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.
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 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
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.
Did Al Gore visit Key West yesterday?
smokey,
The Hansen Mars challenge guy is wrong. There is lots more CO2 on Mars above every square meter of surface than 9 times that on Earth.
The “sea level” (a datum has been defined) pressure on Mars is somewhere around 6 to 9 hPa, call it 7.5. 95% CO2 gives close enough to 7 for government work.
But the gravity on Mars is only 0.38 that of Earth so to produce this pressure on Mars there must be 2.63 times the number of molecules so multiplying 7 by 2.63 gives 18.4 hPa if these molecules were in the Earth gravity field.
On Earth the partial pressure of CO2 is around 600ppm times the mean surface sea level pressure or 0.6hPa. 18.4/0.6 is over 30. So not 9 times but 30 times as much CO2 over every square meter of Mars as on Earth.
Mars is obviously suffering from a runaway greenhouse effect ……. isn’t it?
Bruce Cobb re: Richard – EXACTLY! Many people do not know what “science” is, that it is a process, and that following that process, called “the scientific method” may lead to FACT, which is replicable every time if it is indeed true, or it may lead to yet un-proven “possibilities”. Well said, Bruce.
Smokey re: Richard – great partial list of peer-reviewed articles/documents which provide many FACTS in opposition to AGW “possibles”, AKA “consensus”, as well as many unanswered questions.
A repeat comment of my own: The entire controversy still depends on HOW THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE IS DETERMINED! No one has answered that question to my satisfaction. We have geological and anthropomorphic historical evidence of warm periods and of ice ages, with much evidence revealing probable temperatures. We can believe with confidence that there have been periods of time when it was warmer than it is now. Current instruments for measuring land, oceans, various layers of our atmosphere vary in accuracy and, therefore, reliability, and they fail to cover the entire globe, so I cannot accept the conclusion of any entity that makes pronouncements and makes predictions about the “earth’s temperature”. The crisis is contrived by those whose objectives are power, money, and control, and they have been successful in duping well-meaning people all over the world who want to be good citizens and stewards of our planet. Unfortunately the consequences of the path we find ourselves on due to the AGW propoganda will affect every person on earth. Much scarier than “climate change”!
Hi Smokey,
First, from your CO2/Anthro component. Its interesting because if you take away the human component and then subtract the emitted from absorbed, what do you get? You see, the amount that is accumulating in the atmosphere each year is solely a function of humans. In other words, if we added no CO2 to the atmosphere, there would be no accumulation, and their may even be some decline. According to your table that is.
What you are trying to do is to say, hey look at this big number and this little number, clearly humans could not effect CO2, those stupid warmists! Which is a really appealing, easy to undestand argument to make to the nonscientist. But to do that (and get away with it) you have to hope they don’t look at the the rest of the table. That is what you are doing isn’t it? Or do you really think that table helps your argument? Cause if you think that latter, I need some light shed on your thinking.
“No wishy-washy answer: will CO2 cause runaway global warming? Or not?”
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I rarely deal with absolutes in trying to predict highly chaotic systems with multiple variables. But my answer would be (and you will have to settle for) is that CO2 has the potential too.
Should I clear away dry brush and timber from the side of my house since that material merely has the potential to burn my house down? Or should I just ignore it and hope for the best? I mean, it could rain tomorrow.
Mike Borgelt (19:08:22) :
There is no water vapor on mars.
Ben
One thing that AGW proponents have to remember is that people who don’t support a hypothesis don’t have to prove anything so it’d be no surprise to see fewer papers sceptical of AGW. The onus for providing any credibility for a hypothesis is purely on those who promote it. There is no proof of AGW not even reasonable doubt.
Regarding those who would believe that Carbon has the potential to cause climate tipping points? Relax, history shows that tipping points don’t exist.
Benjamin P. (23:15:59) :
Mike Borgelt (19:08:22) :
There is no water vapor on mars.
Ben
Precisely, Ben.
30 times as much CO2 as Earth and no runaway warming.
Yet you claim CO2 has the potential to cause runaway warming on Earth. Where are we going to get that much CO2 from? Got to be more than 30 times as much as at present.
Water vapor feedback you say? It may be news to you but 2/3 of the planet is covered by water. The air above much of that isn’t that far from saturation already. How much more effect are you going to get?
As for your poorly stated version of the precautionary principle, how much are you willing to spend to clear away the dry brush from the side of your house? What percentage of the value of the house? Make no mistake, reducing human CO2 production is going to cost the house and an arm and a leg. If you think differently you’ve bought a lie.
Ben P.:
If you start from a false premise like that, you will end up with a wrong conclusion.
Unless, of course, you have a way to identify CO2 molecules produced by human activity, vs molecules produced by ocean outgassing due to natural temp declines.
You’re pretty much on the money there, Ben.
masonmart:
Exactamundo. This can not be said often enough.
Benjamin P.,
“No wishy-washy answer: will CO2 cause runaway global warming? Or not?” … “CO2 has the potential to.”
Based on what? Nobody has answered my original question from yesterday morning: where is the published peer-reviewed research that proves this? Where is the peer-reviewed study that demonstrates the IPCC-asserted positive feedback mechanism between CO2 and water vapor? Where is the study that demonstrates that mankind’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is a major driver of global climate?
Every time I ask this question I get the following answer:
Silence.
If the central CO2 assertion is not based on the scientific literature, why does everyone who believes it think they’re being scientific?
Anyway, more warmth means more plant and animal life means more CO2. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen in the past in response to warm cycles for this reason. Why would you think it would be static this time, except for humans?
Yesterday, it was 117 in Easton, MD, which would be the hottest day on record for the entire state. I saw this on both Weather.com and Accuweather.com so it has to be correct.
It was 77 at 8 AM, 117 at 9 AM, and 82 at 10 AM. Obviously the result of global warming, and not some sensor malfunction.
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.
Beautiful! Just beautiful!
Richard Sanders (04:38:19)
“…concensus…”
Wasn’t he some smart Chinese bloke who knew everything?…
Funny, sure doesn’t feel like it’s snowing out here.
Let me know if you need any on-site checks at the EYW airport. I live here and have some friends in CBP so it’s no problem to get to the runway area.
Tom
Mike Borgelt (02:46:02) :
Since you talk to me as if I am dumb, I will do the same!
“30 times as much CO2 as Earth and no runaway warming. Yet you claim CO2 has the potential to cause runaway warming on Earth”
Clearly you don’t understand atmospheric thermodynamics!
“It may be news to you but 2/3 of the planet is covered by water.”
Wow! No wai!
“The air above much of that isn’t that far from saturation already. How much more effect are you going to get?”
The amount of water vapor is a function of temperature.
“Make no mistake, reducing human CO2 production is going to cost the house and an arm and a leg. If you think differently you’ve bought a lie.”
Care to quantify an arm and a leg? 1-2% GDP?
Smokey,
Go back to your table and do a quick calculation. Take natural sources and subtract from that absorption and tell me what you get.
So I will ask you, now that you have done your calculation. What percentage of the CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere is due to humans? Or to ask in a different way, how much CO2 would be accumulating in the atmosphere, if human sources were zero?
Effect vs. Affect…doh! Forgive me Smokey, I was tired.
masonmart (01:54:12) :
Typically in science, the folks who are skeptical need to demonstrate why a particular idea is incorrect. As far as I know, I have not seen that done on the ‘skeptics’ side.
“Regarding those who would believe that Carbon has the potential to cause climate tipping points? Relax, history shows that tipping points don’t exist.”
You say it with authority so it must be true? Here is an interesting article. Figure 1 is illuminating.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full
Ben
Smokey
Thank you, I will go and have a read.
Richard
Benjamin P.,
“Typically in science, the folks who are skeptical need to demonstrate why a particular idea is incorrect. As far as I know, I have not seen that done on the ’skeptics’ side.”
No, it is those who make the assertion that they’ve discovered some new principle or mechanism who need to prove their case. The assertion being made is that CO2 is a major driver of global climate.
Where is the peer-reviewed study that demonstrates that mechanism? What observations will confirm it, and what tests would disprove it?
Without this, we’re calling BS on that assertion. It is up to those who believe that assertion to prove that there is anything unusual about the warming we’ve experienced, and it is up to those who believe that assertion to prove that the primary cause is mankind’s contribution of CO2 .
Benjamin P.,
Thanx for posting that ridiculous link. It demonstrates everything that is wrong with the wild-eyed climate alarmism that passes as climate science. In reality, it is simple rent-seeking behavior and has nothing to do with science. From your link:
In other words, this is simply a computer model-generated scare story.
You would do well reading John Brignell’s column about the misuse of computer models, rather than that silly alarmist arm-waving nonsense that passes as science.
Regarding your question: “…how much CO2 would be accumulating in the atmosphere, if human sources were zero?”, the answer is that I don’t know. And you don’t know, and neither does anyone else. I’ll step aside and let Prof. Freeman Dyson explain:
Dyson also comments on models, which you would do well to remember when reading the pap in that alarmist pnas link you posted:
I’m not going to convince you, Ben. You’re a True Believer in fairy tales like the tipping points and abrupt climate change, which are completely fabricated with computer models by grant-seeking alarmists sitting in their air conditioned offices.
The basic fact that as CO2 has steadily risen while the temperature has been flat to declining for most of the past decade makes your purveyors of ‘abrupt climate change’ look increasingly silly.
haha, so predicable Smokey. “They used a COMPUTER MODEL!1!eleven!!”
That whole article is junk, eh? For my master’s I used models extensively. I guess I will toss the whole thing out.
Models are not absolutes Smokey, but they are very powerful tools. You’d do well to remember that, because if you want to discard all science that involves models, well, that’s about 98% of modern science.
I’d advise you though, you might be taken more serious if you didn’t always have to fall back on the rhetoric with statements like “grant-seeking alarmist” ad nauseum. I mean, really, think about what you implying about the tens of thousands of scientist around the world. Do you honestly believe that they just keep pushing the idea of GW in an effort to get grant money? All of them across multiple governments and funding institutions?
You stick with your decade of flat temps and if 10 years when if the temps are warmer than today, then what?
As for Prof. Dyson, he also says,
“One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas”
Have some cake and eat it too I guess.
But Smokey, it should be pretty easy question to answer, since you seem incapable, let me do it for you.
The table of data that YOU posted in an effort to show humans contribute little to the CO2 in the world we have the following numbers (in million metric tons):
Sources Total: 793,100 (human = 23,100; Natural = 770,000)
Absorption: 781,400
Accumulation: 11,700
So lets remove the human amount, which gives 770,000 for a source, with abosrbtion being the same…subtract absorbtion from source to yeild:
-11,400 Million Metric Tons of annual accumulation.
So with no human source, we have a net loss, with a human source, we have a gain of 11,700.
So again, what percentage of annual accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere can be attributed to humans Smokey?
Remember, this is a link you provided in an effort to try and prove the point that humans have little contribution (although it seems a completely opposite point is made).
“The basic fact that as CO2 has steadily risen while the temperature has been flat to declining for most of the past decade makes your purveyors of ‘abrupt climate change’ look increasingly silly.”
What are you thoughts on this paper:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/publications/Ram-&-Feng-ae43-37_2009.pdf
A side note with a couple of observations. You folks on this side of the “debate” are really wining the PR fight. You’ve condensed a highly complex topic down to the following couple of points:
1. Computer models are like video games, worthless.
2. Climate scientists (at least the ones who say AWG is real) just want grant money
3. Those nasty scientist “manipulate” there data or just make it up
4. Political Conspiracy
5. Its cold in January in the Northern Hemisphere.
6. Al Gore is a douche, so is that Hansen guy, therefore there is no such thing as climate change.
7. Holy Shit, Ben just said Climate change instead of global warming, which one is it? Now its climate change instead of global warming, so clearly those damn warmest are back peddling!! (when in reality, Climate change is regional, Global warming is…uh, Global!)
You certainly have the easier job since people (in general) are scientifically illiterate. I mean, 1/2 the US thinks we did not evolve.
Ben
REPLY: Ben tone it back a bit, or I’ll have to start snipping – Anthony
I should really read my post before I hit submit.
there vs. their
“when if” should be “when/if”
I know Smokey, you will be quick to jump all over those. Cause a grammatical/spelling typo undermines an entire post, amirite?
Ben
P.S. Smokey, what caused the warming from 1880 to today?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/plot/gistemp/from:1880
Just curious. Maybe just “natural variations” that don’t need an explanation of mechanism?
Ben
Benjamin P. (10:29:40) : Maybe indeed. Now prove it wasn’t.
The rest of what you’ve posted is so clueless and laughable I won’t even bother.
You refuse to do mathematics. Therefore, you are doomed to talk nonsense.
Sorry to get you wound up so tight, Ben. But three posts in 15 minutes indicates way too much emotion; you’re not thinking straight. Listing your seven points, every one of which misrepresents my position, doesn’t help. I’m used to people trying to re-frame my argument into their strawman, so things like that don’t easily get by.
I understand that you are a True Believer in CO2=AGW. The conjecture is wrong, but lots of people still believe in it. Lots of folks believe in Scientology, too.
Scientific skeptics have very open minds; we’re just skeptical of claims made without any reproducible, falsifiable evidence to back them up. So if you want to convince me that CO2=AGW, then:
Show me solid evidence that rises in CO2 precede rises in temperature. There’s plenty of evidence of the reverse.
Show me solid evidence [nothing generated by computer models; only real world evidence, please] that CO2 causes measurable global warming. Where were the measurements done? And how were they done? By whom? And are the results publicly archived — or are we expected to trust them?
Show me solid evidence that CO2 is any less beneficial or necessary to life than H2O, or that CO2 in trace amounts is harmful in any way.
Show me that the sea level is gonna get Micronesia, Florida or anywhere else. Show me that the current rate of increase is substantially more than it was before the industrial revolution.
Show me that the planet’s glaciers are receding [I really hope you take the bait on this one]. Explain how the Wilkins ice shelf is breaking off, if it is receding instead of growing?
Show me that total global ice cover is declining [I wonder why the Goron contingent only picks the NH, eh? Explain that one.]
Show me that mysterious climate “tipping point,” and identify where it is. Show me. Otherwise, it’s rank speculation based on nothing but always-inaccurate models.
Show me that elusive “heat in the pipeline.” Where is it lurking?
Show me why GISS and NOAA “adjust” raw temps almost exclusively upward. Explain AGW climate catastrophe in a way that a skeptic can understand it — keeping in mind that current temperatures are no higher than they were thirty years ago. How does that work? Global warming causes global cooling?
Show me a single GCM that predicted this past winter’s unusually severe N.H. winter.
Show me that GW is bleaching corals — with solid evidence, not opinion. Show me that coral bleaching is not an entirely natural, cyclical occurrence. [Before taking the bait, see Jennifer Marohasy’s debunking of AGW as the cause of coral bleaching.]
Show me solid evidence that anything blamed on CO2 by the AGW crowd is legitimate, according to the Scientific Method.
So far, every item above has either been debunked, or is still up in the air because we do not have enough information. Most of those alarming scenarios were easily discredited. That’s why we don’t hear about them any more, except on incredible sites like the agenda-based RealClimate. Ozone hole? Pf-f-f-ft. Coral bleaching? Pf-f-f-ft. Ocean acidification? Pf-f-f-ft.
In fact, all of the AGW hype is built on a house of cards. The central scam is that CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, and it is all based on computer models that were programmed by the same people who stand to benefit if CO2 is labeled a pollutant. So I look with a skeptic’s eye at any system that can be gamed. And GCMs are easily gamed. As is the current climate peer-review system. What astonishes me is the ease with which some folks [who have convinced themselves that they are open minded and rational] accept what amounts to nothing more than personal opinion… as verifiable scientific fact! Karl Popper would blow a gasket.
I’ll listen to solid, reproducible evidence — but not to rent-seeking authors angling for a handout [like your pnas link], or to computer model conclusions, or to the agenda-based opinions of the IPCC political appointees. Make it empirical, falsifiable evidence, and I’ll sit up straight and pay attention.
I doubt I’ll have to respond, though, because all those things have failed to meet the criteria of the Scientific Method, every one of them. So you’ll get the last word in here. But you never know, you might be the next Einstein. Give me solid, real world, reproducible, falsifiable evidence, and you may even convince me to change my mind.
Benjamin P
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). It did strike me that it was just as well that they decided not to name themselves the National Institute of Sciences …
We must have Gored Ben’s ox.
So what was your Masters in, Ben? One of the social “sciences” ?
The pretty obvious point being made about CO2 is that it is having all the effect it is ever going to have. Planet Earth’ climate is driven by water. The energy source is the Sun.
Pity for you there’s no evidence of the water vapor feedback you claim. In fact the evidence is to the contrary which you would know if you had spent any time here.
Then again there may be no significant warming (see the surface stations project of Anthony’s) which may be the reason for the lack of observed water vapor feedback. Or the tropics may really be the temperature regulator for Earth.
If you are going to make stupid posts, people here will answer as if you are stupid.
You are doing well at that so far.
Richard Sanders,
“Define it as you will. I take it you are agreeing that there is almost no published science that contradicts the concensus position.”
Apparently you do not read much Published Science. I have read a number of papers where they do a very nice job of collecting, collating, analyzing, and interpreting data in a way that disagrees with the CONSENSUS.
Then, in the Conclusion, there is the mandatory statement that this paper does NOT disagree with the Consensus and they need more money to help stave of AGW!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You should also remember that there ARE straight forward papers that DO disagree with important areas of AGW. I am sure Lindzen, Spencer, and a number of others would be interested in your idea of a dearth of published science that disagrees with the Consensus. Steve McI at Climate Audit has published destroying the Hockey Stick for instance.
By the way, have you been counting the number of Scientists that have retired in the last couple of years and come out AGAINST the Consensus???
Apparently fear for job safety and financial security really DO keep mouths closed.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA