Lake Michigan Temp July 4th 2010: 489.2°F ?

Major Update about the NOAA 16 Satellite and when problems with it were known see end of the article

Well according to NOAA at least part of Lake Michigan reached that temperature, while other parts had temperatures in excess of 100°, 200°, 300° and 400° F. I saw this a couple of days ago and at first thought it was a hoax being perputrated to try and discredit skeptics, and I still had a nagging suspicion that was the case when I saw the data myself from the Michigan State University’s CoastWatch archives (CoastWatch is a co-operative effort between NOAA and MSU). Then yesterday I saw something about all the data for the NOAA-16 Satellite going bye bye (don’t remember where exactly)

Well today those two little facts got tied together with a nice little bow and a big attempt by NOAA to first cover up and then whitewash at the minimum gross negligence by the agency.

First to get things in perspective you should read the article from 9 Aug on the website “Climate Change Fraud” (CCF) where the story about the broiling waters of Lake Michigan is found:

In his email the faceless whistleblower explains that what precipitated the scoop was “a rather dubious report in the media that the Great Lakes temperatures have risen 10 to 15 degrees, I found it was downright laughable.” (Just a few examples of media hysteria here and here and here and here)

He continues, “ Prior to this report I would frequent the ‘Coastal Watch’ temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan.  When this report came out it dawned on me that the numbers didn’t match what I had been reading on the Coastal Watch temperature page.”

Under a scheme called ‘Sea Grant’ NOAA collaborates with national universities to compile an official federal temperature record. In this instance, the partnersip is with Michigan University’s ‘Coastal Watch.’

Together the two institutions show temperature maps for northern Lake Michigan registering an absurd 430 degrees Fahrenheit -yes, you read it right –that’s four hundred and thirty degrees-and this is by no means the highest temperature recorded on the charts.

In the heated debate about Earth’s ever-changing climate you certainly don’t need to be scientist to figure out that the Great Lakes would have boiled away at a mere 212 degrees so something has seriously gone awry inside this well-funded program.

Now before you go running off to the CoastWatch site to see for yourself, be advised that it has been taken down but you can still see the map because CCF copied it before NOAA could disappear it and which I reproduce here:

 Here is the direct link to the map at CCF:

How helpful of them to tell you not to use that map for navigational purposes!

The next part of the story comes about on 11 Aug as CCF breaks the next part and where you see how NOAA operates:

US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

NOAA Whitewash Fails in One Day

NOAA’s Chuck Pistis went into whitewash mode on first hearing the story about the worst affected location, Egg Harbor, set by his instruments onto fast boil. On Tuesday morning Pistis loftily declared, “I looked in the archives and I find no image with that time stamp. Also we don’t typically post completely cloudy images at all, let alone with temperatures. This image appears to be manufactured for someone’s entertainment.”

But later that day Chuck and his calamitous colleagues now with egg on their faces, threw in the towel and owned up to the almighty gaffe. Pistis conceded,

“I just relooked and (sic) the image again AND IT IS in my archive. I do not know why the temperatures were so inaccurate (sic). It appears to have been a malfunction in the satellite. WE have posted thousands if (sic) images since the inauguration of our Coatwatch (sic) service in 1994. I have never seen one like this.”

But the spokesman for the Michigan Sea Grant Extension, a ‘Coastwatch’ partner with NOAA screening the offending data, then confessed that its hastily hidden web pages had, indeed, showed dozens of temperature recordings three or four times higher than seasonal norms. NOAA declined to make any comment as to whether such a glitch could have ramped up the averages for the entire northeastern United States by an average of 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit by going undetected over a longer time scale

that article is here:

Well at least going forward we can use this as a learning moment and we will get better satellites and data in the future.

Right? Ummm No. You see the federal government is cutting funding for the satellites and causing crucial sensors not to be installed.You can read the article here:

Of course the usual blame Bush angle is tried, but wasn’t it the Obama administration that changed NASA’s priority from exploring space to a Muslim Outreach Program:

So what’s the uptake?

NOAA either through incomptence, negligence or malice “cooked” the books (pun intended) on Lake Michigan temperatures, but it has far wider questions and implications. If the NOAA 16 satellite is “degraded” what about the others such as the new NOAA 18 satellite and the older NASA AQUA satellite that is used by UAH and RSS to make the “official” Satellite temperature records, what about NOAA 15 that was used prior to NASA’s AQUA by RSS and UAH are they as well ? or will the newer ones be expected to now or not? Is the older one, older then one discussed, not just “degraded” by orbital decay but also it’s sensors and if so when did it start? Was UAH and RSS told if so? How was it handled.

Then you got the questions of how many scientific studies in the Peer Reviewed Litichur might now be nothing more then junk science because of NOAA’s mismangement?

Then there is this to consider: The underlying data used by CRU and GISS for their temperature data analysis is almost all based on data collected and managed by NOAA through the NCDC. So now ask yourself this question: If NOAA could screw this up so badly, why should we trust the data that they collect and manage to make these surface temperature records?

What a can of worms this is.

Update: in the comments section over at CCF Lubos Motl (Reference Frame Blog:  pointed out that RSS stopped using the NOAA 16 Satellite in 2007:

# Luboš Motl 2010-08-12 06:19

RSS AMSU has kicked out NOAA-16 in 2007 and I guess that UAH AMSU of Christy and Spencer has done the same thing years ago, too.

This was quickly followed up by another commenter that found this info:

Hi Ian! Thanks Lubos! Here is a site that shows the Remote Sensing Systems. For this purpose NOAA-16 was removed as of Feb 2007. The reason was ( “Data from NOAA-16 is no longer used. The data from this instrument appears to be drifting relative to data from the earlier satellites. The cause of this drift has not yet been determined. The drift is as large as several tenths of a degree K per decade, as large or larger than the expected climate signal”.

When you click on the link to the RSS PDF it is there plain as day. This is huge this shows that a KNOWN malfunctioning satellite was still being used by NOAA for research purposes  3 years after the fact. The malfunctionhad to have started to happen before Feb 2007, when exactly the PDF doesn’t say, but for RSS to “kick” it from its analysis in that month/year it had to be before. Now the question is when was the drift first noticeable and how long before that did it start to drift?

UPDATE #2: UAH stopped using the NOAA 16 data as 5 Dec 2006 and took out all NOAA 16 data from Oct 2005 on and recalculated:
Update 5 Dec 2006 *******************************

Data products are still 5.2 and 5.1.  For LT 5.2 and MT 5.1 we have
eliminated the data from NOAA-16 after September 2005 when NOAA-16
began to diverge in a manner that suggested NOAA-16 was having problems.
Thus, the data since Oct 2005 is based on NOAA-15.  The net effect on this
change was to increase post-Oct 2005 temperatures slightly, and thus the
global trend is increased by about 0.01 C/decade.

What is interesting is earlier comments from that date about porblems they were seeing. Some of it was a problem which they corrected, but there was still problems. At first they thought it was the older NOAA 15 satellite (1998) not the newer NOAA 16 bird (Feb 2001). However pay attention to how long prior they noticed the problems start:

Update 6 Apr 2006 ****************************

Roy is working on a diurnal adjustment for the AMSU
instruments as they have now drifted over an hour
from their initial crossing time.  NOAA-15 has backed up
from 7:30 to 5:48 and NOAA-16 has drifted forward from 1:54
to 3:10.  Be on the lookout for a new version that will have
these additional adjustments.

There is also a divergence between NOAA-15 and NOAA-16 that
has developed in the last 12 months.
  We don’t know if
N15 is spuriously warming or N16 is spuriously cooling. As
soon as this is resolved, we hope to include this correction
in the next version as well.

So between Apr 2005 and Apr 2006 they spotted the problem but intially blamed NOAA 15, from Dec 06 on they relied on just NOAA 15 until they were able to get data from the NASA Aqua satellite.


4 responses to “Lake Michigan Temp July 4th 2010: 489.2°F ?

  1. Bill Steffen August 13, 2010 at 2:24 am

    I strongly disagree with your opinion that my blog thread on the Lake Michigan water temperatures is “hype”. The data that I shared was factually correct. We’re on track to the the 2nd most 85-degree days in any summer since I have records (started in 1964). The warm surface water is a reflection of not only the warmer than average temperatures in the Great Lakes, but also slightly lower winds, especially at the mid-lake buoy. So the surface water warms and doesn’t mix with cooler water, and we don’t get upwelling.

  2. boballab August 13, 2010 at 10:59 am


    Thats interesting, that you can strongly disagree with an opinion that hasn’t been made, since I never mentioned your blog or post, that came from a quote from the original outlet here:

    I haven’t made an “opinion” one way or the other on the real Lake Michigan water temps, since my post was on the obviously bogus, over 400° F temps shown by NOAA and Coastwatch. Unless your blog and post thinks that you can obtain 400° F water temperatures at one atmosphere of pressure? Also your lack of due diligence in just researching in where a quote comes from, which it was very easy to do since I provided the link back, makes me wonder about what type of due diligence you used in your “64 years of data” and just how accurate it is.

  3. 乳膠床墊 September 15, 2010 at 11:30 pm

    Hi, can I quote some of the content found in this entry if I provide a link back to your site?

  4. boballab September 16, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Yes you may.

    I allow anyone to quote or use content from this site as long as they do not change it and they either give a link back or another form of attribution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: