This is why non-scientists should not be allowed to see raw climate data. Anyone with a PhD level understanding of statistics is only too aware that surface temperature levels in the great lakes are often hundreds, even thousands, of degrees above the sea-level boiling point of water. This is because the great lakes are not at sea level, a fact not comprehended by the author of this misleading and ignorant article.
*In one example swiftly taken down by NOAA after my first article, readings for June and July 2010 for Lake Michigan showed crazy temperatures off the scale ranging in the low to mid hundreds - with some parts of the Wisconsin area apparently reaching 612 F.
This is why non-scientists should not be allowed to see raw climate data. Anyone with a PhD level understanding of statistics is only too aware that surface temperature levels in the great lakes are often hundreds, even thousands, of degrees above the sea-level boiling point of water. This is because the great lakes are not at sea level, a fact not comprehended by the author of this misleading and ignorant article.*
This explains why al gore says it’s “millions of degrees” 2km beneath the surface of the Earth!
"This is why non-[bought and paid for] scientists should not be allowed to see raw climate data."
After all, they use fancy words like "falsified" in embarrassing ways...
giggle
please elaborate... I thought the boiling point gets reduced with altitude and Lake Michigan is approx 600 ft above sea level. with the sea level boiling point of approx. 212 F, shouldn’t the Lake Michigan figures be lower ?
You almost did too good of a job with that one. :-)