On the last day of September in Austin, Texas, we may have put the 100 degree days behind us. No guarantees, but unless we have a very late heat wave, yesterday’s 100+ degree day may have set the new record to break of 90 days* of 100+ degree days in 2011.
We have also tied or broken several other records this year. We tied the record for the hottest day ever @ 112 degrees and we easily sailed past our previous record of 21 consecutive days of triple digit temperatures for Austin, to set a new record of 27 days on August 12, 2011.
While the heat wave may finally be loosening its grip on Texas, the drought goes on and the brief, but very welcome showers that have popped up around the state in the last couple of weeks, have done little to alleviate that condition. 85.75% of the state still remains in “exceptional” drought status (the highest level of drought the US Drought Monitor measures), up from 85.43% the previous week. Unless we see extended and significant rain, this extreme drought will continue and that has some communities worrying about running out of water. See our earlier blog for more on this.
The Climate Prediction Center’s (CPC) monthly outlook offers little hope for a change in the overall dry and warm weather pattern through the fall season and beyond.
Climate models are also indicating that the drier and warmer than normal weather will continue through the coming winter. By spring though, the CPC indicates an equal chance that Central Texas could return to a more normal temperature and precipitation pattern. But, before you get too excited about that, the temperature outlook for next summer is for hotter than normal weather yet again!
We continue to encourage Texans to continue to conserve energy and water where they can.
Austin has had over six times the annual average of 13.5 days of 100 degree weather this year and below are some other fun Austin triple digit degree day facts
Average date of the first 100 degree day: July 11th, this year it was May 25th
Average date of the last 100 degree day: August 20th, this year, possibly it was September 29th, but there are still three months left in the year.
Historically-the earliest 100 degree day was May 4th in 1984 and the latest 100 degree day was October 2nd in 1938
*Temperatures are for Camp Mabry which is the location our historical data is based on. Weather.com likely reports from ABIA located outside the city of Austin.
###
By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Well, we only need 4 weeks of 100 + days and the average last date of 100 degree weather in Austin is August 20th with the historical latest date of October 2nd, so we have every opportunity to break the record.
In 2009, on September 3rd, Austin hit its 68th and final triple-digit temperature of that year. How consistently we stay at or above 100 degrees from this date foward depends in part on the tropical storm season in the Gulf. Of course that brings a whole other set of undesired issues. Many times hurricanes or tropical storms have hit the Texas Gulf Coast and central Texas got no rain and no temperature relief, in fact, it only added increased humidity to mix in with our hot weather. So we can only wait and see.
I just can’t believe how hot most of America has been this summer! I guess since you have had 48+ days of 100F+ temperatures so far it makes Florida seem like a cool climate to be living in! We have had some warm weather, but we do at least get the breeze from the Gulf which helps out a bit. I am sorry you guys didn’t get any relief from that storm, I was tracking it on radar and it just seemed to fizzle out when it made landfall, such a shame.
Is the Dallas record for triple digits days 59 or 69?
My math says that if they’ve only had 39 days of 100+ temperatures and their record is really 69 days, they really need another 30 days (not 20) of the triple digits to break the great Texas Heat Wave of 1980 records.
You are correct, the weather site has their record at 69 days, but the news report that said they only had 20 days to break their yearly record, only spoke to their 39 consecutive days of 100 degree weather. I checked and in fact they have had 49 days of 100+ this year, 10 other days besides the 39 consecutive.
Thanks for catching this.
[...] [...]
National weather service says the high on Aug 13 was only 97 at Mabry, and 96 at Bergstrom. I think we’re all done at 27 with the consecutive streak, and are only at 59 for the total.
Sorry Lorenzo, typo, it is fixed now and we are using the data from Camp Mabry since that was the location the earlier records were based on.
I’m with Lorenzo. I’ve been following you for a few days now, but I can’t find anything to support the 100 degree claim for the 13th. I’ll keep watching you until we are done with 100′s though. Thanks for keeping track for me!
Yes, the official temperature on the 13th was 97 stopping the consecutive days record according to NWS…is your source different?
Great blog and I’ve been following daily, but you should update to reflect accurately for the go forward tracking.
Thanks for keeping everyone up to date and for pushing water conservation…hoping we don’t turn into San Angelo when this is all over!
Austin hasn’t had over six times the number of the annual average of 100+ degree days this year – that would be 72+ days. Your math is wrong.
Good point, but we’re only 10 days away from making that statement accurate.
I think you just skipped a day. We were on track to tie the record on Tuesday the 23rd, not Monday the 22nd.
But even that seems high. For Camp Mabry, we had 3 100-degree days in May, 15 in June, and 27 in July (with our only hitting 99 on July 1, 7, 10 and 16). That makes 45 through July, leaving us needing 24 in August and beyond. With August 13 being cool, the earliest we can hit 69 is on Thursday the 25th. Maybe the weather.com site isn’t reporting July data correctly, or maybe I made an arithmetic error. Can somebody else check?
Many thanks for keeping this site going. I don’t mean to be hyper-critical with my corrections! For those of us with a morbid interest in dismal records, this site has been a lot of fun.
Some more odd facts (assuming my sources are right): Since the beginning of June, we’ve only had one day when the temperature didn’t hit 95. Since the beginning of July, we’ve only had one day when it didn’t hit 99. Since the beginning of August, the average high has been 104.
And it hasn’t rained in years. (Or at least it feels that way.)
I found the discrepancy. Weather.com lists highs of 99 on July 7 and July 10, but NWS lists highs of 100 and 101. That bring the count through July up to 47, and sets us up to hit 69 on Tuesday.
Thanks for keeping up with the totals. Your total of 64 days as of August 17th seems to be one too many. Did you make a correction or find a previous error?
NWS (NOAA) readings for Camp Mabry (not Bergstrom) is the official tally this blog is tracking, if not mistaken.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ewx/?n=100degreedays.htm
Carol made a typo and fixed it while updating it on a weekend.
Posting the Perry video is unnecessary. It is a proven fact, that scientists have manipulated data for the “global warming” argument. You cannot dispute that fact and with the discovered evidence they were caught red handed. You can’t forget that “climate change” or “global warming” became a big business. Al Gore raised billions and made a hefty profit off of it all.
Are we experiencing climate change? Possibly. However, droughts like this one in Texas have been recorded on earth many times before. The planet is millions of years old and there is no way that humans who spend on average less than a hundred years here can know all about the planet and what is going to happen.
Climate changes seem to be part of the evolution of the earth and unrelated to human activity. The planet has gone through many different periods, phases and events and many were long before man kind, so that pretty much proves that we have no control over these events. If there is one lesson to be learned it’s that we cannot control or manipulate mother nature. I think that fact alone refutes the argument that climate change or global warming is caused by humans.
Today it could be hotter and drier, but tomorrow it could be colder and wetter. No one knows for certain what tomorrow will bring.
The fact is global warming and climate change activists have an ulterior motif with their agenda. In the meantime we just have to wait out the heat and lack of rainfall until it reverses.
Thank you Eric!! Well said. I endured the great heat wave of 1980 as a kid in Dallas and there was never a mention of global warming when it hit 110 degrees day after day (or so it seemed). Mother Earth has existed for billions of years and to allow political agendas and opinions to try and convince the sheep that mankind is powerful enough to obliterate her is silly. She’ll be spinning just fine long after we’re gone
“The fact is global warming and climate change activists have an ulterior motif with their agenda.”
I’m curious what the ulterior motive would be?
BTW Al Gore hasn’t made a penny off it, you can fact check that easly. All the funds from his materials and talks have been donated to a foundation.
He made his money (and its not billions) by being asked to be on the Google board when they were first getting started and long before they went public, their stock options have done very well, and by starting a cable television station that is also doing well. Just plain old business, hard work and a bit of luck thrown in.
When he lost the presidential run his net worth (mostly inherited) was around 7 million. His Google stock has made him most of his money. But the cable TV channel a good business, just ask Rupert or Ted Turner, generates good cash flow and is making him a bundle.
And the “proven fact” that scientists have manipulated the data was also proven to be a non-fact many years ago, it was a deliberate mis-quoted and out of context news story that underwent peer review as was found to be false. There are thousands of scientists that agree and less than 100 that disagree, the ones that disagree all seem to be employed or their studies underwritten by the oil and coal companies.
Just like smoking is good for you.
Let’s review the evidence:
1) CO2 traps radiation (the greenhouse effect). That’s basic physics.
2) There is FAR more CO2 in the air than at any time in (at least) tens of thousands of years, with most of the increase happening since we started burning lots of fossil fuels via the industrial revolution. You can tell directly from ice cores.
3) Any ONE weather event could be random. After all, the chances of 2011 being the hottest summer in a century would be 1 in 100 by pure chance. That sort of thing is bound to happen somewhere just about every year.
4) However, the probability of a string of extreme events all happening in a short time is almost zero. The killer Russian heat wave. The increased hurricane patterns. The high-energy tornadoes ripping through the South and through Missouri. Here in Austin, 3 of the hottest years ever recorded being in the last 5 years. You say all of that is a coincidence?!
Finally, there’s cause and effect. OK, we can never be sure that our dumping megatons of CO2 into the atmosphere is the only thing causing the change in our climate. But we do know that we’ve got a big problem, and we do know, with absolute certainty, that human activity is making things worse (basic physics — see step 1).
To ignore the problem, as Rick Perry wants us to do, is utterly irresponsible.
I feel sorry for the “it’s a proven fact that scientists manipulate data” and AGW is a farce crowd.
CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. No scientist on this planet will dispute that. There’s more of it now than 200 years ago. Ergo, more heat is getting trapped. Unless you know of some magical scientific fact that nobody has discovered, more CO2 = more heat. Sorry, but it really is that simple.
Maybe it’s the contrarian in some people that prevents them from accepting obvious logic? Regardless, you look foolish arguing that more CO2 doesn’t have an effect on the climate equation. You might as well say that we could lose the oceans and not have any effect.
Back to the subject of the heatwave. What’s disturbing is that 2009 and 2008 weren’t much better than 2011 here in Austin. Even more disturbing is that La Nina is supposed to return over the winter, and with that a lesser chance of rain.
fyi, the average high for August through 19 days is 104.7 degrees.
May 21st was Austin’s last day where the high temp was below 90 degrees. Since then, which is 90 days, Austin’s average high is 101.3 degrees.
CO2 does not trap heat, it reflects it. It reflects heat away just as well as it reflects heat back in.
Take a look at mars, 90+% of the atmosphere is CO2 and the polar ice caps are frozen methane, hardly a green-house environment.
Water vapor is another one that reflects heat, and is much more effective at it than CO2. Examples: cloudy nights do not cool off nearly as much as clear nights, cloudy days do not warm up nearly as much as sunny days.
(And as hot weather puts more water vapor in the atmosphere, that is what we call a ‘negative feed-back loop’)
AGW and AGCC are effectively untested hypotheses. If any physicist, chemist, biologist, etc were to propose a theory where none of their tests had a control and the only way to check it is to look at historical data, they would be laughed out of the building.
Research can and *will* be falsified if there is enough money involved(take a look at the ‘cigarettes do not cause cancer’ research funded by the tobacco companies for an example), and Government policy involves *lots* of money.
A consensus in science is always a bad thing, it means people are no longer looking into the subject with a critical eye. You do not want everyone agreeing unless they have tested things themselves, and even then you want a healthy level of doubt(Example: Even though Gravity has been a proven ‘law’ for centuries, people are still poking and prodding at it to find new edge cases such as frame dragging and trying to explain ‘dark matter’)
I have no doubt that human activities have an impact on the local environment(black-top heating up more than a tree would on sunny days and white cement or metal roofing reflecting heat back up more than grass would being two examples), and if by no other methodology, the ‘butterfly effect’ would cause this to some times have a global impact of one sort or another.
On the other hand, have you ever heard of the Quaternary Ice age?
As in the ice-age we are currently enduring?
Geologically speaking an ice-age is any period where there are ice-packs that remain year-round. And that means even if we are in an interglacial period, we are still in the middle of an ice-age(take a look at the polar ice-caps, those are only there during ice-ages)
In short, the planet earth is currently half-frozen and barely able to support life compared to the abundance of flora and fauna that were present during warmer periods.(look at trees, most of them must shed their leaves for a good part of the year just to survive the cold, hardly an indicator that this is the climate that that form is best suited for)
If I believed in AGW, I would go out and buy a 12mpg SUV to hurry the process along, knowing that I would be contributing to more productive crops, more diverse plants and wildlife, and all of those other things that they say we are killing when we burn fossil fuels(note: much of this carbon was in the atmosphere during periods of greater biological diversity, so it was hardly a bad thing if biological diversity is what you are after, even if it is nothing more than plant-food)
Also, a note to Don: it turns out that the ‘ozone hole’ is a cyclical thing, NASA has records showing this. CFCs may have contributed, or they may have just had a usage rise during a particularly bad time for the ozone layer, but even without CFCs that hole grows, shrinks, disappears, and reappears
One more thing about EricG’s post. The “we don’t have control” approach is hogwash. If we took that attitude about CFCs, then the ozone hole would ever expanding and we’d be in a lot of trouble.
Does anyone ever spend a few minutes actually researching the things you talk about?
I love EricG’s post. Why? Because it’s living proof of just how stupid peopke can be. I am a scientist. I work for a “household name” energy firm. From the highest executives to the paid PR people, from my scientist peers to the administrative staff, there’s no pretense that climate change is “debatable” or “unproven” or “a natural cycle.” We all understand that it’s largely caused by mankind . . . even as company directors donate cash to Rick Perry or increase the efforts to convince the EricGs out there that there is some sort of conspiracy. Tens of thousands of scientists, in thousands of facilities across the globe, signed, sealed and delivered so that Al Gore can make a few million. It’s idiotic. I have read more than five or six hundred studies about climate change. While there are clinkers supporting both sides, 99% support the theory that climate change is largely man-made. I can think of perhaps two (less than 1% of the total) which manage to make even a feeble argument against manmade climate change – and neither makes a totally dismissive case. Rather, both argue that some widely-believed aspects of the case for manmade climate change may be somewhat exaggerated. Interestingly, rather than being a somewhat controversial subject, the manmade climate change “theory” is one of the most agreed-upon ideas in the scientific community.
It’s not necessary to call people “stupid” to make your point(s). It’s rude, even if you ARE anonymous!
Have any of you considered that your both right in a sense? Seriously. Think about it. more CO2 = more heat, ok, but they are also right when they say that it is a natural cycle of earth to have climate changes. So WHAT IF, it is natural climate change, but being hastened by man dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The fact is that NEITHER side is THINKING about it but blurting out what you have been taught and CONVINCED of by others.
“Climate changes seem to be part of the evolution of the earth and unrelated to human activity. The planet has gone through many different periods, phases and events and many were long before man kind, so that pretty much proves that we have no control over these events. If there is one lesson to be learned it’s that we cannot control or manipulate mother nature. I think that fact alone refutes the argument that climate change or global warming is caused by humans.”
That’s some hilariously awful and circular reasoning there, Eric.
Does anyone know where to get a list of the temperature in Austin every day since May 1st?
wunderground.com should do the trick. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KATT/2011/8/24/MonthlyHistory.html#calendar
Thank you! Much better than NOAA’s “observed” temperatures.
Now that we beat 1925, what is the next record to beat for number of 100+ degree days in Austin? Or are we already past the highest on record?
1925 previously saw the most 100 degree days in one year in Austin, TX. Yesterday we set a new record for Austin. The new record number of days in a year of 100 degree temperature will be however many we have this year. We have had 100 degree days as late as October, so I would think we should know what Austin’s new record to break will be by then.
In August so far …
1 day below 100
4 days at 103
5 days at 104
3 days at 105
7 days at 106
4 days at 107
And, tomorrow, the predicted high I see on Weather Underground is 108!
Re: Global Warming caused by humans. Check out this article, along with many other corrobative reports.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
Nice, Wes . . . except that article isn’t telling the truth.
The NASA study was commissioned to gauge the relative effect of man on the climate, taking into account the fact that, yes, the sun and other factors *also* affect the climate. What that very same study cited in your article actually stated (though your source “forgets” to mention it) is that, yes, while solar activity is one factor in climate change, yet the biggest single factor in climate change is HUMAN activity.
In other words, your Dakota Voice article simply lied about the findings of the study. (I should add that the Dakota Voice is largely funded through conservative sources opposed to the idea of human-caused climate change.)
It’s interesting that the scientific-opposition to manmade climate change is actually so weak, and so without evidence, that they have to lie about studies to “make” their point – presumably hoping that intelligent minds are so few on the ground that no one will check.
I hate it when people with their own agenda lie:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
I do love it when the experts to sunny and warm Cancun just to freeze their butts off though:
http://thenewamerican.com/world-mainmenu-26/north-america-mainmenu-36/5480-record-cold-struck-cancun-climate-confab
I don’t understand how you are counting these days. Last week you were on track; now you are several days too many. End of day August 28th is 73 days over 100. Note: Wunderground is not an accurate source.
I think Wunderground is at about 73 or 74. I don’t know what the 77 thing is. Maybe a typo? Or a guess into the future.
Sorry about the typo, Carol is on vacation and I double tapped the 7 doing the update from my iphone and didn’t catch it. Must have been the heat.
As of August 29 the number of days should be 74 days. Why would Wunderground not be an accurate source? What do you suggest as another site?
Go to http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=ewx for monthly data, which includes the lows and highs for every day. Click on “preliminary monthly climate date” to get the current month so far. The highs are often a degree or two higher than you’ll find in other sources (like weather.com), since the NWS highs include temperatures achieved between the hourly posted measurements. For instance, today’s high at Camp Mabry was 105.1, even though the highest hourly measurement was “only” 104.
Through August 30, we’ve had 75 days of 100+ degrees, including almost 20 over 105 (I forget the exact number) and two above 110. We’ve had another 50+ in the 90s. Since January 1, the median high has been at least 90 — maybe 91.
If tomorrow’s forecast is right, the average high in August will be 104.9, which is almost 3 degrees higher than the previous monthly record, set just last month.
Can one of the Global Warming supporters please debunk this data for me?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
I’ll bite, to some extent.
First of all, that article is out of date, with the most recent reference being from 2003, and that one is from “CO2 Science”, a publication devoted to arguing against man-made climate change. Hardly a reputable and neutral reference! In other words, we’re dealing with old arguments that predate the most accurate data.
As for climate change existing without humans — of COURSE there are climate cycles that have had profound effects on history. If we were currently plunging towards an ice age, then some man-made global warming might be a good thing. But the opposite is true. The 20th century was already pretty darn warm, and our making things even warmer is asking for big, big trouble.
The article states that only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases are man-made. Strictly speaking this is correct, in that much of the greenhouse effect comes from water vapor. But that water vapor isn’t a constant. The more CO2 there is, the warmer it gets. The warmer it gets, the more water evaporates. The more water evaporates, the more we get H2O-mediated greenhouse warming. When it comes to affecting the climate, a little CO2 goes a LONG way, and we’ve had far more than “a little” CO2. If I remember my numbers (and I’m working without notes here), current CO2 levels are about 50% higher than historical averages dating back thousands and thousands of years. That’s a LOT.
To be fair, there’s also an effect in the opposite direction. More evaporation means more clouds which reflect sunlight. Taking all of this into account is complicated, which is why we spend real money on supporting real science instead of relying on facile “there’s no way that humans could affect the climate” arguments.
So what happens to the CO2 we emit. It’s true that it COULD be captured as biomass or absorbed into the oceans, but biomass is going in the wrong direction. We’re not growing lots of new forests — we’re cutting down the ones we’ve got. As for the oceans, the transfer from the atmosphere to the surface layer is pretty fast, and has helped to mask our past burning of fossil fuels, but the transfer from the surface down to deeper layers is very slow, and the surface layers are nearly saturated. The oceans won’t rescue us, either. We’re melting the polar ice caps, causing the earth to reflect a lot less light into space, making things even warmer, especially in the far north. As the tundra thaws, it’s releasing tons of methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Bottom line: the process is indeed complicated, and just saying “CO2 causes warming” is too simplistic. But most of the secondary reactions only make the problem worse — in some cases a lot worse. With more data and more analysis, the scientific consensus on global warming has indeed changed in the last 10 years, but not in the direction that Rick Perry suggests. Rather, “worst-case scenarios” that used to be dismissed are looking more and more likely, and the mainstream view is that there is a severe danger of environmental disaster if we don’t curb our carbon addiction.
Thanks for an honest and fairly scientific evaluation of the points presented.
Anyone still following the number of days over 100v
I have 82 days as of end of day September 12.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ewx/?n=100degreedays.htm
The 100+ count is at 85, and is likely to stay there, but don’t forget the 90+ degree days. The last day below 90 was May 21, so we’ve got a streak of 121 consecutive days going (as of Sept 19).
We are back in the 100s all over again. My sources indicate we’ll hit triple digits continuously through Thursday, bringing Austin, Texas up to 90 such days in 2011. I look forward to an update on this page.
I think today will be the 88th day. My prediction months ago was 90. I was hoping I was wrong though.
Chris, Yes, today, September 27th will be the 88th day. One of the local weather stations has us 101 tomorrow and 100 on Thursday so if we had a pool going, you’d win with your prediction of 90 days of 100 degree weather. Of course we could still have some residual 100 degree days later on, but I’m hoping that is not the case.
October 1 was the first sub-90 day since May 21, ending a streak of 132 consecutive 90+ days. Anybody know what the record is (or was, since I’m pretty sure the record is now 132)? Or what the record number of (not necessarily consecutive) 90+ days in a year is? As of Oct 2, we’re at 158.
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]
[...] hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total [...]
[...] was only for about five minutes, hahah….. (Article about the heat records being broken from texasvox.org, and another from [...]
[...] was only for about five minutes, hahah….. (Article about the heat records being broken from texasvox.org, and another from [...]
[...] the heat records being broken from texasvox.org, and another from [...]
[...] was only for about five minutes, hahah….. (Article about the heat records being broken from texasvox.org, and another from YNN.)Images by BEYOURPET | Category: Seasons Wallpapers | Tags: hottest, [...]
Repent the end is here and will start shortly.
There are parts that have already begun.
They will use this country when it is desolate for nothing more than a resource for all the stuff we all craved here. Cars gas oil gold silver it’s all here anything timber all of it will be raped from here taken across the pond to where they came feom
[...] Texas was badly hit by heatwaves and drought. The city of Austin had 27 consecutive days where the temperature was over 100F and 90 days in total when it reached that level. The Texas [...]