Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Holy Global Warming: It Was 600 degrees F in Egg Harbor, WI on July 4th



August 11, 2010 – Comments (14)

Well, that's what the NOAA says.  I can't believe the residents of Egg Harbor failed to notice it!

David in Qatar

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 11, 2010 at 10:49 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I wonder if they failed to notice it or were too busy being dead from heat stroke to confirm the report by NOAA.

Report this comment
#2) On August 11, 2010 at 10:52 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I guess it was hot enough to fry a Egg Harbor yesterday!

Report this comment
#3) On August 11, 2010 at 10:56 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


I like it, but I wouldn't open with it ;) 

I'm sure the recent "mistakes" by the NOAA are mere oversights and have absolutely nothing to do with a political agenda.

ROFL. I'm sorry. I tried to type that with a straight face but I couldn't.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#4) On August 11, 2010 at 11:31 AM, GNUBEE (< 20) wrote:

Sorry, that was me

I put a sparkler on the sensor to show my patriotism

Report this comment
#5) On August 11, 2010 at 11:45 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Like you, I do not know what the cause was behind the inflated reading. If this kind of thing happens enough times in enough places the data collected would be uttery useless. The machines need to be in proper locations and maintained to secure the integrety of the collected data.

The information collected from Egg Harbor has the ability, if not discounted, to scramble the numbers for this data set. I hope some safeguards are in place to keep the machines from being poached by any Benedict Arnolds or the yolk will continue to be on us.

I'm sorry, the puns came to me over easy.



Report this comment
#6) On August 11, 2010 at 12:14 PM, llgrout (87.51) wrote:

Al Gore is probably helping with the record keeping.

Report this comment
#7) On August 11, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Melaschasm (70.34) wrote:

Thank you for the information.  I have been hearing reports that water temps in Lake Michigan are very warm this summer, to the point of setting records.  However, air temps have not been setting record highs, which makes me wonder what is warming the water?

Also, as someone who frequently fishes for salmon in Lake Michigan, I have not seen any evidence of significant warming.  For those who don't know, the water tempature has a big impact on the fish.  While a small variation in temps could easily occur without my notice,a vast change in water temps would be very obvious.

Report this comment
#8) On August 11, 2010 at 1:58 PM, devoish (70.22) wrote:

 Interesting comment thread in your link. While your conspiracy theorist brethren and "journalist" John Sullivan goes to press without contacting NOAA to ask what is up "Moreover, I have written to NOAA but am still awaiting their reply" by snailmail I suppose - some blogger in the comments named MIke uses the more modern e-mail and gets a reply from coastalwatch within hours.Journalism at its worst. Or propoganda at its best.Mike,

Only the temp in the "clear" areas are completely reliable. It notes in the key that temperatures in the gray areas are considered "cloudy" and are therefore not reliable. The program that generates the temperature contours "sees" the temperatures the satellites sees. If it is the top of a cloud, or fog, or other smoke or haze that obscures the surface, it sees the temperature of that cloud or fog, and not the actual lake surface. Therefore, it may be wrong, and we print it in grey, and mark it as "probable cloud". If the satellite "sees" extremely low temperatures, such as the top of major clouds, the program is designed to black out those areas and identify it as "clouds".

So, in the clear areas the temperatures are correct. These temperatures have been tested by NOAA, University researchers and hundreds of private parties, and have been found to be accurate.

In the "gray" areas, the temperatures are to be taken with a grain of salt. They are not guaranteed to be accurate. Typically, they will be temperatures that have been affected by something in the atmosphere.

"Black" areas are created by the program to totally obscure areas that are clearly wrong, such as complete cloud cover, etc.

Also, you can be sure that gray or black areas which may appear in regions of deep water, away from the shore, are most likely clouds and should be regarded with suspicion.

By the laws of physics, cold water can not appear far offshore over deep water, surrounded by warmer water.
During periods of high temperature, such as during mid-summer, the sun can warm the surface by several degrees during the daylight time period. This will cause the mid-day or afternoon temperatures to be several degrees higher than early AM images. The most accurate images are those generated in the early AM on clear, cloudless nights.
Finally, the images are generated by a sophisticated computer, using the best satellite data available, but they still require the interpretation of a human who understands how they are created, and who needs to practice interpreting what they present with some understanding of the complexity of how they are created.

You can test the charts yourself, using NOAA buoy data.

There are NOAA buoys in all the Great Lakes that transmit actual temperature, wind and wave data to NOAA satellites constantly.

You can compare the temperatures shown on that chart to the actual temperature of the water at that location, provided you compare the temperatures at the same time on the same day, on a day that has a clear sky (not a grey or black area on the temperature contour map.) I am very sure that you will find them to be in close agreement.

Coastwatch reads the surface temperature, the buoy reads the temperature slightly below the surface) I've attached a link to the NOAA site and you can click on the buoy of interest.

Hope this is helpful. Please respond if you have any other questions or concerns.

Chuck Pistis
Program Coordinator

Report this comment
#9) On August 11, 2010 at 2:40 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

"It's not one of our charts.  It was manufactured...... Oh wait, it was one of our charts, but it's an anomaly..... Oh wait, there are many more like that, but we don't use those anyway because those are cloudy days.... Actually, this is all automated, we just don't do quality control... but if you look at other numbers we generate that are automated without quality control, you'll see it's all correct."

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On August 11, 2010 at 9:12 PM, devoish (70.22) wrote:


You should let the man speak for himself and not filter it through your politics.

Report this comment
#11) On August 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

This just in: Pot Calls Kettle Black

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#12) On August 11, 2010 at 9:25 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

And just to be clear, in his own words Chuck Pistis' first response was that the picture must be a fraud.  He later corrected that statement.  That means he had no idea that NOAA-16 was producing temperature readings of 300-600 degrees Faranheit.  To later contend that it's because of cloud cover and/or satellite degradation is an admission that the readings are meaningless.  I'm still waiting to find out if the temperatures are fed into the models they use, just out of morbid curiosity.  The models, as has been shown on many occasions, are juiced anyway.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#13) On August 12, 2010 at 12:05 AM, bullnada (< 20) wrote:

(global warming) One of the best marketing schemes in history. Just Amazing. I live in San Diego and we have had the coolest summer since 1932. Go figure almost a spitting image in all aspects....

Report this comment
#14) On August 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM, bullnada (< 20) wrote:

Terrafin is true sea surface temps. I use it for tuna fishing and they are dead on. My boats temp gauge and gps can find the temp breaks within feet of the terrafin sea surface temp site.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners