Climate News US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced
|
August 09 2010
UPDATE 8-10-2010: It would appear CoastWatch has removed the original image. Never fear, it's shown here on the right. Please see author's addendum at end of article.
Global warming data apparently cooked by U.S. government-funded body shows astounding temperature fraud with increases averaging 10 to 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
The tax-payer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has become mired in fresh global warming data scandal involving numbers for the Great Lakes region that substantially ramp up averages.
A beleaguered federal agency appears to be implicated in the most blatant and extreme case of climate data fraud yet seen. Official records have been confirmed as evidence that a handful of temperature records for the Great Lakes region have been hiked up by literally hundreds of degrees to substantially inflate the average temperature range for the northeastern United States.
The web pages at the center of this latest climate storm were created by NOAA in partnership with Michigan State University.
Disgraced Administration Mired in Another Climategate-style Data Fix
Someone under the pseudonym ‘Sportsmen’ anonymously tipped off skeptic blog, Climatechangefraud.com. Independent analysts affirm the web pages as genuine.
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.
In addition to its civilian employees, NOAA research and operations are supported by 300 uniformed service members who make up the NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. But don’t bet on anyone being court-marshalled over this latest global warming fiasco.
Paid for entirely from federal taxes, the shamed public body’s key responsibilities include warning of dangerous weather and protection of ocean and coastal resources, and conducts research to improve understanding and stewardship of the environment.
Michigan State University Also Complicit in Fraud?
The worst evidence of hyper-inflated global warming data is on a web page entitled, ‘Michigan State University Remote Sensing & GIS Research and Outreach Services.’
While another web page identifies that Michigan State University’s ‘Coastal Watch’ site is officially connected to NOAA thus implicating both institutions in a climate data conspiracy. At the bottom of the web page mention is made of ‘Sea Grant’ that is described as a “unique partnership of public and private sectors that combines research, education and technology transfer for public service.“
The legend further boasts that such data is shared across “ a national network of universities meeting the changing environmental and economic needs of Americans in coastal ocean and Great Lakes regions.”
NOAA Makes it White Hot in Wisconsin
But our intrepid anonymous whistleblower wasn’t done yet. He pointed out that Egg Harbor, Wisconsin, really got cooking this July 4th around 9:59AM, according to NOAA and Coast Watch. It was there, at the bottom left row of the temperature data points, that the records reveal on that day a phenomenally furnace-like 600 degrees Fahrenheit. (Click here if CoastWatch link does not work or disappears)
Further analysis of the web pages shows that the incredibly wide temperature swings were occurring in remarkably short 10-hour periods-and sometimes in less than 5 hours. Strangely, none of the 250 citizens of the 78 families living in the village appeared to notice this apocalyptic heatwave during their holiday festivities.
Hidden Data Spike Hikes Heating Averages
But our sharp-eyed stranger comments, “ As I understand it, the current available Gif data maps are several for the latest dates, but the archives have less dates to choose from. It's possible that in the past these numbers were incorrect but in the archive system you do not see the numbers that could have been in gross error.”
So it may reasonably be inferred climate fraudsters had a perfect opportunity here to fraudulently apply overcooked and overlooked data so that America’s Joe Public would be none the wiser that a few climate numbers vastly ramped up the national temperature averages.
Laughably, NOAA publishes a caveat at the bottom right corner of their web page warning about their data is “Not to be used for navigation purposes!”
The current head of NOAA is Dr. Jane Lubchenco, nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the United States Senate on March 19, 2009 and is the first woman to serve as NOAA administrator. On her appointment Lubchenco declared that science would guide the agency and that she expects it to play a role in developing a green economy.You can say that again!
Readers now interested in doing their own detective work may wish to peruse the further data found here and here
to further ascertain whether climate doomsayers have rigged more ‘real world’ temperatures in a shabby scheme to win support for green energy tax hikes. If you find anything be sure to drop Lubchenco a line here.
Author's Addendum:
Of major concern here is whether the false data has been fed into climate models ascertaining the broader temperature averages for the entire United States. The alleged response from NOAA as shown in the comments below this article, indicates evasiveness by Chuck Pistis, NOAA Program Coordinator, in answering the question. Why so?
I also applied due diligence and asked internationally renowned climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball to take a look at the numbers. Here is what Dr. Ball observed:
"I have read your article and believe it is a very valid observation of the data as reported. At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day."
Moreover, I have written to NOAA but am still awaiting their reply. I specifically asked whether this extravagantly false data was fed into climate models to help ramp up the U.S. climate numbers by "400%" as commented on by analyst, Jo Nova (more here). The Australian researcher provides an excellent summary to an important paper that removes all doubt that climate models are utterly flawed. As Dr. Ball points out—perhaps we know why.
John O'Sullivan is a legal analyst, author and journalist. As an accredited academic, John taught and lectured for over twenty years at schools and colleges in the east of England before moving to the United States. As an analytical commentator, O'Sullivan has published over 100 major articles worldwide.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
Sure, but the raw data will already have been used elsewhere to create average temperature sets that are now part of the temperature record. And it is that record that the media will hype and "appocolyze" on to create the fear in the public's mind so that the government can then further ramp up the command and control structures further and increase taxes ever more.
Here is today's image:
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/m1.html
If the black-shaded image indicates 'too cloudy to take measurements', you still need to explain why coldest/warmest variation is +/- 300 F. And that isn't back-radiation, for sure. People would be dead.
The numbers have no relationship to temperatures on the lake surface. If O'Sullivan was anything close to being a legit journalist he would have written to the e-mail address given for questions and asked. This is how you can tell the difference between news reporting and propaganda. I will write Coast Watch and ask.
For now I can only guess what these number might be. The satellite emits microwaves. Their reflection has temperature information. But, if it is cloudy they never get to the water surface. Perhaps the cloud tops reflect the microwaves. The satellite computer computes a temperature from this data. But the data is not from the water but the algorithm is only valid if the data is. So, the numbers are meaningless. Probably there is an algorithm in the map making program to remove these numbers from the map, but due to some glitch in this case these meaningless numbers got through. This does not mean these number were actually used in computing temperature trends.
See: www.coastwatch.msu.edu/
See also:
www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/19/19climatewire-lake-superior-a-huge-natural-climate-change-83371.html
The medieval Warm period was warmer than today. CO2science.org provides comprehensive collation of studies around the globe and has found it was hotter. Temperatures have been steadily increasing since a period called the maunder minimum, a mini-ice age straight after the MWP. This is a start/end point fallacy as it is taking the low point in a stochastic dataset. Despite that the steady upward trend shows no human signal as man had no heavy industry then.
Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.Sea temperatures according tothe ARGO buoys deployed years ago show no increase! there goes the 'hidden warmth' theory of the Alarmists.
Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.
In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.
The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet.
The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there.
Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.
Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.
Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.
Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn't support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.
my add 1)The IPCC GCM'S are TO THIS DAY remain Unvalidated...
2)Natural Process's such as conduction/convection/advectio n and other's iniated by the sun, drive our planet's temp.s
3)finally as i point out to so many people GAT is not a measurement-it is a mathematical construct-and as we know now-subject to bias manipulation .
as a meteorologist my 2 bits--Man does not /never has/never will control the Weather Machine.
Microwaves from a sat in orbit would not "warm" anything. Further, it is interesting that these "Temp Anomalies" always appear in remote areas, like Siberia or the middle of a lake. Even further, if the program eliminated the numbers, how do they get to the media (shown in stories YOU linked to for verification)? Why would not reporters questions cause the scientists to question the data and discover the mistake?
Liar.
The
If the cloud tops were 430 F they wouldn't be clouds, they'd be steam.
Hello,
On a silly climate change denier blog a big fuss is being made about the numbers in this image:
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m1/Jul04/2010_Jul04_959EDT.gif
It seems obvious to me that it was too cloudy to take surface measurements and that the numbers are meaningless. But could you explain why they were left in this map whereas in other maps the black regions do not have temperature readings?
Here is a link to the blog:
www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
Don't hurt yourself laughing.
Mike
This dude is clearly a green loon
I'll try to be clearer. "The satellite computer computes a temperature from this data. But the data is not from the water but the algorithm is only valid if the data is [from the water surface]. So, the numbers are meaningless."
The program that determines temperature from microwave data has parameters based on the assumption that the data is from the surface. If that is false, then the formulas give meaningless output. This is my best guess anyway. I'll post the message I get from Coast Watch.
The meaninglessness of the numbers is beside the point if they have contributed to unusual warming in the region. So what if cloudy or fine, if the raw data was uploaded and used to "prove" warming then this is fraud at worst and shoddy science at best. The last laugh is is the one I love the most and it sure looks like NOAA, you and the CSIRO here in Australia won't be getting one anytime soon!
I doubt this was the case. You would need to include thermometer readings in any case since satellite data is invalid on cloudy days! The Coastal Watch web page does not say anything about temperature trends and none of the four "examples of media hysteria" given by O'Sullivan mention Coastal Watch. The third example specifically says the data is from a buoy:
"The water temperature at the buoy in the middle of Lake Michigan (40 miles west of Holland) reached 80° last Sunday afternoon. That’s only one degree from the all-time record mid-lake buoy temperature of 81° set on August 18, 1995. We have 30 years of water temperature records from the buoy."
blogs.woodtv.com/2010/08/04/lake-michigan-sizzles/
The forth says: "The prediction comes from Jay Austin of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, who has documented accelerated warming of Lake Superior over the last 30 years."
news.discovery.com/earth/lake-superior-warmest.html
There is no basis for the charge of fraud here. But, this O'Sullivan piece is a good example of how to manipulate public opinion. He has found one odd ball image. He does no followup work to understand it. He assumes is was used to compute trends even though he has no evidence of this. This should be enough to discredit him. But will his e-mails be hacked? Will people call for an investigation into his work methods? You tell me.
What about hazy days? What about days with light cloud cover? What about days with partial cloud cover? Even on hot clear days, evaporation leads to a substantial amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, particularly above a body of water. How can this satellite data be even slightly useful if it cannot "see" through clouds?
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.
Chuck Pistis
Program Coordinator
Michigan Sea Grant Extension
-------------------
Charles,
Thanks. When you say you couldn't find that image in your archive I am not sure what you mean by "archive." This is something different than the archive the image file is in?
Also, just so this doesn't blowup in the blog-sphere, can you assure people these numbers were not used to estimate temperature trends in the Great Lakes?
Mike
It's on his site. As program director perhaps he can do a little better job locating it.... he has certainly amused me with his manufactured info!!! Please continue to post your exchange with him... it's great entertainment!!
Mike, I just relooked and the image again AND IT IS in my archive. I do not know why the temperatures were so innacurate. It appears to have been a malfunction in the satellite. WE have posted thousands if images since the inauguration of our Coatwatch service in 1994. I have never seen one like this.
We are now in the midst of a mass extinction event which anyone 25 years of age or less will have to deal with. It's biology that is warning us now ... not climate science.
So what's happening? Phytoplankton are oceanic plants, small, microscopic, who make 50% of the oxygen in the world, have a greater biomass than all the land plants put together, consume monster amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere and finally are the base of the food chain for the vast majority of living things in the oceans.
So what? Phytoplankton are going through an extinction event. They are down 40% since 1950 and are dying off at 1% a year now (source Nature). Anyone around 25 years old today will live to see barren oceans.
About 1 billion people get their protein from the sea. What are they going to do for food? And what processes or other plants will replace all the oxygen the phytoplankton will not produce ... and what plants or processes will take as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they do? Without them the atmospheric oxygen concentration decreases and the CO2 concentration increases.
In other words, it is quite obvious that if the Phytoplankton are wiped out we follow quite quickly.
Now you can 'blow this off' as another scare tactic by some alarmist or take the point of view that technology will come up with something. You are welcome to your opinions.
But if you are in your twenties you will have to suffer through barren oceans and the huge upheaval in human affairs that will result in some nasty stuff going down including human induced plagues and N Wars of some kind.
Now I'm old, so I don't have to deal with it and I can enjoy the world as it is because my ass is not on the line.
Yours is.
Mike, The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could've had any impact, and cooled for the past 8 years. As the climate has been steadily warming naturally, independent of human influence, then of course the hottest days are going to be at the end of the record!!! So claiming the hottest days/years being evidence of AGW is a fallacy.
The medieval Warm period was warmer than today. CO2science.org provides comprehensive collation of studies around the globe and has found it was hotter. Temperatures have been steadily increasing since a period called the maunder minimum, a mini-ice age straight after the MWP. This is a start/end point fallacy as it is taking the low point in a stochastic dataset. Despite that the steady upward trend shows no human signal as man had no heavy industry then.
Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.Sea temperatures according tothe ARGO buoys deployed years ago show no increase! there goes the 'hidden warmth' theory of the Alarmists.
Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.
In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.
The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet.
The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there.
Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.
Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.
Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.
Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn't support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.
Increases in CO2 drive oceanic acidification: perhaps a local high school sophomore can explain the chemistry to you.
Pretty big "IF".
Truth be told, marine organisms would actually prefer a more acidic ocean. Marine organisms biochemistry is naturally acidid, ususally around 5.5 vs 8.2 for the ocen so these organisms must work very hard spending energy to expel hydroxides.
Secondly, more acidic water actually helps organisms to build shells. Corrosion rates are so slow that the organism would be dead long, long before its shell dissolved in the impossible event that oceans became acidic.
Imagine a coral reef with its productive shallow pools a few feet deep. Imagine a tropical storm that dumps a foot or two of water on that lagoon. Now that lagoon has been drenched with fresh water at pH 5.5 Guess what happens? Life explodes! These events happen repeatedly. Coral and shellfish love acidic water.
Dissolved CO2 promotes marine metabolism to such an extent that aquaculturists raising shellfish actually deliberately acidify theirm water to enhance growth.
Just like greenhouse operators do.
Wow. All the denier memes in one spillage, accompanied with a staggering ignorance of the entire issue.
Congratulations!
I think you mean higher LATITUDES.
Go on Mike, what's the evidence for significant Anthropogenic Warming?
Mixing of data is a classic source of error as in the hockeystick and in ice cores. Homogenous data back to 1899? I don’t think so. Sampling methods are notoriously suspect: “Data recently collected in the northern Pacific Ocean shows two to three times more organic matter produced by photosynthesis than had been reported previously. Some biologists think that the open ocean has not been sampled often enough to catch periods of high productivity, resulting in !ow productivity assumptions. Others think that the sampling techniques themselves may have been responsible for erroneous results. Previous sampling methods and contaminated containers may be responsible for low estimates of productivity Phytoplankcton are delicate organisms that can easily be damaged by the collecting techniques” – Introduction to Marine Biology, by Karskint, Turner and Small.
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun19/2010_Jun19_2210EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m1/Jun02/2010_Jun02_1047EDT.gif
Lake Huron hit 500°F:
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/huron/archive/h1/Jul21/2010_Jul21_1002EDT.gif
All thw best Jeff
These men shame me. And to think I want my son to be a scientist (nuclear). Soon the name "Scientist" will mean the same as "Witch Doctor".
Mike, We are very concerned that our credibility is being questioned. This is a very beneficial program that is used by literally millions of anglers and others around the great lakes. We already are planning to remove this image from our archive and check if there are others. We need to do a better job screening what is placed in the archive or posted. Coastwatch is completely automated so you can see how something like this could slip through.
One of our colleagues checked the status of the satellite that generated that image on that particular day and indicated it was operational but degraded. We'll look more into this.
Chuck Pistis
Program Coordinator
-----------
I'll pass on the other anomalous images people have found - although I have given the link to this blog to Charles. It seems this problem arises when the image is all black. Could be a software bug. Can anyone find a problem image that is not all black?
Here are some more anomalous image files:
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun19/2010_Jun19_2210EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m1/Jun02/2010_Jun02_1047EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/huron/archive/h1/Jul21/2010_Jul21_1002EDT.gif
I am sure anglers know to ignore such readings. Bloggers are another matter! Check the CF blog link to see what else people are finding.
www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7479-us-government-in-massive-new-global-warming-scandal-noaa-disgraced
Best,
Mike
Regardless of what the facts are you have proven yourself incapable of making fact based and impartial assessments. Please do not soil the good name of science with any more inane comments. Regardless of what the facts, it is clear that we will never get an honest, untainted communication of them from you. Your "decision driven fact making" is the same disgrace as all of these junkscientists. Except you're not even good enough at it to have made a name for yourself. Go away...
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun30/2010_Jun30_2048EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun26/2010_Jun26_642EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun25/2010_Jun25_345EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun22/2010_Jun22_433EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun18/2010_Jun18_1124EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun18/2010_Jun18_1501EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun17/2010_Jun17_2053EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun17/2010_Jun17_2115EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun16/2010_Jun16_1019EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun16/2010_Jun16_2115EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun14/2010_Jun14_2227EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun13/2010_Jun13_2046EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun11/2010_Jun11_2149EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun11/2010_Jun11_2157EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun11/2010_Jun11_2330EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun11/2010_Jun11_430EDT.gif
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/michigan/archive/m12/Jun11/2010_Jun11_602EDT.gif
Some of the above links are on the same day, or a day or two away from other links.
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/help.html
As I pointed out before, the rise in G.L. temps has been checked by thermometer readings.
Why should they check if they're right or not they've already decided on the answer!!!
All the best Jeff
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/help.html
You people are reading way too much into this.
Funny. I just looked at the June 30 gif.
It may be at night, but are you seriously telling me it was 32 degrees at 9pm? That's more like a November temperature. I think those who have derided your pathetic scientific skills were correct. Logic is not one of your strong traits either if 'they were at night' is the best explanation you can offer.
Also has he answered you yet as to "Also, just so this doesn't blowup in the blog-sphere, can you assure people these numbers were not used to estimate temperature trends in the Great Lakes?" ?
No one checks so has the data been used in temp trends without verification?
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.
www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
Hope this is helpful. Please respond if you have any other questions or concerns.
Chuck Pistis
Program Coordinator
I totally think this is flawless science and we should continue to commit billions of dollars to perpetuating it, and its use against us.
Don't you? Its all clear as mud according to Chuck "The Government Welfare Leech" Pistis.
PS: The reason I have so much time today to deal with this is that the building I work in is closed because the A/C went out due to the excessive heat. Ironic, no?
Ironic indeed. Predictable is my chosen word though. Predictable that in the time you've conveniently taken to deal 'deal with this', neither you nor Chuck has answered the one question that really matters: was this data used? There's an old saying I like, paraphrased: lies are long and truth is short. So why in all the time you and Chuck have spent dealing with this haven't you answered the prime question which only requires a 'yes' or a 'no'?
ATFQ
As Alanis Morissette sings Isn't It Ironic!
All the best Jeff
www.google.com/.../ (Only reference I could find to actual satellite)
Bwahahahahaha. What a joke and your defense of the indefensible are. You brainwashed dolt. What's the matter? Do you have to take ownership of all the failures in your life if you don't have corporations and Global Warming to blame? Pretty obvious to the rest of us...
I also applied due diligence and asked internationally renowned climatologist, Dr. Timothy Ball to take a look at the numbers.
Here is what Dr. Ball observed:
"I have read your article and believe it is a very valid observation of the data as reported. At best the entire incident indicates gross incompetence, at worst it indicates a deliberate attempt to create a temperature record that suits the political message of the day."
Moreover, I have contacted NOAA and am still awaiting their reply.
The two data points are at Charlevoix, where the temperature is listed at 43.5 degrees - while temperature nearby (+/- 30 miles) is 59.2 degrees; and in the bay on the east side of the peninsula from Leland is listed at 37.2 degrees. These are supposedly taken at 18:38 EDT (19:38 Central, or 7:38PM). These are both taken in areas that appear to be breaks in the cloud cover.
I'd say that someone's satellite algorithm needs some serious tweaking, or the satellite temperatures featured here are worthless.
All the best Jeff
I've already downloaded the original files as they are disappearing faster than a masseuse running out of Al Gore's door. ;)
Most questions can be answered by your Sea Grant Agent or on our CoastWatch Help Pages. Send comments or bug reports to cwatch
www.coastwatch.msu.edu/
Sounds like a lot of backtracking!!!!
All the best Jeff
Carol Browner and Jane Lubchenko aren't shelling out this kind of money for there to be NO Global Warming, and thus no career and power trajectory for them to pursue.
I mean how much more blatant corruption needs to be exposed from the Global Warmers before we round them up, strap them to a rocket, and launch them into space. Maybe in their last conscious seconds in the frigid, absolute zero vaccuum of space, they'll finally realize how absurd the idea of our planet overheating really is.
I have a feeling they will disregard this policy stated on their webpage
Lake Michigan 7 Day Image Archive
The Coastwatch Image Archive will maintain images for one year. If you are interested in earlier images, please feel to contact us.
Aug10
Aug09
Aug08
Aug07
Aug06
Aug05
Aug04
Most questions can be answered by your Sea Grant Agent or on our CoastWatch Help Pages. Please send comments or bug reports to the CoastWatch web master. Please include the name of the location or file that's giving you trouble, as well as the type of software you are running. This is a cooperative project between the NOAA CoastWatch Great Lakes Regional Node located at the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor and the Sea Grant Network. Home
Sea Grant Contacts
Great Lakes Links
There are so many other reasons to debunk AGW why waste time on one bad sensor which was corrected when it was pointed out?
I have to agree. There is nothing to suggest that this data is actually used as input to any of the GCMs. There's nothing on the Coastwatch website that would indicate it forms the basis for other researchers: rather, it seems aimed at boaters & fishermen. Clearly, the satellites can't handle clouds and produce figures which are too high or two low. Whether someone else is using that same (corrupted) data without checking it is a fair question - but not one for Coastwatch.
"One of our colleagues checked the status of the satellite that generated that image on that particular day and indicated it was operational but degraded."
That would be the satellite that orbits the Great Lakes?
There is no such satellite!
thats right, the "pollutant" CO2 ...
CO2 rose faster than ever from 1940 - 1970 but what did temperature do ? gee, Mr. Wizard it must has risen as well right ??? right ?
everyone can agree that correlation does not equal causation ... well guess what the other side of that coin is ... for you to have causation you MUST HAVE correlation ...
face it, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the last 100 years, none, zero, zip, nada ...
In either case, I'm glad you lived to tell about it...
That phytoplankton study is bunk. The authors deliberately avoided corroborating with sattelite data and extrapolated from Secchi disks numbers. Pretty suspicious. Besides that, phytoplankton growth isn't effected by by slight temperature increases, but by nutrient availability. They thrive in the tropics.
If phytoplankton were down 50%, so would the whole food chain of the ocean, since ultimately they are the most common food source. I think someone might have noticed, don't you? This is another eco-scam, just like all the other calamaties that never quite happened.
Now, let's not ascribe this to fraud or other purposeful mischief when laziness and incompetence explain the observed data pretty well. Sea surface temperature has a nominal range of -5-40C, anything above that should be flagged as "erroneous" and passed to a human for final disposition.
Caveat: I used to make a living doing quality control on surface meteorlogical measurements from ships.
Much appreciated.
Mike:
Check this:
www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful
When you commit to stop exhaling what you term 'pollution', then I'll take notice of you.
CO2 is a harmless, colourless, odourless, invisible, natural gas essential to all life on Earth - just like oxygen. The difference is that while oxygen is plentiful, CO2 is a trace gas.
Malcolm
:)
I appreciate you.
:)
My personal view is as someone who has spent over a decade litigating against government corruption in the New York State and federal courts. I see yet again faceless jobsworths crawl under their stones and hide when caught. That same old tired 'plausible deniability' gambit is trotted out- they tell you always the same thing: it was just a ‘mistake’ because 'shit happens in government work.' But as taxpayers we have the right to remedy this malfeasance/nonfeasance. Don’t buy their trite excuses. Don’t let this disease spread further and eat deeper into your tax dollars.
To all you bloggers, you sentinels of liberty prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder to protect the freedoms that belongs to us all, any glory here is yours not mine. Thank you one and all.
The explanation about cloud cover affecting readings and their being a technical problem seems like a cover up to you?
The damning evidence is in the silence. At no point in all this has the most important question been answered, backed with proof: To what extent has the flawed data been incorporated into government aggregate statistics?
Heads should roll. Congressional hearings cost taxpayers too much. Just cut the program's budget and be done with it.
I also write coastal watch and received a reply that explained in detail the whole situation in a way that was perfectly consistent with the facts. it included this statement.
"To the best of our knowledge, none of these inaccurate data were used to inform other studies of climate change, nor estimates of long term average temperatures of the Great Lakes (which are based largely on in-situ temperature measurements)."
of course you will never accept any explanation that goes against your ideology. But why don't you write to Lindzen and ask him if he believes that this was part of the conspiracy to steal your carbon dollars, Funny that NONE of the deniers who are actual skeptics have picked up on this story isn't it. Nothing from Lindzen, Spencer, Michaels etc. Obviously they have been bought off and the people on this site are the ONLY ONES LEFT who know THE TRUTH
I forgot that the temp in Silicon valley exactly correlates with world temperature. No need for all those monitors on the rest of the planet I guess. So these 90° days in Vt in September are delusions on my part.
they have already done it.
i learned at a very young age how beneficial lying can be. wether it was about my homework being done or being "full" when i didn't want to eat my veggies...
in my mid 20's i realize how much that behavioral pattern has done to hurt me really. however people still can get away with lying for their benefit. and people without morals or any sort of ethical system, that are only self-interested, lie for a living.
they lie for a living.
because it is all too easy.
how much money of yours have they used now?
Court-martialed, not court-marshalled
It comes out to about minus thirty degrees.
Same with Kelvins.
However, even this does not account for a temperature of six hundred degrees.
Worth a try, but no.
You sure about that one? You absolutely certain it isn't in the... oh let's just take a stab... 212 degree range?
But thanks for setting us straight anyway! Please post more often... you gave me more smiles than even Joker could!!!
All the best..... Jeff
"World temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 °C (2.0 and 11.5 °F) during the 21st century "
you are an ignoramus
That's the playbook isn't it?
You could be Vice President.
My question to you is WHY THE MODELS, statistical treatment of data, or any other fabricated hooey? Why can't the "Best Climatologists in the World" bear the same burden that, say, the FDA puts on the average bench scientists: DIRECT VERIFIABLE MEASUREMENTS FROM VALIDATED AND CALIBRATED INSTRUMENTS?
Whatever you believe is the value of these models is the strawman. The singular purpose of GCMs is to cheat. To cheat direct and observational measurement. Do cheat validation and calibration. And to thus cheat the entire scientific method as a whole. And you can save me the "it would be too hard to keep all the temperature stations in the world in calibration". That's the con. So in lieu of doing what a good scientist would do, they come up with statistical fabrications to "adjust" the tempeartures to what they "think are more accurate". There is not a shred of anything that can be called science or reality in that. If determining or predicting global temps can't be done for real, then IT IS WORTHLESS FOR IT TO BE DONE IN MAKE BELIEVE. Or more apporpriately, WHAT IS DONE IN MAKE BELIEVE IS WORTHLESS. There is no greater proof of that than 600F temperature readings in Lake Michigan. But of course given that you shamelessly claim that nobody is making predictions based on the models, it is clear that you LIVE in a world of make believe.
Really. Prove your assertion.
The science deniers are and always have been the same people who can't defend data without proprietary statistical algorithms and appeals to authority. These are the cop-outs of the non-scientists. Even the ones who win Nobel Prizes and disgrace the office of Vice President by propositioning massage therapists 30 years their junior. Of course Mike would probably have an excuse for that too if he hadn't tucked his tail and ran....
Your words and lack of data show us all where the blood is not flowing. I'm surprised you haven't fainted.
Please provide one piece of specific, scientifically measured real-world data proving that human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest, cyclic global warming that ended around 1998. Just one.
(By the way, Phil Jones actually stated publicly earlier this year that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. I doubt you label him a denier, do you?)
Radiosonde (weather balloon) records since 1958 show no net warming since 1958. None.
Malcolm
:)
I am also amazed that people talk of global cooling as being 9 of the hottest years on record.
but you people have to make up your minds, has there been NO warming or is the warming part of a natural cycle, it can;t really be both.
I am guessing mike left the fray because he was so aghast at the paranoia that is incapable of seeing anything but socialist scientists chortling over their domination of us poor helpless freedom loving americans.
To disprove human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest modest, cyclic period of global warming all that's needed is for me to either:
- prove no unusual warming occurred, or
- show atmospheric CO2 levels are not correlated with global temperature.
I can show both.
Temperatures:
- two meteorologists D'Aleo and Watts report on temperature measuring stations and corruption of database:
Here's the link:
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
Title: Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?
Look at their summary.
By the way, Watts initially bought global warming. Then when a few things didn't fit he checked for himself. Now, with facts a strong sceptic.
There are other records showing no net global warming since 1958 - including a paper by Phil Jones. Sent to me by a scientist - not available on web.
CO2 not correlated with temperatures:
- D'Aleo on temperature drivers
Here's the link:
icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
Title: US Temperatures and Climate Factors since 1895
Another paper showing what clearly drives global temperatures, El Nino. Proven close correlation between temperatures and El Nino with seven month lag on El Nino.
- McLean, de Freitas, Carter
It was peer-reviewed and accepted.
Then challenged and after the reviewing panel breached guidelines knocked out. Climategate e-mails included an e-mail mentioning they wanted to knock out de Freitas because his paper is so strong. E-mails show CRU gang had huge, unscientific influence over peer-review and publications.
Then realise that scientific measurements of atmospheric CO2 including those by Nobel science prize winners during the last 180 years show that CO2 levels have often been as much as 40% above current levels. Yet the UN IPCC ignores those.
Then there's the UN IPCC's own 2007 report and its 2001 report.
Chapter 9 the sole chapter attributing global warming to human production of CO2 contains no proof. None. Read it for yourself at:
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
The UN IPCC's chapter 9 is nonsense. Cleverly written but scientifically nonsense.
The equivalent chapter 12 in the 2001 report contains no proof. It's available on the web.
If you find proof, let us all know.
Correlation by itself is not sufficient as proof. Absence of correlation though is sufficient to show non-causation.
Oh, by the way, when someone makes a new claim such as human-induced global warming, the onus of proof is on them.
You cannot provide proof and yet expect me to knock it out.
And I've done that.
Malcolm
:)
From previous post, there is no observational basis for the UN IPCC's core claim of human CO2 as causation.
There is no theoretical basis. The UN IPCC's radiative back-warming theory is nonsense and contradicts the laws of Nature and physics. It was disproven over a century ago, 1909.
Then, understanding the sources of CO2 production on Earth and the reabsorption of CO2 from the atmosphere and CO2's residence time in the atmosphere and basic math show there's no physical basis. It's impossible for human production of CO2 to even influence the atmospheric level of CO2.
Remember, the UN IPCC and Al Gore did NOT get a Nobel Prize for science. They got a Nobel Peace Prize. The science prizes are awarded by panels of peer scientists. The Peace Prize is awarded by a panel within the Norwegian parliament and is open to serious lobbying.
You fell for.
And now you want, I suppose, to help bankers get rich by taking money from us all through carbon trading?
Malcolm
:)
I read D'aleo's article. Didn't understand all of it, but I know that climate scientists are quite familiar with the ocean cycles and el niño/niña. he mentions nothing about particulates and their effect on masking CO2.
Quite a few other things he ignores as well.
As to your other statements, i know some top climate scientists, and have followed this issue for many years, intently since the climategate :scandal".
I have over and over again looked at dozens of "proofs" acc is not happening and they all end up being wrong, most ludicrously wrong. Lindzen, Michaels, and Spencer, the three actual climate scientists I can think of that are skeptics all accept CO2 greenhouse theory. Are they just moles planted by Gore to throw off the ones who REALLY know the truth?
I prefer to think you are delusional, since the scientists I know are all quite honest and very rigorous, and actual skeptics, in the way that scientists are supposed to critique theories based on actual information and generally through a peer review process, that even the climate gate conspirators weren't able to corrupt in one measly case.
All of this being irrelevant to the topic of this article which is a piece of irresponsible propaganda.
the title being "US Government in Massive New Global Warming Scandal – NOAA Disgraced". Now that title would cause most sane people to believe the author had uncovered some nefarious plot- i.e. emails between Soros, Gore, Van Jones and rev Wright discussing which scientist has not done enough to promote global warming, and deciding to use their magic decoder rings to corrupt a global satelite and and bring shame onto the knave who did not do his masters bidding with sufficient zeal.
the actual reality is that a satellite has been degraded and is giving some nonsense figures when processing results over cloudy skies. You surely know of Occam's razor. Which one gets cut the deepest - conspiratorial hackers and/or decoder rings, or technological glitch that has no bearing on climate change.
Oh, BTW in reading D'aleo's paper from 2007-8? he contends near future temps should be falling. Fail on 2009 AND 2010
The one which should be cut the deepest is the taxpayer-funded propaganda source which churns out flawed data. Here in Silicon Valley, 2009 was neither hot nor cold, and 2010 has been downright chilly. Only four days of swimming weather this Summer. Brrr! Seriously.
You're doing a fantastic job as a mole discrediting deniers.
Keep it up, Malcolm!
For a second there I was worried that science and technology was in disarray, and the skeptics were right. But of course it proved not to be the case. Again.
So all we can do is twiddle our thumbs and maybe consider a FOIA.
www.oso.noaa.gov/poesstatus/componentStatusSummary.asp?spacecraft=16&subsystem=4
I may have missed something, 'though one user of the service disregarding it's readings doesn't really deal with the problem, does it ?
"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt".
People like you are timewasters to searchers of the truth, and you have NO credibility left, your 'reputation' is in tatters.
you don;t hear much about the Ozone hole layer much anymore because you don;t follow climate science. it is still quite an important issue.
the relevant info here is that something was done about the "hole" and now it is not such a big problem regarding burning to a crisp.
And what miraculous new scientific research is it that you have access to which shows that greenhouse gasses are "escaping? Are they exscaping to North Korea where they might get political asylum? Or maybe Oklahoma, and Inhofe is hiding them in the state house? but maybe you meant the HEAT from the greenhouse effect that is escaping via the Tropical Iris hypothesis of Skeptic Richard Lindzen, which has been severely critiqued by the scientific peer review process
Quoting Miss-spoke:
genastropsychicalst.blogspot.com/, titel 'codeglobal'.
I think Mike did the right thing by contacting Coastal Watch, and I find he's being rather reasonable for a cultist.
I've not read all the comments (about half) and don't know that anyone else has stated this or not, so:
There is another explanation for all the black in the diagram(s) in question rather than the explanation given by Coastal Watch that the program automatically blacks out cloud covered areas.
The program also automatically draws temperature graduations in black. Given some of the temps vary by more degrees than there are pixels between them, the application would draw the area in black while attempting to draw the temperature gradient lines.
It has been noted that the quality of Trolls around here rapidly deteriorates when you don't comment!! We're left defending funding, T. Bell, emails and the such... at least you make me think!
So thanks for taking the ribbings in my books you're an OK troll!!
All the best...(really!)... Jeff
are you impugning my troll quality
Allthe best..... Jeff
""NOTICE (8/11/2010): Due to degradation of a satellite sensor used by this mapping product, some images have exhibited extreme high and low surface temperatures. Please disregard these images as anomalies. Future images will not include data from the degraded satellite and images caused by the faulty satellite sensor will be/have been removed from the image archive.
That's a very old story. The data has since been corrected. Only one dataset did not included the corrections - has noted by A. Watts in 2009. And that last one has also been corrected since the issue was raised about the discrepency between the datasets.
Why do you make stuff up like that ?
Just look at all the events about those issues and other stuff about that range of satellite.
ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/pub/data/msu/t2lt/readme.13Apr2010
The current subject is like the usual denial bs.
And after November 2nd, we will really set things straight.
I understand, though. When the truth blasts your faith-based delusions into an alternate universe, the best thing to do is -- deny it?
By the way, the laughter you hear is not your in your imagination.
since the tens of billions of dollars that "disappear" there far outstrips the paltry millions the gov spends on climate change research
That comparison makes no sense. The defense department is much larger and encompasses many more objectives than "climate change research". Of course its budget would be much larger, dolt.
So why don't we compare the number of people and companies that have been convicted of fraud in the defense industry, and the number of fraudulent papers that have had to be retracted in the climate change industry.
A quick google search overwhelmed my ability to even guess how to how many hundreds of fraud cases involving the defense department there have been in the last 30 years.
and then I google climate change fraud and I don't find ONE scientific journal that has repudiated any peer reviewed articles supporting climate change. the only hits that come up are denier sites proclaiming fraud without any validation, except for their pseudo science and hysteria about Hockey sticks, and climate gate and huge conspiracies.
"Gabe"@tony Duncan
That comparison makes no sense. The defense department is much larger and encompasses many more objectives than "climate change research". Of course its budget would be much larger, dolt.
Have you not heard of a typo?
600 degrees Fahreinheit converts to minus 14.4 degrees Celsius, and hey, what do you know! That's about a degree or two above the average November temperature for Hudson Bay! Exactly like the average around the world has increased by one or two degrees!
You people are ****ing stupid for believing this cherrypicked bullshit. A guy missed out the point on his entering. It's called a mistake, we correct for them by either fixing the number or ignoring the data point as erroneous per se.
You know what else? There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for that too. Just you try entering all of those numbers into a spreadhseet perfectly, without ever committing one typo, not once. Morons.
RSS feed for comments to this post