Archives

All posts for the month June, 2013

By

The historical and dangerous heat wave that has been shattering records across the West turned deadly in Las Vegas on Saturday.

Las Vegas paramedics found a man dead in a home without air conditioning on Saturday, when temperatures at the city’s McCarran International Airport soared to 115 degrees.

The man had medical issues, but the Associated Press reports paramedics thought that the heat worsened his condition.

Saturday’s high of 115 degrees repeated Friday’s high and marked the first time since late June 1994 that the McCarran Airport registered consecutive highs of 115 degrees or higher.

RELATED: Drought Cancels July Fourth Fireworks West, Rain Threatens East Forecast Temperature Maps Las Vegas Forecast Death Valley Heat to Approach All-Time World Record

The National Weather Service Office in Las Vegas, located on the city’s southwestern side, experienced its all-time record high of 118 degrees on Saturday.

There is no question that the atmosphere blast furnace is at full throttle across the interior West and will remain that way through at least the next couple of days with more daily, monthly and all-time records set to be broken or challenged.

“While many folks over the interior West are accustomed to and expect hot weather during the summer, this pattern is taking the heat to the extreme,” stated AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski.

The heat is so intense that Death Valley will approach the world’s hottest temperature record Sunday and Monday.

Death Valley tied its hottest June temperature of 128 degrees on Saturday and will challenge the June record high for the entire United States on Sunday.

Cities that could set new annual extreme temperature marks include Flagstaff, Ariz., and Las Vegas and Reno, Nev.In Flagstaff, Ariz., the all-time record high is 97 set on July 5, 1973. In Las Vegas, the all-time record high is 117 degrees set on July 19, 2005, and July 24, 1942. At Reno, the all-time high is 108 degrees set most recently on July 5, 2007.

Cities that will continue to experience record-challenging heat on a daily basis through at last Tuesday include Fresno, Calif., Las Vegas, Nev., Salt Lake City, Utah, Boise, Idaho, and Medford, Ore.

Palm Springs, Calif., and Phoenix, Ariz., will also challenge records Sunday and Monday before the heat eases slightly on Tuesday. Meanwhile, Spokane and Seattle, Wash., and Pendleton, Ore., will join the above list on Monday and Tuesday as the heat expands northward.

Those looking to find relief from the heat should head to San Diego, San Francisco and other coastal points where the absence of an offshore flow will keep temperatures more comfortable.

All other residents should continue to follow the safety tips listed below during this historic heat wave.

“People driving through desert areas during the pattern should make sure their vehicle can make the journey and that they carry extra water in case their vehicle breaks down,” stated AccuWeather.com Western Weather Expert Ken Clark.

As temperatures soar to record-challenging levels, drying brush and the potential for spotty thunderstorms will push the wildfire threat to new areas and raise the risk in other locations.

The system producing the heat and sunshine will allow widely separated, pop-up thunderstorms with time. Most of the storms will form and die over the mountains during the afternoon and evening hours, but there will be a few exceptions.

A few locations can receive a downpour. However, many of the storms will bring little or no rainfall. This phenomena, commonly called “dry lightning,” can spark new wildfires.

While the natural spark for wildfires cannot be avoided, people are urged to be very careful when using outdoor power equipment and open flames. Never park a vehicle that has been running for any length of time over dry grass and brush as the hot exhaust can start a fire. Don’t throw burning cigarettes out of your vehicle.

The fire danger across the West has forced officials to issue fire bans in some states, which includes restrictions on fireworks for the upcoming Fourth of July holiday. More states or communities may follow suit due to this historic heat wave.

Los Angeles Dodgers fan Josh Kohl puts a towel on his head for some relief from the heat during batting practice prior to the Dodgers’ baseball game against the Philadelphia Phillies, Saturday, June 29, 2013, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)

AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski contributed to the content of this story.

Advertisements

The effects of the bomb at Hiroshima were greatly magnified by the flimsy construction methods used in the city. The few buildings constructed to western standards proved comparatively robust.

The effects of the bomb at Hiroshima were greatly magnified by the flimsy construction methods used in the city. The few buildings constructed to western standards proved comparatively robust.

By David Spero – Code Green Prep

This is the first part of a two-part article about surviving nuclear blasts.  In this first part, we look at the immediate effects of nuclear blasts, in the second part, we will look at longer term effects.

Few things are more horrific in many people’s minds than the thought of being close to a nuclear explosion.  Some people have gone to great lengths, constructing massive bunkers/shelters in their basements, to do what they believe may be necessary to optimize their chances of survival in such cases.  But – two questions :  Are such things really necessary?  And, if they are necessary, will they truly protect you?

Sure, we agree that ground zero would not be a nice place to be at, but the horror and the power of nuclear weapons are often overstated and misunderstood – especially by the ‘anti-nuke’ campaigners; oh yes, and by bunker salesmen, too!  So, let’s first investigate the question – how survivable is a nuclear explosion, and then in a subsequent article series we’ll evaluate the best type of bunker or other shelter structure that would be appropriate for most of us.

The survivability of a nuclear blast depends on several variables (of course).  In particular, it depends on how powerful the nuclear bomb is – and that’s the first variable most civilians fail to account for.  A second variable is how far you are likely to be from the blast (and we consider some of the surprising unexpected considerations related to determining that in the second part of this two-part article).

Other variables include the weather (obviously wind has a massive impact on fallout patterns, so too does rain), the time of day (the nuclear flash will blind more people at night), topography (you might be sheltered by a hill) and ‘urban clutter’ (buildings and other things that occlude and slow down a blast wave more quickly than most theoretical models allow for).

One more huge variable is whether the blast is an air blast (most likely), a surface blast (less blast effect but massively more fallout) or a sub-surface blast (effects depend on how deep the blast is).

How Powerful Are Nuclear Weapons?

This image was selected as a picture of the we...

Nuclear bombs are measured in terms of the equivalent amount of TNT required to create a similar blast.  Actually, due to various imprecisions, these days they are measured in terms of total energy released which is converted to a theoretical equivalent amount of TNT to make it sound more scary and also more meaningful – if you were told that a bomb had a power of 4.184 petajoules you’d have no idea what that meant, but most people can vaguely comprehend that a one megaton bomb is awesomely powerful.

The 1 MT rating is equivalent to the 4.184 petajoule rating.  You might not be familiar with the ‘peta’ prefix – a petajoule is  1000 terajoules, or 1,000,000 gigajoules or 1,000,000,000 megajoules, or, in the ultimate, 1,000,000,000,000,000 joules – a very big number indeed!

But, back to the usual common measurement of nuclear weapons.  The power of such weapons is usually measured either in kilotons (kT) or megatons (MT), being respectively 1000 tons or 1,000,000 tons of TNT equivalent.

Nuclear bombs range in size from a few kilotons of TNT equivalent power to possibly over 100 megatons of TNT equivalent power.  The smallest that we are more or less aware of were the (withdrawn from inventory more than 30 years ago) W54 series of warheads, with explosive blasts measured in the mere tons or tens of tons of TNT equivalent.

The biggest ever exploded was a Russian bomb, called  the Tsar Bomba, which created an estimated 57 megaton blast, in 1961.

To put these sizes into context, conventional ‘high explosive’ type bombs range from some tens of pounds of TNT equivalent up to the largest GBU-43/B bombs with an 11 ton yield.  Russia might have an even larger bomb with a 44 ton yield.  Most conventional bombs have an under half ton yield.

So that’s the first take-away point.  A ‘nuclear bomb’ can range from something less powerful than a conventional technology bomb, to something of hard to comprehend power and magnitude.

There’s as much as a million times difference in power between a small nuclear bomb and a huge one – that’s like comparing the tiniest firework cracker with a huge 6000 lb conventional ‘bunker buster’ bomb.  Except that, of course, even the smallest nuclear weapon is sort of like a huge 6,000 lb conventional bunker buster bomb, and they just go up from there in scale!

Nuclear Bombs Are Getting Smaller

B61 nuclear bombsA related piece of good news.  Although the first decade or two of nuclear bomb development saw a steady increase in size/power, that trend has now reversed.  The two bombs used against Japan were approximately 13 – 18 kT for the Hiroshima bomb and 20 – 22 kT for the Nagasaki bomb; and then for the next fifteen years or so after that, bomb sizes got bigger and bigger.

The largest bombs ever tested were the US Castle Bravo test in 1954 (15 MT – this was actually a mistake, it was planned to be only half that size) and the Russian Tsar Bomba test in 1961 (57 MT).

Since that time, the typical warhead size has gone down again rather than up.  Happily, bigger is not necessarily ‘better’ when it comes to nuclear weapons.  There are several reasons for this.

Due to the increased accuracy of the delivery systems, there has become less need for a massively powerful bomb – a smaller bomb delivered with precision would generally have the same or better effect than a bigger bomb that arrives some distance off target.  Earlier missiles were only accurate to within a mile or so of their target, the latest generation are thought to be accurate to 200 ft or so, so there is no longer a need to have a weapon so powerful that it will be capable of destroying its target, even if it is a mile further away than expected.

Secondly, the evolution of multi-warheaded missiles means that instead of a missile delivering one big bomb to one target, they can now deliver two, three, or many bombs to many different targets, but this requires each warhead to be smaller and lighter (ie less powerful) than otherwise would be the case.

With a single missile having a limited amount of space available and weight carrying capability to transport warheads, and with a fairly direct relationship between a bomb’s power and its weight (and lesserly space), there has been a general favoring to the smaller warheads, although Russia still has a few enormous 20 MT warheads in its inventory.

There is also the surprising and counter-intuitive fact that the effects of a nuclear explosion do not increase directly with the increase in its power – that is to say, a bomb with twice the rated TNT equivalent explosive power does not also have twice as much destructive power; it has more like perhaps 1.6 times the destructive power (the actual relationship is x0.67).

This means it is better to have two bombs, each of half the power of a single bomb (and better still to have four bombs, each of one-quarter the power).  In terms of maximizing the total destroyed area, if you have a single missile that could have, say one 8 MT warhead, two 4 MT warheads, or four 2 MT warheads, generally this last option would be the most desirable one.  It also means the attacker can choose between sending multiple warheads to one target, or being able to attack more targets.

Furthermore, having four warheads all splitting off from the one missile gives the enemy four times as many objects to intercept.  It is much harder to safely defend against four incoming warheads than one.

So, for all these reasons, multiple small bombs are now usually the preferred approach.

Bigger Bombs Don’t Have Proportionally Greater Destructive Ranges

The Mk-17 was an early U.S. thermonuclear weap...

This statement needs explaining.  There are two factors at play here – the first is that if a bomb is eight times bigger than another bomb, it doesn’t destroy eight times as many square miles (due to the power of the bomb not increasing linearly with its TNT equivalent, as explained in the preceding section).  At the bottom of this page it says that eight small bombs might cover 160 sq miles of area (ie 20 sq miles each), whereas one single bomb, eight times the size, would only cover 80 sq miles.

The second factor is to do with the difference between a bomb’s destructive area and its destructive range.  A bomb’s destructive area spreads out more or less in a circular pattern, but the area of a circle is proportional to the square of its radius.  In other words, for a bomb to have a radius of destruction twice as far as another bomb, it would need to be four times more powerful, not two times as powerful.

So, continuing this example, 80 square miles require a circle with a radius of 5.0 miles, and a 20 sq mile circle has a radius of 2.5 miles.  In other words, to double the distance within which a bomb will destroy everything, and after allowing for both the square relationship between distance and area, and the less than doubling of explosive effect when you double the power of a bomb, you have to increase its explosive power not twice, not four times, but eight times.

This is presented visually in the following diagram, which shows the radius of the fireball created by bombs of different sizes, ranging from small to the largest ever detonated (sourced from this page).

radius

Don’t go getting too complacent, though.  This is only the close-in fireball – the blast and temperature effects would extend much further than this (although subject to the same proportionality).

Actual Effects and Safe Distances

Now that we start to talk about actual damage and death, it is important to realize that these things are not clear-cut.  Apart from extremely close to a bomb’s detonation, where everyone will be killed, and everything destroyed, and extremely far from its detonation, where no-one will be killed and nothing destroyed, in the range between ‘very close’ and ‘safely far away’ there is a sliding scale of death and destruction.  There are zones where 90% of ‘average’ buildings will be destroyed, and other zones where only 10% of average buildings will be destroyed, and the same for where varying percentages of people may be killed or injured.

Continue reading at Code Green Prep: How Close Can You Be to Survive a Nuclear Bomb Blast?

images-1

As summer heats up, so does the Hollywood box office. With so many remakes and sequels being made, it seems that no original plot can be written in Hollywood these days. World War Z is no exception; it is based on the zombie-apocalypse book of the same title by Max Brooks.

And like most blockbuster “disaster movies”, World War Z offers viewers a tightly tailored agenda as to who they should look to for guidance and safety during disasters.  This is typical of end-of-the-world entertainment and a key component of predictive programming, as we saw in Contagion, Children of Men, Outbreak, and many others.

The World Health Organization (WHO), FEMA, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are typically glorified as saviors, even though local populations are often decimated or under strict control of local authoritarians.

World War Z capitalizes on a loosely defined “zombie outbreak” that is sweeping the planet at a ferocious speed with the main star, Brad Pitt, portraying a former United Nations investigator. Coupled with the United States Navy, the reluctant hero Pitt goes from retired house-husband to full-blown, globe-trotting diplomat within a few hours.

The film uses the zombie outbreak as a means to sensationalize the pandemic and ensuing global martial law. The movie also places heavy emphasis on Israel, with numerous scenes glorifying their decision to build massive walls around their cities; something that they are doing in real life in order to edge out Palestinians.  Hollywood propaganda often uses these types of dehumanizing associations so that viewers will equate such fictional tactics with real-world situations.

Geopolitics aside, we also see Hollywood offering a plan of action for the consumer herd; if such large-scale catastrophes were to actually occur, we should stay indoors, trust our government to take care of the situation, and go along with whatever authoritarian plan is suggested, like good little sheep, and await our heroes at the United Nations, FEMA, and the World Health Organization to save us.

Desensitizing Us to Immeasurable Violence

world_warZbusWhile the sheer number of humans portrayed as “infected” seems unprecedented compared to most zombie-style flicks, World War Z finds a strange balance between the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of our fellow humans and in not filling the screen with blood and gore with its PG-13 rating.

There are multiple scenes, such as the one depicted here, in which thousands are killed, desensitizing the viewer to large-scale violence, and yet, I must point out that there is a distinct lack of carnage and torn, bleeding flesh, which is very surprising for Hollywood. Throughout the various scenes of immeasurable violence, the viewer is never quite exposed to seeing the actual deaths of so many – instead, it is implied, and understood, somewhere in our minds, that dozens of men, women, and children were just shot to death.

I’m not sure which is worse – the depiction of a grotesquely infected “zombie” being slashed with a large meat cleaver, spewing zombie blood everywhere, or the ultra-realistic, albeit somewhat blurred and distant masses of teachers, construction workers, children, and housewives being shot by men in various uniforms.

Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media in order to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by those in power. If, and when, these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with [the concept] and will accept them as ‘natural progressions’; thus, lessening any possible public resistance and commotion. Predictive programming, therefore, may be considered as a veiled form of preemptive mass manipulation or mind control, courtesy of our puppet masters. – Alan Watt

The United Nations

The movie, as stated, relies heavily upon agencies such as the World Health Organization and United Nations to save the planet from certain doom.

Strangely enough, Brad Pitt, who not only stars in, but produced the movie, has very close ties to these very same organizations; he is married to Angelina Jolie, the former Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Refugee Agency. She was recently promoted to Special Envoy of United Nations High Commissioner António Guterres:

In her new and expanded role, she will be focusing on major crises resulting in mass population displacements; undertaking advocacy and representing UNHCR and Guterres at the diplomatic level; and engaging with decision-makers on global displacement issues. – United Nations HCR

While I applaud Jolie’s efforts in promoting diplomacy around the world, as well as Brad Pitt’s gallant effort to help rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, there is another layer to their fame.  The two of them are most certainly privy to interesting cocktail parties of the world’s elite, and as such, rub elbows with some of the most powerful decision makers.

As a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a think-tank for America’s war machine, Jolie parades around the world as a promoter of peace and unity – on the outside. She fancies the term, “humanitarian intervention” a lot, but as we see in Libya, Afghanistan, Iran, and soon, Syria, “humanitarian intervention” often entails imposing a strict no-fly zone, as well as sanctions that prevent food and medicine from reaching those in need.

I can’t help but notice these reoccurring “humanitarian” roles for the two of them, both on and off screen. I would genuinely like to believe they are good people, but they are both so entrenched in globalist propaganda, that it makes it very difficult to do so.

Over the Horizon

The globalist organizations that manage our daily existence have been pushing this disaster agenda very hard over the past few years and there have been a select few messages involved, namely, “prepare for a massive disaster” and “follow the orders of those in charge – it’s for your own safety.

Immediately following the Boston Bombings, we witnessed a swarm of over 9,000 law enforcement officials descend upon Watertown, Massachusetts, conducting door-to-door searches, imposing curfews, and placing the Boston suburb under what can only be effectively described as martial law. When the search was over, most residents of the tiny suburb cheered for their armed oppressors protectors. The only thing missing was a ticker-tape parade.

Elsewhere in current events, we’ve witnessed the Department of Homeland Security purchasing over one and a half billion rounds of pistol ammunition; far more than the entire federal law enforcement agency would reasonably use in 15 years for training and drills.

Government preparedness literature is being pushed now more than ever, with initiatives such as Ready.gov, as well as state-sponsored activity for Homeland Security.

Here in Oklahoma, the radio airwaves are filled with commercials from Homeland Security, asking, “Are you ‘Red Dirt’ Ready?” – alluding to the state’s iconic red dirt. Contacts within the State Health Department and emergency preparedness sectors inform me they have ramped up efforts for continuity programs in both the public and private domain; hospitals, government offices, and critical infrastructure are being audited and tested in an ever-increasing frequency.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) even cashed in on the ever-growing zombie popularity with their recent novella about preparing for a zombie apocalypse. They believe it is an “entertaining” way to get the message of preparedness across. While I agree, to an extent, it is also eerily reminiscent of the Soviet-era “Duck and Cover” routines, as well as the iconic cartoons warning of nuclear blasts.

So, just what exactly is coming over the horizon that we are not privy to know? What is Hollywood, as well as other globalist institutions, trying to prepare us for? It this really as simple as making a buck from a blockbuster movie? Or is it all closely aligned?

Life often imitates art.

Kevin Hayden is a former New Orleans police officer-turned-truth seeker.  He endured Hurricane Katrina’s chaos and societal collapse in the days following and after 5 years in New Orleans, moved to Oklahoma.  Kevin currently runs www.TruthisTreason.net and promotes education regarding our monetary, food, and foreign policies while building an off-grid shipping container homestead.  He is a former investigator for Big Oil, has appeared on numerous radio shows, and enjoys helping people become better prepared for disasters.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple


Contributed by Kevin Hayden of Truth Is Treason

– See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/world-war-z-emergency-preparedness-united-nations-and-predictive-programming_062013#sthash.UNGPCRR8.dpuf

Doce Fire Burn Scar and Retardant Trail

acquired June 23, 2013                                     download large image (5 MB, JPEG, 2528×2528)
acquired June 23, 2013                                     download  GeoTIFF file (11 MB, TIFF)
acquired June 23, 2013                                     download  Google Earth file (KML)
Doce Fire Burn Scar and Retardant Trail                                

acquired June 23, 2013                                     download large image (2 MB, JPEG, 2832×1888)

On June 23, 2013, the Advanced Land Imager (ALI) on the Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) satellite captured this natural-color view of a burn scar left by the Doce fire, which burned in June 2013 near Prescott, Arizona.

The fire burned through an area that contained heavy timber and brush. In the image above, charred vegetation appears grey, while unburned areas are dull green. Areas with minimal vegetation are tan. The rust-colored band along the northern edge of the burn perimeter is the residue of flame retardants dropped by aircraft.

Firefighters used two DC-10 air tankers to battle the blaze, flying a total of 75 sorties that delivered nearly 335,000 gallons of retardant. It is unusual for flame retardant residue to be visible in satellite imagery, but “at 12,000 gallons per drop, DC-10’s paint quite a strip,” noted Jan Johnson, a scientist at the Remote Sensing Applications Center.

The lower image is a photograph of the retardant trail taken by firefighters on the ground. – Earth Observatory

  • References

  • InciWeb (2013, June 25) Doce fire. Accessed June 25, 2013.

NASA Earth Observatory image by Jesse Allen and Robert Simmon, using EO-1 ALI data provided courtesy of the NASA EO-1 team. Lower photograph courtesy of the Southwest Area Type 1 Incident Management Team. Caption by Adam Voiland, with information from Mike Struble.

Instrument: 
EO-1 – ALI

Preliminary Earthquake Report

Notice! This is a computer-generated report – this event has not reviewed by a seismologist!

EDIS Number: EQ-20130630-336621-PER
Magnitude: 4.9
Mercalli scale: 5
Date-Time [UTC]: Sunday, 30th June 2013 at 04:39 PM
Local Date/Time: Monday, July 31, 2013 at 12:39 in the moorning at epicenter
Coordinate: 14° 36.732, 75° 21.834
Depth: 49.80 km (30.94 miles)
Hypocentrum: Shallow depth
Class: Light
Region: South America
Country: Peru
Location: 20.32 km (12.63 miles) S of Rio Grande, Ica, Peru
Source: USGS
Generated Tsunami: Not or no data
Damage: Not or no data
The potential impact of the earthquake
Almost everyone feels movement. Sleeping people are awakened. Doors swing open or close. Dishes are broken. Pictures on the wall move. Small objects move or are turned over. Trees might shake. Liquids might spill out of open containers.

RSOE EDIS – Preliminary Earthquake Report in Rio Grande, Ica, Peru.

By

After moving through the Philippines, strengthening Tropical Storm Rumbia is now on a collision course with South China.

The AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center expects Rumbia to slam onshore early Tuesday morning (local time, Monday afternoon EDT) between Hong Kong and the Luichow Peninsula.

More specifically, landfall will occur between the Leizhou Bay and Yangjiang.

Rumbia will be a strong tropical storm or minimal typhoon at that time, but its impacts on South China will be the same regardless of its exact classification.

RELATED: AccuWeather.com Hurricane Center China Weather Center AccuWeather.com International Blog

The compact nature of Rumbia’s damaging winds will confine wind speeds of 50 to 80 mph (80 to 130 kph) to within a small area along the coast where Rumbia makes landfall.

Rumbia’s storm surge will be responsible for water levels reaching 2 to 4 feet (0.5 to 1.2 meters), perhaps up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) in isolated areas, above normal high-tide along the coastline, according to AccuWeather.com Meteorologist Anthony Sagliani.

Flooding rain will definitely be the most widespread danger to residents in South China.

Rumbia’s heaviest rain will remain on its southern and western side, bringing the possibility of 5 to 10 inches (120 mm to 250 mm) of rain to communities from northern Hainan Island to the western half of Guangdong province.

While locally higher amounts are possible (especially in the higher terrain), Rumbia will move quick enough through South China to prevent widespread rain totals in excess of a foot (300 mm).

However, serious flash flooding is still a significant concern since the majority of Rumbia’s rain will pour down in 12 to 24 hours. Mudslides could also unfold in the higher terrain.

Hong Kong should escape the worst of Rumbia with squally rain bands instead delivering 1 to 2 inches of rain, but residents are urged to not let their guard down.

AccuWeather.com International Expert Meteorologist Jim Andrews warns that a track closer to the city than currently expected would increase the threat for a period of damaging winds.

After making landfall early Tuesday morning, Rumbia should dissipate by Wednesday.

By Suspicious0bservers

REPEAT LINKS:

WORLD WEATHER:
NDBC Buoys: http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
Tropical Storms: http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/
HurricaneZone Satellite Images: http://www.hurricanezone.net/westpaci…
Weather Channel: http://www.weather.com/
NOAA Environmental Visualization Laboratory: http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/Default.php
Pressure Maps: http://www.woweather.com/cgi-bin/expe…
Satellite Maps: http://www.woweather.com/cgi-app/sate…
Forecast Maps: http://www.woweather.com/weather/maps…
EL DORADO WORLD WEATHER MAP: http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/…
TORCON: http://www.weather.com/news/tornado-t… [Tornado Forecast for the day]
HURRICANE TRACKER: http://www.weather.com/weather/hurric…

US WEATHER:
Precipitation Totals: http://www.cocorahs.org/ViewData/List…
GOES Satellites: http://rsd.gsfc.nasa.gov/goes/
THE WINDMAP: http://hint.fm/wind/
Severe Weather Threats: http://www.weather.com/news/weather-s…
Canada Weather Office Satellite Composites: http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/satell…
Temperature Delta: http://www.intellicast.com/National/T…
Records/Extremes: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/rec…

SPACEWEATHER:
Spaceweather: http://spaceweather.com
SOHO Solar Wind: http://umtof.umd.edu/pm/
HAARP Data Meters: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/dat…
Planetary Orbital Diagram – Ceres1 JPL: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr…
SDO: http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/
Helioviewer: http://www.helioviewer.org/
SOHO: http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-b…
Stereo: http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/i…
SOLARIMG: http://solarimg.org/artis/
iSWA: http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html
NASA ENLIL SPIRAL: http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov:8080/IswaSy…
NOAA ENLIL SPIRAL: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/wsa-enlil/
GOES Xray: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sxi/goes15/i…
Gamma Ray Bursts: http://grb.sonoma.edu/
BARTOL Cosmic Rays: http://neutronm.bartol.udel.edu//spac…
ISWA: http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov:8080/I…
NOAA Sunspot Classifications: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/lates…
GONG: http://gong2.nso.edu/dailyimages/
GONG Magnetic Maps: http://gong.nso.edu/data/magmap/ondem…

MISC Links:
JAPAN Radiation Map: http://jciv.iidj.net/map/
RADIATION Network: http://radiationnetwork.com/
LISS: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring…
QUAKES LIST FULL: http://www.emsc-csem.org/Earthquake/s…
RSOE: http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php [That cool alert map I use]
Moon: http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pac…