Official for what?, I would have to ask. Being both located in unincorporated Curry County, neither of those two reporting stations are within the city of Brookings itself, and neither constitutes a representative reading for the municipality at large. Each constitutes a record for its own situs only. I have two piece of property in Brookings, both within the city limits and both with a mile and a half of each other. I recorded high temperatures that day of 92F at the one and 107F at the other. Though embracing a small expanse of territory, Brookings has a multitude of microclimates and one simply has to accept that the climate in your yard may be different than that of your neighbor at the other end of the street. Gardeners in Brookings see this variability all the time in terms of what will grow where.

Too many alterations.

I’ve looked at clods from both sides, now . . .

(Sorry, JC)

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0434(1998)013%3C0702%3ATSWOSB%3E2.0.CO%3B2&ct=1&SESSID=9e3568cd5dcb0ef59cf13cc0555a6cca

In the most severe Sundowner wind events, wind speeds can be of gale force or higher and surface air temperatures on the coastal plain, and even at the coast itself, can well exceed 100°F (37.8°C).

During the Painted Cave fire Sundowner event, the official Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) observing station at Santa Barbara airport reported a maximum temperature of 109°F (42.7°C), remarkable for a location on the coastal plain within 2 km of the ocean itself [where the sea surface temperature was approximately 65°F (18.3°C)]. As noted by Ryan and Burch (1992) and Ryan (1994), however, even this wind event pales in comparison to the 17 June 1859 Sundowner. A rather dramatic and colorful description of this event is provided by the following passage taken from the Coast Pilot of California (Davidson 1869).

The only incident of the simoom1 on this coast, mentioned either in its history or traditions, was that occurring at Santa Barbara, on Friday, the 17th of June 1859. The temperature during the morning was between 75° and 80°, and gradually and regularly increased until about one o’clock p.m., when a blast of hot air from the northwest swept suddenly over the town and struck the inhabitants with terror. It was quickly followed by others. At two o’clock the thermometer exposed to the air rose to 133°F, and continued at or near that point for nearly three hours, whilst the burning wind raised dense clouds of impalpable dust. No human being could withstand the heat. All betook themselves to their dwellings and carefully closed every door and window. The thick adobe walls would have required days to have become warmed, and were consequently an admirable protection. Calves, rabbits, birds, etc., were killed; trees were blighted; fruit was blasted and fell to the ground, burned only on one side; and gardens were ruined. At five o’clock the thermometer fell to 122°, and at seven it stood at 77°. A fisherman, in the channel in an open boat, came back with his arms badly blistered.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/10/do1004.xml

“Poor NASA is in quite a dither over it while the boys over at UAH are noting the decrease of heat-trapping vapor and the increse of heat-reflective low-level clods.”

Don’t you love farce?
My fault, I fear.
I thought that you’d want what I want…
Sorry, my dear!
And where are the clods
Send in the clods
Don’t bother, they’re here.

Sincere apologies to Judy Collins.

http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2008/07/gavin-schmidt-enso-adjustment-for.html

Gavin has now been asked four times on Real Climate, in his own ENSO thread, about the ENSO corrected flat trend. Namely, if the trend is not a result of ENSO, which it clearly isn’t, then what elements of natural variation have overriden the +.2 C of man made warming that we should be seeing. It speaks volumes that Gavin is running away from the question.

If we know so little about natural variability that we cannot give an attribution to a period that has already occured, then how can we assume that we know enough about natural variability to create models for the future or to isolate a climate sensitivity signal.

I completely agree. In terms of what should we do, sometimes the best thing to do is nothing. IMO, this is one of those times.

I think that we are all in agreement that the climate is changing and I think we would also agree that it has been changing since the beginning of time (so to speak). Is the recent changes down to man? Maybe at a very localised level, ie large populus areas or widespread land change, such as huge areas of the Amazon Rainforrest being cleared. I don’t see compelling evidence of AGW on a global scale though.

I think that you also have to take into account the findings from other science disciplines. Paleo-Archeology, Dendrochronoloy or Astonomy for example, all have compelling examples of how the changes to the climate are most likely to be natural. Certainly we can look at histoical records to tell us what the atmosphere was like a few million years, but we have to also consider how different the land was back then. We can show that CO2 was much higher and temperatures lower back then and try to superimpose that view on todays world, but we have to remember that the planet then had a lot more vegitation too.

So, to go back to my original opinion, sometime its best to do nothing. There is a chance I may be wrong, but I truly hope not.

If energy costs skyrocket people will stop aircinditioning and we’ll have the same response that the French had (French hospitals and Retirement homes are generally NOT air conditioned), i.e., heat related deaths will increase substantially.

“The death toll trend is hardly a counterpoint to AGW.”

What do you think will happen to the death toll trend if/when we implement the counter-AGW measures and the cost of cooling and heating rises considerably?

The death toll is a counterpoint to the costs of AGW.

The cooling of the atmosphere and oceans (at all depths) as recorded by the Argo buoys is a counterpoint to AGW.

As is the falsification of CO2 positive feedback loops, as indicated by NASA’s Aqua Satellite. (No feedback loops, virtually no CO2 warming. Period.)

Poor NASA is in quite a dither over it while the boys over at UAH are noting the decrease of heat-trapping vapor and the increse of heat-reflective low-level clods.

So are the ocean-atmospheric cycles, which have been in a warm phase, but are now beginning to revert to cool phase.

So is the surface station scandal on roller skates. (Both siting and adjustments.)

All of these developments came about AFTER CO2 AGW was a consensus. Now there is no longer a consensus.

(Not to mention that the GCMs have blown up on the pad.)