sensitive areas and tempted the

fates if you will. Some of the blame falls on the local governments (self

admission here) for allowing some of these developments to take place in

these areas. I would like to think that today in 2004 we know enough about

the impacts of development in certain "critical areas" that we can mitigate

negative effects from such uses. In other cases, the development just

should not be there at all. Back in the 50's and 60's though when the post

WWII housing boom was winding down for the most part, I don't think the

technology was there to guide people. This was the time that the suburbs

became what they are in many cases - over populated, densely developed

sprawl. Then, as now, money was the bottom line. Communities wanted the

growth, inadequate drainage systems and sanitary sewer systems were built

cheaply, fell apart more quickly and took more money to rebuild or replace.

People who have just lost some or most of their possessions do not

understand and do not want to hear their local officials say the problem

cannot be easily fixed. I can't say I blame them, but I also understand why

the problem is not easily fixed. We are paying for the "sins" of our

fathers and grandfathers, and our children will in many ways have to address

the problems we have created. Communities that need revenues to pay the

cost of capital improvements often lack the money due to a loss of jobs.

Its a vicious circle.


The problem I think is that a lot of people make bad decisions, invest large

sums of money in homes and then feel the need to blame someone - anyone when

there is a problem. I heard someone in Florida say on the news today that

it was the NWS fault that the loss of life and property was so great,

because had they know that Charley was going to hit them at a Category 4

level, they would have evacuated or taken more precautions. Duh! Were these

people desensitized to hurricanes and what they can do? Sorry to ramble on,

but Liz's comments struck a chord.


Gary Locke


Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 12:04 pm

Subject: Wild Night




Between two thunderstorm events last night and early this morning

that produced tornado warnings, heavy rains, and a large well fire

caused by lightning, it was anything but a calm night in Wayne

County. The first group of storms came in yesterday evening about 6

p.m. and continued until late evening. One of these cells in the

southwestern part of Wayne County had a radar-indicated tornado but

I didn't hear or see any confirmation on a touchdown or saw anything

in the storm reports from SPC. The highest wind gust I had here was

associated with another group of storms that hit here around 3 a.m.

this morning with a gust of 39 m.p.h.


The same group of storms that hit early in the evening produced a

well/gas fire creating fires to several wells caused by a lightning

strike just about two miles to my west. According to the scanner it

turned into a three-alarm fire calling in many fire departments

within the county. The smoke was quite visible from where I live.


I've also had very heavy rain since 6 p.m. last night. I recorded

2.25 inches between 6 p.m. last night and 10 a.m. this morning with

more since. I think this only created minor flooding because of a

lack of rainfall all month. This is currently the third highest 24-

hour amount. However, with some additional rainfall over the next

several hours, it could easily become my greates 24-hour amount ever



Anyone else have some wild weather last night?


Jack Sisler

Wooster 7N

Wayne County


Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:07 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Wild Night


Hello Jack;

I was awaken at 4 a.m. this morning by continous cloud to ground lightning strikes. I'm really surprised our

electricity didn't go out. The rain began between 3:30 and 3:45 a.m. and ended between 4:45 and 5 a.m. The

heaviest was 0.60" between 3:45 and 4 a.m. and there was a total of 1.21" during the 3:30 to 5 a.m. time


There are thunderstorms just to my north training. Thankfully I'm still dry, but I expect that to change and

time. My 2004 precipitation total is now at 35.79".

What is your current heaviest 24 HR rainfall total Jack?

Don Keating #106

Newcomerstown 1S


Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:19 pm

Subject: Re: Wild Night




My current highest 24-hour rainfall at this location is 2.67

occuring on August 24, 1998. I did have some additional rainfall

during today (Thursday) putting my 24-hour total for August 19, 2004

at 2.36 inches. This will put it as my second highest 24-hour record

at this location.


It looks like by late Friday additional rainfall from low pressure

moving in and the frontal boundary to my south returning north could

cause some additional problems.




Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:12 pm

Subject: Should have known...


Hi Group;

We need some chatter on this list, so I thought I'd post the following...

We should have known that the dry weather of the first half of August wouldn't last. Between August 1 and

August 15 we had 0.88" of rainfall. From the 16'th to today, we have 1.90". Thus far in August we have had

2.78" of rainfall. Looks like another above normal rainfall month. Will it ever dry out? Oh yea, total

precipitation through 2 p.m. 8/20/2004 for 2004 has been 36.49".

Don keating #106

Newcomerstown 1S


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:54 pm

Subject: data


Within the last 24 hours we here in Putnam, Co.

pick up 0.56" of rainfall. Look like we may have more to


Present temp. @ 2:49 p.m. 61F

Could this be Aug.????

Hi Temp. 67F

Low was 61F

I had alot of people been asking me if we are going to

have a early fall. What I have been seeing on the map's an

that Jet Screen. It sure look like to me that we might have

a early frost this year..Any thought's..


Putnam, Co.


Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:16 am

Subject: Re: Should have known...


Don and Group:


I guess I can make a little chatter if I can keep my head above the

water line (ha, ha). I've had 3.58 inches of rain in less than three

days that began Wednesday night (18th) thru early Saturday morning.

I think had it not been so dry all month until then it would have

turned into a much more serious situation.


My comment on Phil's statement regarding the current weather pattern

carrying into the Fall season is that it could be interesting. You

can't really judge what it might be like the next season based upon

what it was like previously. I think the current situation is

somewhat similar to what it was like early last Winter.


I've heard some forecasters jokingly say any temperatures that went

above 80 degrees this summer could be considered a heatwave. We

shall see.



Wooster 7N

Wayne County


Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:06 pm

Subject: Rainfall...



Regarding your post as follows...

Don and Group:


I guess I can make a little chatter if I can keep my head above the

water line (ha, ha). I've had 3.58 inches of rain in less than three

days that began Wednesday night (18th) thru early Saturday morning.

I think had it not been so dry all month until then it would have

turned into a much more serious situation.

Ironic! Rainfall here started between 330 and 345 Wednesday night, Thursday morning about and the last

measurable rainfall was between 415 and 430 this morning, Saturday. I recorded 3.59" of rainfall, whereas

you recorded 3.58"! Wow, strange how weather works huh?

The 19'th .... 1.87"

The 20'th .... 0.50"

The 21'st .... 1.22"

Take care everyone.

Don Keating #106

Newcomerstown 1S


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:27 pm

Subject: reply


I am just compairing this year jet stream with jet streams I have seem in the past.

An this jet stream we been having is very close to

what we had couple of years back.

Up & Down.

Forecast maps are now coming out saying that we are

going back into a warm period, close to normal

reading....But as you look ahead a little bit more, you

can see that the jet stream is started to dip down

again in the mid plans & moving southeast ward


A as we are getting really to go into the fall season &

we are started to get further & further away from the

sun, and the nights are getting longer & longer,

(cooler & cooler.) we just might see a very cool or

even a cold labor day weekend...

So I am still saying that we just might see our first

FROST by the first part of Sept.. As soon as Sept. 11.

There is already SNOW being reported in the upper

plans now...

We ended up yesterday this way.

Hi- 67F

Low- 58F

Present- 58F(9:30 p.m.)

Baro. 29.75R

Winds NW-4G-15

Precip.: 0.97"(Columbus Grove had 1.10")

Rel. Hum.: 98%

Dew Point- 58F

Sky cover- Cdy.


Putnam, Co.


Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:03 pm

Subject: Global Warming




I read some posts recently about global warming and I wanted to throw out


cautionary statements.


Please do not fall into the stereotype that scientists cry "the sky is


to get funding. While this may be true in some cases, in general, it is

insulting to most scientists.


Scientific theory is generally tried to be proven in accordance to strict

scientific standards but scientists will do everything they can to prove


theory. The most common exception is when private sector companies are


and trying to prove a point for profit.


A real scientist will not say "I will never believe it" because at some point

the evidence may become overwhelming contrary to your belief.


A majority of atmospheric scientists believe that global warming is


some do not. A friend set me an article by National Geographic that seemed

pretty good



I am sure there are good articles that can site evidence that global warming


not occurring.


One cool summer or a cold winter means nothing.


If global warming is occurring, ALL scientists I know will caution that we


NO idea if it is a short term or long term cycle or permanent. We do not know

how much man has contributed to any warming. Most importantly, we do not have

any idea of the consequences of warming. The most common idea I have heard is

that it will lead to an ice age due to alterations of ocean patterns

(the "Day After" scenario only not on steroids). Who knows?


This post may wrangle a few folks but we have to keep an open mind. We will

probably be long gone before we know the answer to these issues but they are

interesting to discuss.


Jim Kosarik, NWS CLE


Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:01 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Global Warming




Thanks for your post. Very interesting reading.


If nothing else - it certainly seems to me that the seasons are shifting,

with all seasons coming earlier than what I for one was used to over the

last 40+ years.


I agree that there are some facts that can't be dismissed in global changes.

Whether they are due to *global warming* or a normal short-term or long-term

cyclic variation remains to be seen.


I think it's really interesting to discuss it though.





Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:14 am

Subject: This morning's low


Low temperature this morning of 44 degrees (43.8) is the lowest temperature

in August since I began records in 1992. Previous record was 45 degrees set

in 1997 and 2000.


Larry Huff

Munroe Falls 1SW

Summit County


Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:35 pm

Subject: Re: This morning's low


Had a low temperature record also with a 42 @ 6:30 a.m. breaking the

previous record of 44 set in 1993. This is my third low temperature

record in a week.


Jack Sisler

Wooster 7N

Wayne County


Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:02 am

Subject: email alerts from other states


Hello all

I was wondering if anyone can help me in getting weather alerts/bullitins from other states. I can get them here thru

the WTOL website.

Any Suggestions???

Thanks in advance


Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:08 pm

Subject: Re: email alerts from other states




I'm assuming you're speaking of email alerts. I don't know of any

one sight that can send you an email alert for severe weather

occuring in several areas or states at once.


My only suggestion is, if you don't mind a lot of emails, to go to

various television websites in various states or areas you're

interested in and sign up for those that offer the weather email

alerts. I'd start with going to Google (



Wooster 7N


Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:48 am

Subject: Re: Global Warming


I am glad that many scientists still practice the scientific method.

Jim, you would be exposed to a good number of scientists and if they

are all good practitioners of the scientific method, then there is

still good science going on.


But that stuff going on in the U.N. is not science. The major graph

that they use (Mann, et. al.'s "Hockey Stick" http://www.john- has been shown to be seriously flawed and

filled with careless mistakes. See for some stuff on

this. Why did experts make such careless mistakes and practice such

shoddy science? How did such careless errors get past the peer

review process?


Why do graphs that shows the warming in the 20th Century being the

most in a long period not show major climate episodes of the past,

such as the Little Ice Age or the Medeval Climate Optimum, while

graphs that show the 20th century as not being the warmest in the

same long period do show the past climate episodes?


Why do we hear about every glacier that is in retreat while little

emphasis is given to those that are in advance? For every glacier

that is retreating, one can be pointed to that is advancing

(including the two largest glaciers, The GreenLand and Antarctic ice

sheets which contain 99% of the world's glacial ice). And then when

one passes the panic headline and reads the article or studies

literature on the that article's subject glacier more thouroughly,

one usually finds out that most of the retreat occured between the

late 1800's and the 1950's or 60's. Since then it's retreat has

slowed significantly, as with the small glaciers of Glacier N.P. or

even began advancing again since, as with many glaciers on Mt.



Why are they so concerned about the effects of CO2 when water is the

main greenhouse gas. The exuast of hydrogen feul is water, by the

way. CO2 is plant food, not pollution. There is little correlation

between trends in CO2 and climate trends while there is heavy

correlation between what the Sun does and climate trends.


I never believed with those that say Mankind is cuasing unatural

climate change simply becuase Man can't overpower the Sun. He can

influence local climates some (urban heat islands, clearing forest

cover around Mt. Kilamanjaro), but his effects are overwhelmed by

nature a few miles away from him.


The debate over "Global Warming" has be commandeered from those

scientists by politicians with agendas. How? I will discuss if

interested becuase this post is way long.




Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:35 pm

Subject: Re: Global Warming


My two cents:


Global warming:

Advancing glaciers, do not necessary show that the

earth is not warming, because they could be advancing do to increased

precipitation, due to global warming. Other natural phenomena such as

advancing tree lines in the Arctic or increased tree growth in alpine

trees( )

point that something is "going on".


Global warming caused by man:

Proof of past global climate change is no proof that the current

change is not caused by man. There were several mass extinctions of

life in the past billions of years before man, but that doesn't mean

that we can't cause it too.


I take the "no-regrets" view about what people should do about climate

change. Even if people are not the cause of global warming, there are

various of benefits to cutting C02 emissions. If global warming is

caused by man, and we do nothing, that would be one large regret we

would all share.




From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:59 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Global Warming



In regardes to your statement you made earlier.

"Gbobal Warming"; Advancing glaciers is from the moving (Titling) of the earth,

an warming of the water's. Less salt & more water without NO salt. This will put us into a "Ice Age". I seen

a show on this, talking about Advancing Glaciers & the Earth itself was competely cover with ICE. Man

itself isn't causing this, the titling of the earth & more non-salt water getting into the oceans...Cutting off

the MAIN JET scream.(Conveter belt.) You should of seen this show, alot of FACTS was shown!


Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:41 am

Subject: Could be coolest summer


The coolest summers (June, July, August) since 1993 at Munroe Falls have

been 1997 and 2000 when both years had a mean temperature of 67.9 F.

degrees. As of today, this summer's mean temperature is at 67.1 F. degrees.

It will be interesting to see how these few last days effect the overall



Larry Huff

Munroe Falls, OH

Summit County


Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:36 am

Subject: Recent Posts




I think most of us have enjoyed reading the recent posts this past

week (ex: global warming). This topic has always been a hot topic of

discussion throughout the world both pro and con. Topics such as

these offers a chance for everyone to join in and express their



I would like for everyone in the OhioWx Group to pick some kind of

weather-related topic for all of us to discuss. Sometimes I feel

some of us, including myself, are trying to do all the posting which

is not the case. I think this is done in cases where there is not

much weather activity going on at the time so people quit posting.

Everybody, please make your thoughts known and discuss anything that

is weather-related.


Thanks for everyones past participation and look forward to future

topics of discussion.


Jack Sisler

OhioWx Group Moderator


Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 12:06 pm

Subject: RE: [OhioWx] Could be coolest summer


It's interesting to note that satellites have been measuring a *global*

cooldown for this year beginning in March. Any ideas on what may be causing

this? The summer of 1992 was cool, but that was because of Pinatubo, I

believe. This year, there has not been any major volcanic acitivity. For

Columbus, August is running near 4 degrees below normal. It was as much as

-6, but the recent warmer spell has made a dent into that. Looks like today

and tomorrow may be above normal before a return to slightly below normal



>The coolest summers (June, July, August) since 1993 at Munroe Falls have

>been 1997 and 2000 when both years had a mean temperature of 67.9 F.

>degrees. As of today, this summer's mean temperature is at 67.1 F.


>It will be interesting to see how these few last days effect the overall



>Larry Huff

>Munroe Falls, OH

>Summit County


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:26 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Recent Posts


Now that a GOOD idea!..

My weather-related topic is "The Blizzard of 1978 in Putnam, Co."

How did it form & how it become a Blizzard..

I feel it form from a "L" pressure that come right out of the northern plans & pick up the mosiure out of the

gulf & become stationary right over the Great lakes & just lay heavy snow over us...Any other idea??


Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:40 am

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Recent Posts


Jack & Group:


For discussion purposes, ya might want to throw the question out as to

whether the parameters for classifying a thunderstorm as "severe" are

reasonable or should be changed. The current parameters I believe are winds

in excess of 58 mph and/or hail 3/4" in diameter or larger. Sometimes I

wonder if those threshholds should be reduced? Perhaps Jim K. or someone

else can shed some light on how long those parameters have been used and how

they were established. Might be a fun question to discuss.


As far as postings go, my main problem has been that I have been swamped

lately and haven't had much time to post.


Gary L



Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:54 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Recent Posts


Hi all:


Actually, I think the parameters should be loosened. 1" hail and 65 or

70mph wind.


The current hail parameters are based on what will happen to aircraft. 3/4"

hail really does not do a lot of damage on the ground. It might beat up

corn or beans, but what's the purpose of issuing warnings for's

going to happen no matter what, and there is nothing you can do to prevent

the damage. It's not like you can pull the field into a garage.. :-)


The wind parameter is a little tougher. At 58 mph, limbs will start to come

down, but perhaps not real widespread. However, at 70mph, there will be

significant roof shingles and many limbs & trees down, not just

a couple that verify a warning...


My thoughts... Let's get this discussion going!


Chris, N8WGB


Date: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:16 pm

Subject: Re: Recent Posts


Chris, Gary, and group:


Nice topic of discussion. However, I will stand by with what the NWS

guidelines currently have. Being in parks maintenance for thirty

years, a skywarn spotter for more than twenty-five years, and a

storm chaser in Ohio and the Plains states I've personally witnessed

damage and/or injury under the current criteria.


These instances I've witnessed come under pedestrians, vehicles and

mobile homes under the current guidlines. Take a close look at some

of the storm video (ex: TWC) and look at some of those large trees

that were felled by winds of only that magnitude and look closely at

the middle of that tree. The entire middle of some of those trees

are completely rotten yet the outside of most of the tree is

healthy. It doesn't take much wind to take those down. Driving down

a highway at high speed with 3/4" hail WILL take out a car's front

windshield. Sustained winds of 58 mph can flip a mobile home if it's

not anchored properly.


One might also keep in mind that warnings issued are not just for

that particular area being hit but for areas following it if

conditions warrant. I don't know of any NWS that can issue a warning

for any isolated area within the specified coverage of the warning.


Those are my thoughts what about some others?



Wooster 7N

Wayne County


Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 6:09 am

Subject: Re: Global Warming


Vance had some good articles referenced in his global warming post. He asked

about the review process for papers. When I worked with the folks at the

American Meteorological Society, there were three unique people in the same

field that had to review submitted work.


I am not sure the articles that Vance referenced are specifically relevant

to the overall global warming discussion. Is the climate of 500 years ago

relevant with respect to CO2? Most CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in

the last 100 years. I am not aware of a global model than can handle such a

complex climate interaction as the earth's atmosphere, despite what these

modelers claim.


You say that water vapor is the biggest green house gas but water vapor will

precipitate out when it reaches steady state. CO2 and all green house gases

are increasing (no steady state) and methods to reduce green house gases can

take from 5 to 200 years. Certainly changes in the sun will change our

climate, but again, I am not sure how that is relevant to global warming

with respect to green house gases?


I am not sure what you mean by "The debate over "Global Warming" has be

commandeered from those

scientists by politicians with agendas".


By definition, politician's agenda are to construct responsible public

policy. Cloroflourocarbons for example were deemed as a danger to the

environment and removed successfully with little impact to the economy and

society. Ozone depletion mitigation efforts have apparently been successful

in slowing the decay of the ozone layer.


The real problem is the money trail. Those who have a monetary investment

will oppose a scientific theory that threatens their livelihood. Researchers

who are funded by these industries will find opposing theory, often with

shaky research (i.e., smoking is not bad for your health). Politicians who

are "in the pocket" of those same businessmen may oppose responsible public



News media affiliated with those same industries will publicize their

viewpoint nearly as fact and not give equal time to the real scientific

debate. Essentially all U.S. media these days are controlled by one of five

huge conglomerates that have a monetary interest in many industries

including many that emit green house gases. Controlling green house gases

would be quite costly (or even impossible without shutting down) so it is in

their interest to throw out as much contrary research as possible whether it

is scientifically sound or not.


Not that Vance's references are not sound, and not that I believe that

global warming by greenhouse gases is a fact - I am just saying to always

follow the money trail!


On the soap box, Jim Kosarik


Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:56 am

Subject: warning criteria


Hi all:


I agree that some trees will come down in 58mph wind, but the 1st thing the

NWS asks is the tree alive and healthy? We had a large oak fall over 3-4

days ago, when the wind was calm. The center was just rotten, and it came

down. No warning was in effect! :-) So, do you issue a warning every time

a thunderstorm might produce 40mph wind because some rotten trees might

come down in that? How about 30mph winds? Of course, I'm carrying this

out and getting a bit ridiculous, but when do you pull the warning trigger?

For a weak gustfront that might bring down some rotten trees or for a real

threat that could cause large area damage to trees and property(and

possibly life-threatening)? How many time do you cry wolf before nobody

listens anymore?


On the hail, I have been in quite a few 3/4 to 1" hail event at close to

highway speed without a problem. Of course, one could argue why someone

was driving at highway speeds in those conditions... I have never seen 3/4

or even 1" hail do damage to standing vehicles...only crops and trees...


There was a study several years ago on raising the warning criteria. The 1"

and 70mph thresholds were what was talked about. As I remember, several

very prominent names were on the committee. However, it was decided by NWS

that the criteria should not change...




Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 2:57 pm

Subject: Re: Global Warming



I would agree with Jim that a buisness has no reason to "push" proof

of global warming, if it hurts its bottomline. Science atleast trys

to be objective(as close as is possible since scientist are human

too). In addition to the "peer review process" there is also a great

incentive to any scientist who could "show" that global warming is

false. Just because some data seems to go against a particular

theory, doesn't disprove the theory. It just calls for more research.

If global warming is not occuring, there are still events going on

that "require" explantions.




Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:44 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] warning criteria


Chris, Jack and List:


Having posed the question without commenting on it, I appreciate the

comments that have been made from others thus far. Here are some of my own.

I have been in Skywarn about 5 years but by no means do I have the

experience of some of you, so there could be some flaws in my thinking.


I will presume that the purpose behind issuing warnings is to warn the

public of an immediate danger to life or property. Since the strength of a

storm can change rather quickly, it would seem prudent to err on the weaker

side than the stronger side. Over the past few years, I and some of the

other folks on this list have commented on various warnings in our areas and

whether (no pun) the acutal storm warranted or acheived "severe" status. I

think most of us realize that NWS does the best that it can with these

things but it is granted that just because your county may be placed under a

warning, it does not mean that you will see that weather at your spot.

However, if you know there is a warning, chances are that your guard is up

and if you are in a situation where you might be in danger, you can at least

have a chance to do something.


There are several things that I would point to as meriting consideration.

First, and don't laugh, hail is hail. It doesn't have to be the size of a

dime to hit you on the head and hurt, especially if you are a little one.

Second, while all thunderstorms produce lightning by definition, some of

this lightning is more frequent and potentially more dangerous. How often

have we heard a special weather statement talking about "dangerous cloud to

ground lightning"? There are no parameters for lightning in the definition

of a severe thunderstorm, but should there be? I believe more people are

killed by lightning than by other events which prompt warnings. Third, in

addition to rotting trees in weakened conditions, you may have at times

saturated ground that will not hold a tree as well, even in lesser winds. I

believe that 40 mph winds can do some damage to those types of trees as well

as loose items that can be blown around. Lastly, if you areas where large

venue events are taking place (I realize that NWS can't and shouldn't try to

keep track of all these) such as football, baseball, concerts, etc., it may

be prudent to lower the warning threshholds so that these gatherings can

prepare. I understand the arguement about "crying wolf" and agree that

people have become somewhat desensitized, but I think it is worth

considering. Sorry for the long post. Thanks for the dialogue on this, it

is quite interesting!


Gary Locke


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Sun Aug 29, 2004 5:07 pm

Subject: weather


What a night & morning. This morning when I got up it was

raining like cat's & dog's..Coudn't even see 1/4 mile. After

the rain ended we ended up with 2.52" of rainfall. That

since's 9:30 p.m. Saturday night. We only got up to 72F & our

morning low was @ 64F. The Baro. is at 29.81S with lite

winds out of the NNE 1-0. Lighten was more so during the

night then this morning..There wasn't NO lighten that I seen,

but just HEAVY rainfall.


Putnam, Co.


Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 1:46 am

Subject: Re: Global Warming


The relevance of Co2 records from 500 years ago is that there have

been times in the past when CO2 levels were higher than today, but

these trends in CO2 levels (higher or lower) do not correlate well

with trends in temperature. So CO2 level itself can not be a good

predictor of future trends. Also, CO2 levels do not correlate very

well with trends in economic activity. The recent slow down occured

over the world and resulted in decreased production, yet CO2 levels

continued to rise at the same nearly steady rate. So it is not fact

that the rise in CO2 levels observed is the result of human activity.


Models that have been used to try to predict future climate trends

have not given water vapor (or the hydrolic cycle) very much

importance. CO2 is such a minor constituent that I don't beleive it

will overwhelm these other atmospheric influences. I don't think we

should panic (some of these Global Warming articles take on a near-

panic tone) over this one minor constituent of a very complex



Politics has become a factor in the debate. Look at the example of

the island nation of Tuvalu. Tuvalu has problems like every nation

does. Some of these problems are overpopulation and beach erosion.

Overpopulation cuases local environmental stress to the islands'

rescources. Bad management has failed to ease this stress and in

some cases has worsened the situation, leading to situations such as

beach erosion. The government can't really kick half its citizens

off the islands to ease the stress on rescources, and it doesn't want

to admit to bad rescources and environmental management policies, so

they saw the panic reports on global warming and how it was causing

the glaciers to melt, raising ocean levels (much evidence points to

ocean levels not rising), and how it was all being cuased by wealthy

western democracies (the type of countries penalized the most by

Kyoto, even though other types of nations such as totalitarian and

third world nations are more polluted). So they used this to accuse

the nearest wealthy western democracy to them, Australia, of being

responsible for their beach erosion and such and are trying to milk a

whole bunch of money and other goodies from them. These little

countries have a disproportionate amount of influence in the U.N. and

see it as an opportunity to degrade the economic power of bigger and

democratic nations so they may find it easier to compete in the

world. Also, if the world can be convinced that free market economic

activity (the most active kind of economy) is the cuase of global

warming and the climatic disasters that it would supposedly cuase,

then the world would more readily accept their solutions based on

strong central control. Read: Socialism. THey are still out there

trying to create their "Socialist Utopia" and they find the

environment in general a good route to advance this cuase, becuase

nobody wants to die from a destroyed environment, so all they have to

do is convince us that the "pursuit of happiness" is destroying the



Yes, follow the money, and the wealthiest organization in the United

States is...the Federal Government. All a research group needs to do

to convince us stingy taxpayers to give them a larger portion of the

tax dollar is convince us that their research is important.

Preventing a man-made climate disaster would be very important. That

is why these reports take on a panic tone. No, many scientists would

not allow funding considerations to influence their reports, but a

disproportionate amount of those that enthusiastically embrace the

global warming theory recieve federal funding or are connected to

left-leaning political groups (who want a srong central government),

and recieve better treatment in the mainstream media. Oh yes their

are poeple on big companies payroll, also. But these companies are

not nearly as wealthy as the government.




Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:15 am

Subject: Re: Global Warming


Actually, businesses would want to know how the climate is changing

and how it might affect them so they can be prepared for it. As

such, smart business leaders would listen to all that researchers

have learned on the subject. What business leaders don't want is

increasing government regulation and interference. This is exactly

the kind of solutions being proposed, though, by some politicians in

knee-jerk reactions to one theory which proposes that Mankind's

(read: mostly the U.S.) economic pursuits is causing horrible climate

disaster. A good leader, business, political, or otherwise, would

say: "Wait a minute. Before we give up a whole bunch of freedoms,

lets do the research and be sure of what's happening." This all

holds for individuals as well as for companies.


Also, some of the things emphasised in the theary of man-made global

warming are not dependable predictors of future climate trends. Many

of the graphs they point to do not accurately represent major climate

episodes of the past (read about the "Hockey Stick"). Yet they are

suposed to believe that the most recent climate trend is accurately

represented? CO2 levels do not correlate well with temperature

trends. These models they use can't even recreate climate trends of

the past. Why would a leader put a lot of faith in those models'

ability to predict the future? I good leader is not going to base

the future of those he leads on this stuff alone.


You are right, Chris, in saying that something is happening. Maybe

continued warming. Maybe cooling. We will need to be prepared for

either scenario. Let the science continue!!




Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:27 am

Subject: Re: warning criteria


The amount of damage would increase in intensity and frequency as the

windspeed increases. I would think that 58mph represents a point

where damage that can affect activity (such as a large tree limb

across a road-blocking traffic), begins to occure on a relatively

regular basis. As you say, other conditions and factors also

contribute to whether or not a tree goes down. As for hail: Well, I

won't be out trying to catch 3/4" hailsones on my tonge!!




Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:36 am

Subject: Weather Data Question




Anyone using a computer program like a spreadsheet or database they

use so they can pull up any particular piece of weather data for a

particular date or to see what the highest/lowest temperature or

precipitation was for a particular period of time without having to

flip through a bunch of records on paper?


As an example, I was going through my records for this September to

see how the mean temperatures might compare with previous

Septembers. Thanks ahead of time.



Wooster 7N


Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:02 pm

Subject: Re: Recent Posts




Not that we can't discuss it some more but we did have a lot of

discussion on the Blizzard of 78. Go back to the archives for

January 2003 starting with message number 4154. It was the 25th

anniversary of the Blizzard of 78 then.


I would be curious how your mean temperatures for this August will

come out. I'm hearing several people say it might be one of the

coolest Augusts we've ever had.



Wooster 7N


From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 4:12 pm

Subject: data


I didn't start recording weather data till later on that year.

Miss out on all the record amount of snowfall & the cold. I

do have the book, oh...

I still think that we are going into a cool down...

Maybe even a year without a summer....Ray can tell you

about this. I even have that book. Snow in July & Aug. on the

ground....Anyone remember reading about this?


Putnam, Co.


Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:30 pm

Subject: Hurricane Frances... Impact on Ohio?


Hello Group;

This might be a week in advance, but I have already heard many TV weatherpeople mention a direct inpact

of Hurricane Frances on our weather as early as Labor Day. Will this be a repeat of what Isabel did in 2003?

Only time will tell. As this category 4 Hurricane continues to strengthen and move westward, we should all

keep a close eye on it and hope and pray for those along the eastern seaboard where ever it hits.

If this storm hits us with rain and some winds, it could push my station much closer to a record annual

precipitation total. I have already recorded over 40" of precip! The record is 50.91" in 1981. This would be a

dubious record if it is broken. Remember we STILL have four full months of weather to go.

Below is a visible satellite view of Frances taken @ 4:45 p.m. eastern time today, August 31, 2004. I'll create a

folder in the photos section labled "Frances_04" and place this in there as well. Any other thoughts on this


Don Keating #106

Newcomerstown 1S


Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 5:24 pm

Subject: re: warning criteria


Uhhh... I have a card in my spotter pack that has what I thought were

the Skywarn criteria, since they are usually repeated on LEARA's

Cuyahoga County Skywarn repeater every time they go into a weather




1. Winds in excess of 50 mph

2. Hail greater than or equal to 1/2 inch in diameter

3. Flooding

4. Funnel Clouds or Tornadoes

5. Storm Damage



1. Greater than or equal to 6 inches snow accumulation in a single


2. Greater than or equal to 1 inch per hour of snow accumulation

3. Sleet or freezing rain

4. Lightning or thunder in a snow storm


So whose criteria are we discussing, about 3/4 inch hail and winds in

excess of 58 mph?


??? Liz


Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:20 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Hurricane Frances... Impact on Ohio?


Thanks for the picture Don!

I have a question and I'm not sure if I'm wording it correctly.

With Frances coming on shore this weekend I saw the projected "trough" as it pushes into Ohio. It seems

to me that that would "deflect" Frances east away from Ohio. I know that a high pressure system can

deflect a hurricane / storm system. Can a storm system "push back" a high pressure or low pressure

system. I think a hurricane would combine with a low pressure system? Can Frances push back the

"trough" and continue up through Ohio?

I'm sorry - this is probably a very basic question.

And another question on hurricanes? I generally don't watch the Weather Channel anymore but haven't

found a better source for coverage of hurricanes. I go on the NOAA site but the WC is the best that I have

found. Any suggestions?

Thanks all!



From: "Phillip Higley" <>

Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 6:29 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Global Warming


Ok. People;


One sayes Do not believed The sky is falling. Another one saides Wait a

minute and see what will happen.

I say remember Sept 11????????????

Bet they said " I do not believed the sky is falling.And Will let wait and

see what will happen. Before I will do anything." And Look what happen.



Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:02 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] re: warning criteria




I think what you may have there is the criteria that spotters are asked to

report to NWS if they are observed. You may be reporting certain criteria

that fall just below the threshold of what NWS defines as a severe

thunderstorm (exception the funnel cloud / tornado). I believe that they

want spotters to identify certain events that indicate the need or potential

to issue warnings (flood, severe thunderstorm, or tornado). I'm kind of

guessing here, and perhaps those are the things that your county skywarn

folks want you to report. In the skywarn trainings I've been in, I don't

remember the 50 mph or the 1/2" hail being mentioned. But then again, my

memory is not that great. Maybe some others can speak to this.


Gary L


Date: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:06 pm

Subject: Re: [OhioWx] Re: Weather Data Question




I use a spreadsheet to keep track of mine. It will go in and find that high

and low temp for a month and subsequently for the year but since I only keep

one year in one spreadsheet, it would not search out highs, lows or means

across years. If you keep one for each year, you could always store past

years on disk and look them up. Some of the recap info has to be entered

manually too. If you are interested in seeing it, I can email it to you.

It is something that I set up myself - it was not purchased.


Gary L.









Return to OWON Summaries