Key West, FL sets new subzero "record low" temperature – Update: now snowing!

KeyWestCurrents_071109

That windchill is vicious, be sure to dress warmly going outside at Key West. Cold kills. Actually the new record low was colder than that shown above. It hit -27F earlier. See the complete NOAA report here (PDF)

OK fun aside, this is obviously another ASOS thermohygrometer malfunction, but one in the opposite direction that we usually see. But, there’s an interesting twist here that will provide a useful test of the integrity of data handling policy within NOAA/NWS. Please read on.

Here is what our offending ASOS in Key West looks like. It was recently surveyed on 6/1/2009 and was the last USHCN station surveyed in Florida to complete the USHCN state survey.

Key West ASOS with maintenance technician at ready

Key West airport ASOS with maintenance technician at ready - click for image gallery

Early in June, there was an incident in Honolulu International Airport where the ASOS station there malfunctioned and it set a string of new high temperature records for Honolulu.

Those records still stand for Honolulu despite protest even though it was clear that fixing the ASOS sensor dropped the temperature dramatically and immediately. I did an analysis at the time comparing PHNL to another COOP station just four miles away. The differences were obvious.

Graph of data - click for larger image

Graph of PHNL and PTWC station data for June 2009 – click for larger image

So now the question is, we have another obvious malfunction, but in the opposite direction.

Will NOAA keep this new “record low” which like the Honolulu record highs a fault of a ASOS equipment failure? Or, will they throw it out?

To be consistent with the Honolulu decision they would naturally keep it, though in both cases, logic dictates the data should be thrown out.

The other question is: How long will it take them to detect and fix this ASOS station? As of midnight on 7/11/2009 it was still reporting -13F

KeyWest_summary_071109

Here is the URL to watch for yourself to see when NOAA fixes the problem:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KEYW.html

A big WUWT hat tip to Corky Boyd for this one.

UPDATE: Either the sensor has started working again on its own, or has been repaired. However there’s something still not quite right as it is now apparently snowing at 9:53 AM in Key West.

KeyWest_summary_071209

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
crosspatch

I have spent my life working on electronics. Things fail. I would not trust a reading from a single sensor, particularly if it is 5 or more years old. I would feel a lot better if they put an array of three sensors and raw data included the output of all three. If they are all within some agreed tolerance, then the average of the three is the reported temperature.

Cornfed

I thought it was a bit nippy when I stepped outside! Hopefully it will get rid of all those pesky iguanas down here.

John F. Hultquist

Don’t you just love this one? It is note worthy because of the semi-official response to the Honolulu incident. Obviously, they cannot correct the Key West data without making the earlier ‘no legal authority”- (insert rest of bs here) twaddle even more ridiculous. What a hoot!

E.M.Smith

A man with one watch knows what time it is. A man with 2 watches is never sure…
FWIW:
Today was a beautiful fall day here in Silicon Valley, California. It started off a bit cold at 55F on the patio at 8am, but by noon was warmer. Unfortunately, at 1 pm we had sprinkles. Now, there are 2 weeks in mid August where we rarely, but sometimes, have a bit of rain. Occasionally even a thundershower. Typically followed by an “indian summer” until Halloween. In 25 years or so I can remember exactly one halloween where we were rained out (and another where sprinkles ended “Just In Time” for the kids to trick-or-treat… So this fit the mold of a wonderful fall day. It didn’t rain and the clouds turned to scattered cloud late in the afternoon. Never got too hot (I’d guess it was about 78 F max).
It did turn back into overcast at the end of the day and now, at a little after 11 pm we’re back to 59F on the patio and headed lower into the night. All it all a fine and typical fall day.
One Small Problem: It’s the middle of Summer.
July 11 is “supposed” to be 90 something with a chance of a sporadic 100 F maybe dropping to a comfortable 80 something at night with a hope of the occasional 70 something at 2 am so you can cool off enough to sleep.
Welcome to live under The Big Blue Blob here on the West Coast of North America … and it isn’t an ASOS failure…
IMHO, this is the “mid August” cool snap with a bit of rain… it’s just a month early. As spring came a month late, fall is arriving a month early. We’ve lost 2 months from the middle of summer…
While I agree that the temperature recording and reporting system is full of failures, and it IS an interesting question what they will do with the obviously wrong low in Florida, given the history… The fact is that there is something big forming. It is not happening fast, but it is happening. We are getting “way cold” temperatures from places all over the planet and if the trend continues it is “not good”… and there is every indication that the trend is continuing.
Everyone is wishing and hoping that it’s just cool enough to spike AGW as a thesis. Everyone is whistling past the graveyard here. We have kids dying in Peru from cold, Argentina talking about stopping ALL wheat exports, Australia and New Zealand opening ski season early, Canada having a reduction in wheat yield due to anomalous cold weather, snow in the middle of summer in places that ought not to have it. Look, it’s getting cold. Now. Yes, it is a slow “boil the frog” approach of cold, but are we really no smarter than frogs?
So please, keep up the pressure on broken thermometers, but look out the window too! At least under The Big Blue Blob of cold on the west coast, it’s not even remotely a question. It’s cold. And it’s not just weather. We’ve had a late cool spring, one or maybe 2 hot days, and now we’re headed into an early cool fall. I don’t know where to get unpolluted data to show it, but I can tell you for sure it’s happening…

par5

Apparently, they are no longer logging measurements from Key West- it shows N/A for the last two data passes.

rbateman

Copy that report and send it straight to Congress.
But make sure their medical staff is on full alert.
Somebody’s bound to die laughing.
Send it it to the NY Times.

Leon Brozyna

If the vegatation around the ASOS is dead, the problem is more serious than the more likely cause of instrument failure. So, dispensing with any rips in the space/time continuum, bet if the instrument failure was for temps in the other direction (record highs), it would probably take several days to catch on – but the data would remain, as it was in Hawaii.

anna v

E.M.Smith (23:26:10) :
From the tempertate region of Greece, we are also getting weather appropriate for September and not for July : cool nights, livable days. July is the month we hit 40C for a few days. If it is sporadic we are happy, if it lasts for more than three days it is heat wave. This year it is an airconditioned summer, barely over 37C some days and below 30C for most. It has happened before sometime in the 90s.

par5

Well, now it shows N/A for the last three data passes. Seems as though NOAA pays attention to your blog. Everyone keeps complaining that these guys don’t do quality control- but why should they? You do it for free….

Phillip Bratby

E M Smith: Same here in England. The Met Office forecast a ‘BBQ Summer’. After a few warm days for Wimbledon (when the government warned us repeatedly of the dangers to our health of this beautiful and warm weather), we are now told that the jet stream has moved to its autumn position and is bringing us cool and wet weather, with no chnage in sight.

Dave Wendt

Anthony;
With all that stimulus money out there that has yet to find a home in the pocket of one of the Dem’s contributors, there should be quite a nice business opportunity here for an intrepid entrepreneur like yourself. A quick scout through your Weather Shop site indicates that you could supply a Davis VantagePro2 Plus with all available bells and whistles for each of the 1221 USHCN sites for about $2 million plus, of course, installation and administration costs. After adding in the usual $500 hammer federal price escalator, I would suggest an initial bid proposal in the $50 million range which, after the usual unforseen difficulties justify the mandatory 100% federal contract overrun, should yield you about $100 mil gross. Given your leading role in the Surfacestations Project, I’m sure there will be some who may accuse you of taking advantage of a situation that you yourself created, but hey, if it’s good enough for Algore and all his alarmist brohiems, it ought to be good enough for you as well. The only real problem will be in generating the initial $250,000 in capital for the political contributions necessary to get the project off the ground but, given the now thoroughly established return on equity ratio for political contributions, you should have no difficulty convincing a banker to front you the money. As to my own creative contributions to the enterprise, I’m willing to leave it to your discretion, but I think 5% of the gross seems fair.

tallbloke

par5 (23:42:22) :
Apparently, they are no longer logging measurements from Key West- it shows N/A for the last two data passes.

Funny that. The security cameras in city centres never seem to work when organizers of protest marches request footage after the event to calculate attendance numbers either.
Two words:
Selection bias.

crosspatch – you are not seriously suggesting a consensus approach, are you?
You have learnt nothing here………….

gtrip

I think I have finally figured out how global warming came to be: TMI and mankind’s need for worth (be it through power or benevolence or both).
A side note…why does mankind always see the end happening with flames and fire….why never cold and freezing? Is it because mankind flourished in temperate climates and peak heat was more uncomfortable than the experienced cold?
The amount of time and energy wasted on this issue is mind boggling. Just think of all of the real productiveness that has been wasted, lost forever. We (“skeptics”) do it in the name of truth and liberty. AGW does it in the name of control and global governance. It feels like we are in a really bad sci-fi movie or an episode of the twilight zone.
Used to be that you could “complain about the weather, but there was nothing you could do about it”. Now in our self aggrandizement, we say that, yes, we can do something about the weather…but it’s gonna cost ya…and though there is no way to measure what we do to change the weather…we have computer models that tell us what is truth.
I have nothing against monitoring the weather. I took my job in the Air Force doing just that very seriously. But I never in my wildest dreams thought that my data collection would be used for this. This episode in American and world history has really challenged what kind of future we are giving our posterity.
I hope Anthony doesn’t mind me venting on his weblog, I chose an article that I figure won’t get as many visitors as the other excellent articles he makes us aware of. I would have posted it over on climatechange but all 17 people there might not get to see it before it would get erased.

I live in NE Pennsylvania and this is the coldest summer I can ever remember in my lifetime. National Weather Service data from Central Park, NYC just 2 hours away proves me right. It was the coolest June since 1958 and the eight coolest on record. ( the late 1800’s). Here we are in mid-July and that trend has likely worsened because the past two weeks have been cold and the forecast shows another cool week on the way. Yet I look up in the sky and realize that the greenhouse blanket of CO2 is ever present. It has increased from 3.15 to 3.85 parts per 10,000 since 1960. We have 2/3rds more of a CO2 molecule per 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of course natural variability is now in charge of thing way up in the sky. Our entire climate history was “natural variability” except for the 20 yr period from about 1978 to 1998. They take us for CHUMPS!
Central Park June Records
http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&issuedby=OKX&product=PNS&format=CI&version=4&glossary=0

UK Sceptic

I’ve noticed that some of the leaves have started to turn already. The temperature is hardly “barbecue” and the rain is heavy and frequent. I wonder what the Met Office and “Deep Black” has to say about that?

Tim B

Sorry I know this is off topic.
But here’s a really telling article about how the BBC handles the issue of climate change:
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1199104/Peter-Sissons-BBC-standards-falling–bosses-scared-it.html
Very interesting!

Richard Sanders

Tim B looking at that Peter Sissons article it includes this quote..
“‘The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that “the science is settled”, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.”
The fact is that there is almost no real work, i.e. published science, being produced by reputable scientists and climatologists that contradicts the concensus position on global warming.
Richard

CodeTech

Richard, that depends who gets to define “reputable” and who chooses what gets published.

Highlander

So then, my question is just this: If that sensor has been behaving as erratically as is revealed by the record, will the whole record be considered in question?
.
When I was serving in the USN as a Calibration Tech (metrology), and a calibration standard evinced such erratic behavior, then all of the test instruments which had been calibrated using that standard would be recalled for evaluation to determine whether their accuracy had been affected.
.
If the NOAA decides to keep the high temperatures while tossing the low temperatures, then they will have introduced an unknown error into their records.
.
Doing such would be beyond the pale of crass dishonesty.

Michael Ronayne

Please be carful with those headlines. For 10 seconds, I though that Florida had been saved from invasive tropical species.
Mike

Richard Sanders

CodeTech
Define it as you will. I take it you are agreeing that there is almost no published science that contradicts the concensus position.
Richard

thechuckr

gtrip –
“A side note…why does mankind always see the end happening with flames and fire….why never cold and freezing? Is it because mankind flourished in temperate climates and peak heat was more uncomfortable than the experienced cold?”
Robert Frost said it best. Thie poem is amazingly apropos.
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost

starzmom

one heck of a temperature drop between 8 and 9 pm. surely somebody would have noticed? haha

bill

UK Sceptic (02:19:59) :
I’ve noticed that some of the leaves have started to turn already. The temperature is hardly “barbecue” and the rain is heavy and frequent.

In sunny Gloucestershire its another warm sunny day, showers and cool for last 2 days but back to typicalearly july weather. Have used 1500litres of collected rainwater on garden and only 500l remain.
You’re obviously suffering with weather. It is currently 19.4C (max 21.9) Average oxford Jun = 19.57 july 21.73
The UK has nano-climates. When the rains flooded warwickshire, 50km south we were not touched. When Tewkesbury was flooded, 30km SW we were not touched (other than have to supply water to friends in cheltenham). I remember struggling with my bicycle through 40cm drifts of snow to get to work feeling very pleased with myself, only to find 7km further south there was no snow (that of course was in the 80s -hardly any snow since then!)

An Inquirer

Although I do find interesting the references to unusually cool events, I do think it would be appropriate to also discuss the current hot spell in Texas. I am sure that I am one of many who use this blog as a major source of information on what is happening in the world of weather & climate.

Michael,
Those -11 temps should kill off those invasive Pythons too…

imapopulistnow

I’ve got a song running through my head…….”What’s logic got to do with it, got to do with it? What’s logic but a second hand emotion…..”

Fred from Canuckistan . . .

Well that should seriously help the Frozen Orange Juice industry that is a mainstay of the Florida economy.

Dan Lee

Richard Sanders,
Perhaps you could start by providing a link to the published science that demonstrates that mankind’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is a major driver of global climate.
There has been plenty of published work based on the -assumption- that that’s the case (e.g. the entire IPCC project), but I’ve never seen a published study that actually proves that mankind’s CO2 caused the ~1 C per century warming.
I assume it was sometime around or before 1988 when Hansen gave his sworn scientific testimony before congress that mankind’s CO2 was doing this. But I’ve never seen the published study that he was basing this on.

Jan F

Someone at the airport should have noticed the problem.
Here are some metars (actual reports) from the airport which also show the problem:
KEYW 120053Z AUTO 11006KT 10SM CLR M27/ A3013 RMK AO2 SLP200 T1267 FZRANO=
KEYW 112353Z 11008KT 10SM CLR 32/23 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP194 T03200230 53001 $=
KEYW 112153Z 10011KT 10SM CLR M26/ A3009 RMK AO2 SLP188 T1256=
KEYW 112053Z 09008KT 10SM CLR 32/23 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP192 T03200230 56015=
KEYW 111953Z COR 10010KT 10SM CLR M33/ A3011 RMK AO2 SLP195 T1328 $=
KEYW 111953Z 10010KT 10SM CLR M33/ A3011 RMK AO2 SLP195 T1328 $=
Notice that the first line is an automatic report (AUTO), the others are manual reports, one has even a correction although I can’t see what is corrected.
for thos who don know how to decode this: 32/23 means temp 32C dewpoint 23C; M33/ means temp -33C, no dewpoint.

anna v

Richard Sanders (03:03:59) :
Tim B looking at that Peter Sissons article it includes this quote..
“‘The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that “the science is settled”, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.”
The fact is that there is almost no real work, i.e. published science, being produced by reputable scientists and climatologists that contradicts the concensus position on global warming.
Richard

You are wrong sir. There are many many publications refuting the “consensus” alarmism:” CO2 is a pollutant and the sky is falling” Go to the skeptics links on the side bar to find them, because it is not worth my effort to do it for you.

Dave H

They are now reporting light snow in Key West

wws

I’m in Texas, Inquirer, so I got me a front row seat.
And actually, it’s not unusually hot – it’s the lack of moisture that is the real problem. Every summer here, the temperatures will head up towards 100
and above, but you can count on a line of thunderstorms coming through and dousing everything. After that, the temp drops down into the 70’s and takes a couple of days to build back up. If it rains once every 3 days or so, the temperatures *never* get very high. (And we’ve had summers like that occasionally)
This summer, there’s almost no rain – in places like South Texas, there is no rain, period. They’re getting the winds straight off the Chihuahuan desert to the immediate southwest (rather than moisture from the gulf) and as long as those macro wind patterns hold, there will be no rain. And when there’s no rain, the land just bakes in the sun day after day and the temps go up and stay up, day after day, week after week. That’s what’s “normal” without rain.
Something has to break the continental wind pattern (ie, jet stream has to shift again) before this pattern will change and let moisture back. It’s not
the first time this has happened – people are starting to wonder whether this will look like the great drought of the 50’s, when there was very little rain in Texas for 7 years running and most of the agricultural and ranching industries were wiped out. Yes, it could be happening again – only time will tell.

John F. Hultquist

Richard Sanders (03:03:59) : “The fact is . . .”
It is difficult to have a discussion when you define the terms such that what you read and believe is produced by reputable scientists and climatologists and what I read is produced by crackpots and charlatans. So I’ll just mention that I think there is a lot of good science being done but much of it is tainted by association with the UN and other folks pushing for one world government without liberty. If we could remove this issue from the climate science I think the level of discussion would improve.
Meanwhile, some of us have hard-drives crammed with interesting articles questioning and even refuting the AGW hypothesis. It only takes one. Why we save more than one is another issue.

Paul Coppin

Richard Sanders (03:03:59) :
Tim B looking at that Peter Sissons article it includes this quote..
“‘The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that “the science is settled”, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.”
The fact is that there is almost no real work, i.e. published science, being produced by reputable scientists and climatologists that contradicts the concensus position on global warming.
Richard

This is the God Analogy. “We haven’t been able to prove He exists, but everybody knows He does, His works are everywhere, so prove us wrong. So far, nobody has…”
Like the the old saw, “correlation doesn’t equal causation”, we can add a new one: “consensus doesn’t equal causation”.
The chaotic complexity of climate has been chipped away at, but we are nowhere near an understanding of its complexity. We’re getting better at sorting out microclimates, but the science of AGW is still a hodgepodge of antecdotes. The “consensus” is a religion, not a body of fact.

AnonyMoose

The above link to the NOAA page for Key West Airport says “Light snow” in the Weather column. Temperature is NA.

Paul Coppin

Eyewww, that should have been “anecdotes”… 🙁

Paul Coppin

BTW, we were 9C/48F in the Great Lakes region this morning. About 20F below typical for the middle of July.

WTF

12 09:53 E 12 1.75 Light Snow FEW0 26 NA NA NA 30.13 1020.4
Apparently it is snowing in Key West as of 9:53 am. Huh

J Thomason

It’s saying “light snow” for 9:53 AM.

Rod Smith

Jan F:
“KEYW 112053Z 09008KT 10SM CLR 32/23 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP192 T03200230 56015=
KEYW 111953Z COR 10010KT 10SM CLR M33/ A3011 RMK AO2 SLP195 T1328 $=”
“Notice that the first line is an automatic report (AUTO), the others are manual reports, one has even a correction although I can’t see what is corrected.”
—-
It looks to me like the wind speed and direction have been “corrected.” Then next the “COR” is resent without the “COR.” This seems strange to me, but maybe it was part of a panic attack!
One wonders if the correction is to a manual reading error, or to instrument malfunction.

Rod Smith

Whoops – I didn’t look far enough — getting old I guess. The temperature, altimeter, fahrenheit temperature, and sea level pressure groups are also changed.

Bruce Cobb

Richard Sanders said: The fact is that there is almost no real work, i.e. published science, being produced by reputable scientists and climatologists that contradicts the concensus position on global warming.
First, you are wrong. Have you even tried looking? I highly doubt it.
Secondly, the late great Michael Crichton had the following wise words on so-called consensus science”:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.“
Don’t look now, but your highly-cherished “consensus” is in the process of being undermined and overturned. Hopefully, before a great deal of financial and social damage is done, but the harm that has been done to science itself is incalculable.

P Walker

Dave Wendt ,
Only 5% ? Come on man , we’re talking government money here . Besides , this project should be worth at least 100 mil .

Mac

Whether its a malfunctioning sensor or UHI, i think the scientist charged with maintaining the temperature record have put too much faith in their ability to adjust for such issues. From the article regarding the use of raw satellite data to the continuous tampering with historical temperature records it should be blatantly apparent that either the scientist involved have an agenda or they feel simply recording, compliling, and reporting raw data isn’t a sufficient task to meet the needs of their egos.

Richard Sanders (04:38:19) :

“I take it you are agreeing that there is almost no published science that contradicts the concensus [sic] position.”

Sanders, you are embarassingly wrong. This isn’t the realclimate echo chamber, where you can throw out a provably wrong statement like that without danger of it being refuted.
Sorry to expose your appalling ignorance on this subject, but you can begin rectifying that deficiency by reading the following papers. When you’re finished, I have lots more:
Peer-Reviewed papers falsifying AGW:
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
– Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
– J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/AGW_hypothesis_disproved.pdf
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
– Lee C. Gerhard
– Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
– V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
– Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1999
– Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and ’storylines’
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
– R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
– R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
– R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 200
– Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth’s rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
– C.D. Idso
Evidence for “publication Bias” Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 200
– Patrick J. Michaels
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
– W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
– Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
– Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
– Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
– M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 200
– Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
– E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
– A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
– Indur M. Goklany
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
– Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
– Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
– Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
– L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
– Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
– A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
– Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
– Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 200
– Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
– Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
– Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
– Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
– Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
– N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
– Vincent Gray
The Fraud Allegation Against Some Climatic Research of Wei-Chyung Wang
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 985-995, December 2007)
– Douglas J. Keenan
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
– Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)
– David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis
The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 351-356, 1 May 2003)
– H. Jelbring
The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 2, pp. 217-238, March 2005)
– A. Rörsch, R. Courtney, D. Thoenes
The IPCC future projections: are they plausible?
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 155–162, August 199
– Vincent Gray
The IPCC: Structure, Processes and Politics Climate Change – the Failure of Science
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1073-1078, December 2007)
– William J.R. Alexander
The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias: Summary of Findings: Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 311-328, July 2002)
– Wojick D. E.
“The Wernerian syndrome”; aspects of global climate change; an analysis of assumptions, data, and conclusions
(Environmental Geosciences, v. 3, no. 4, p. 204-210, December 1996)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Uncertainties in assessing global warming during the 20th century: disagreement between key data sources
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 685-706, September 2006)
– Maxim Ogurtsov, Markus Lindholm
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf

ohioholic
Leon Brozyna

Hmmmm – Light snow in Key West?
What’s that you say?
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Right.

timetochooseagain

Mister Sanders can’t even spell consensus!
Well, let’s see, I have a little problem with his statements-when referring to the “consensus” he is vague-what is the consensus he refers to? Is it that there has been some warming? If so, I suppose he is right-but the mere presence of change is neither proof of AGW nor cause for alarm. Is it that human beings must have some effect? Again, he would be right, however this is again a qualitative statement and the basic agreement is hardly cause for alarm and allows for a trivial influence. Perhaps he refers to the curious IPCC statement “Most of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is very likely [90% probability] due to observed increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. Well, here it becomes tricky. This allows for a 10% probability that anywhere from 0 to 50% is the actual human effect, and 90% probability that it is greater than 50%. There is nothing especially objectionable about this. After all, we are talking about fractions of fractions of a degree. Alarm, in fact, demands that something like 250% of the warming be due to greenhouse gases-now, obviously one needs something to cancel out the rest but the parameter of choice, aerosols, is so uncertain as to render the entire exercise a farce.
All of these points are STILL tangential to the question of policy and impacts, but by that point one is multiplying so many probability figures in the chain of inferences that the numbers you are looking at are tiny-so who gives a hoot?
That besides the point, apart from some trivial points of agreement, the literature is chock full of dissenting voices on every issue. So mister Sanders, I would be prepared to create an extensive list of references to papers which, in one way or another, contradict alarm-how many would it take to satisfy you?