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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
timetochooseagain (12:56:48) :
Nice contribution to the discussion!
Smokey (13:15:08) :
Smokey, was really just one post, with a grammatical correction and an after thought. Honestly, I am feeling quite relaxed.
But I will just hold my response because it will not be productive. It’d be a big time investment for me to dig around, get my sources in order and provide the things you want, only to have it met with you saying “Click” to a decades worth of data or some rant about a computer model.
There are plenty of papers out there Smokey, and I’d imagine you’ve read your fair share of them. I will just keep believing my “fairy tales” and you can keep posting your decades worth of data.
Sorry to not entertain you!
Mike Borgelt (14:40:50) :
You seem like a swell chap (not?). My master’s is in geology, specifically looking at the chemistry of subduction zone volcanic rocks.
Is this a stupid post too?
Ben
Oh, and Mike, here is a quick read for you.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler09.pdf
Don’t trust them though, they just want some grant money.
Benjamin P. (10:19:42) :
I should really read my post before I hit submit.
I would suggest you might also want to extend that injunction to the comments and positions of those you want to respond to. The sorry seven list of positions you claim we all promote indicates to me that you are either intellectually incapable of understanding or have willfully chosen not to understand what is going on here.
In order:
1. Computer models are like video games, worthless.
My own experience here would indicate that there is great deal of respect here for the utility of computer models and even for their predictive power, but always with the caveat that relying on model predictions that have not been empirically verified is buying a ticket on the bullet train to disaster. The generalized disdain often expressed for the GCMs of the alarmist side relates almost exclusively to their miserable failure to meet that caveat. The video game allusion is interesting, because the impression I have derived from my own forays into RealClimate world is that many of the denizens there seem to believe they are actually living in a video game, where all that is required to change their circumstances is to go to the program and alter a few parameters
.2. Climate scientists (at least the ones who say AWG is real) just want grant money
I would first point out that that notion didn’t achieve wide currency here until a large mountain of adhom accusations of “oil industry shill” had accumulated in the contrary sphere. All scientists, even those rare few for which science is the purest if altruistic quests, unless they are blessed with inherited wealth, require funding, It’s hard to finance meaningful experimentation with altruism. I have seen a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that funding and publication decisions in climate science are subject to a bias against those who challenge the prevailing agenda. You may disagree. We’ll let that go.
3. Those nasty scientist “manipulate” there data or just make it up
Perhaps you can point me to a significant database, related to climate science, in which a majority of the data points are actual measurements. Some data points? Any? You may see nothing questionable in the apparent similarity in the shape of the GISS temp graph and shape of their overall adjustments graph, but I myself find it curious.
4. Political Conspiracy
Again this is an area where both sides have ventured almost equally. From my view I see a document that describes a strategy to achieve certain political goals (Google Cloward-Piven strategy). I see a group of people who embrace those goals acting almost exactly as the plan prescribes. I see in our current political environment the culmination, again almost exact, that the strategy sought. I find it hard to ascribe the situation to mere coincidence. You, of course, may again disagree, but I’d be interested to hear you counter arguments
.5. Its cold in January in the Northern Hemisphere.
Guilty, your honor!
6. Al Gore is a douche, so is that Hansen guy, therefore there is no such thing as climate change.
Incontrovertable up to the second comma, but an ending which I’d suggest would be more representative of the general view around here would be, therefore there is no need to be driven by panic to surrender large parts of your personal freedom and future financial prospects to appease these incredible hypocrites
.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 should be willing to cut us all a bit of slack for our linguistic confusion, since the semantic legerdemain driving it originates almost exclusively from across the aisle. BTW, I wish you’d elaborate on your ending parenthetical, which strikes me as a distinction without a difference.
Benjamin P. (15:56:51)
“My master’s is in geology, specifically looking at the chemistry of subduction zone volcanic rocks.”
Maybe you could help me out. I’ve been looking for a source of information on the contribution of sea floor volcanism to the oceanic heat budget and, since your specialty is related, I wonder If you could point me in the right direction?
Dave Wendt,
Excellent post @16:45:58. I was tempted to respond like you did, but I got carried away with my questions. Too bad Ben ducked them.
Ben’s answer: “But I will just hold my response because it will not be productive” is, of course, a complete cop out. That’s how alarmists generally deal with inconvenient questions from skeptics. Trying to actually answer the questions throws their Cognitive Dissonance into high gear. It’s much easier and more comfortable to just wave away any serious questions.
And you’ve contributed, what, strawmen and whining? BTW Dessler writes for the left-wing Envrionmentalist website Grist, so, while we are at it, he is politically biased, too.
But you seem to make a good point. SEEM TO. Namely that one can’t dismiss conclusions of scientists by questioning their motives. EXCEPT that’s exactly what warmers do when it comes to every finding which reduces alarm. MOREOVER you continue to confuse the trivial with the serious. An inability to distinguish between substantive issues and unimportant matters gets you an F in Respectability. AND you neglect the NON agenda arguments AGAINST alarm in favor of continuing to use your argument-from-ridicule “HAHA CONSPIRACY NUTTERS” tactic-Hey, what do you know, Alinsky lives!-But I don’t think I’m going to waste anymore time on a rocks for jocks reject and I don’t think anyone else should either-not because your stupid (although you seem to want to encourage that image) but because you are so bloody thick there is no hope of getting you to understand-you don’t want to.
We’ve led you to water, but we can’t make you drink.
Yes, you can lead a goron to water, but you can’t make him think.
Dave Wendt (16:45:58)
Okay, admittedly, much of my post was not productive. Too much snarc, nothing useful. I appreciate your response.
A word about oil money. My undergrad geology department would not be around if it was not for oil companies, and never have I laid a claim that “skeptics” are in it for money from the oil companies.
As for a paper on heat flow, here you go….
Stein CA, Stein S. 1994. Constraints on hydrothermal heat flux through the oceanic lithosphere from global heat flow. J. Geophys. Res. 99:3081–95
Smokey (17:43:37):
Smokey, even if I were an expert that’s a hell of a task wouldn’t you say? And look at the responses i’ve had all along? Its futility! I will trust you’ve looked at the data, you’ve digested it, and you’ve made your conclusions. You can trust i’ve done the same. So we disagree, you at least have managed to be mostly respectful during our conversation. Less could be said of others….
timetochooseagain (17:52:05) :
Rocks for jocks reject, eh? Are you a [snip] in real life, or does it just come out from the anonymity of the internet?
Ben
Dave Wendt,
Here is another paper, which might be better.
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.24.1.191
Ben