<p>NOAA revised the data. </p>

<p>The map below is for the same date and time as the first map in the question, but with the anomaly gone.  So I'll have to assume the event wasn't real.  </p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/bWC4T.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-27T05:31:17.247Z
I can imagine some conspiracy theorists saying that "they" are hiding stuff ;)
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-27T11:30:04.950Z
Even I checked to see if there was a nuclear power plant there, because they can put out a lot of thermal pollution, but there isn't.
DavePhD
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-30T05:21:57.970Z
@Michael: well, technically they are hiding stuff. A numerical glitch in their hindcast model, most likely, although it might have also been a data munging glitch in the input or output. Either way, this is most obviously an example of why "hiding" (more properly "interpolating out bugs") is a good idea.
naught101
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-02T17:30:10.700Z
Agreed this is probably a glitch.  Would enjoy to hear if there are any phenomenological explanations for how this can occur.  Data error is Occam's-razor-common, but nice to hear thoughts on what / how.  Such thinking can encourage the production of better instruments.
New Alexandria
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-26T16:32:01.220Z
2015-01-26T16:32:01.220Z
DavePhD
<p>As can be seen in the below sequence of NOAA images spanning 15 hours (most recent at top), in extreme eastern Lake Superior the surface water (but not bottom water) temperature increased dramatically in a localized area.  Can anyone confirm or rule out that this is a real event?  If it is real, what is the explanation?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs.php?lake=s&amp;ext=swt&amp;type=N&amp;hr=00" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Link to source and additional information</a> (Additional information includes lake-bottom temperature maps and additional time points)</p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/5VrjG.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/YqHjM.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dve76.gif" alt="enter image description here"></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-01-25T15:07:43.230Z
That site shows surface temperatures in the 60s (Fahrenheit) at 18:00 GMT on January 24. That makes no sense. Those are late summertime temperatures. This is midwinter.
David Hammen
<temperature><water>
Sudden Localized Surface Water Temperature Increase In Eastern Lake Superior, Canada
DavePhD
# Sudden Localized Surface Water Temperature Increase In Eastern Lake Superior, Canada

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-01-24)

As can be seen in the below sequence of NOAA images spanning 15 hours (most recent at top), in extreme eastern Lake Superior the surface water (but not bottom water) temperature increased dramatically in a localized area. Can anyone confirm or rule out that this is a real event? If it is real, what is the explanation?

[Link to source and additional information](http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs.php?lake=s&ext=swt&type=N&hr=00) (Additional information includes lake-bottom temperature maps and additional time points)

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/5VrjG.gif)

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/YqHjM.gif)

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/dve76.gif)

**Tags:** temperature, water

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: That site shows surface temperatures in the 60s (Fahrenheit) at 18:00 GMT on January 24. That makes no sense. Those are late summertime temperatures. This is midwinter.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2015-01-26. Score: 8 | Accepted answer

NOAA revised the data.

The map below is for the same date and time as the first map in the question, but with the anomaly gone. So I'll have to assume the event wasn't real.

![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/bWC4T.gif)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I can imagine some conspiracy theorists saying that "they" are hiding stuff ;)  
> **username_0**: Even I checked to see if there was a nuclear power plant there, because they can put out a lot of thermal pollution, but there isn't.  
> **username_3**: @Michael: well, technically they are hiding stuff. A numerical glitch in their hindcast model, most likely, although it might have also been a data munging glitch in the input or output. Either way, this is most obviously an example of why "hiding" (more properly "interpolating out bugs") is a good idea.  
> **username_4**: Agreed this is probably a glitch.  Would enjoy to hear if there are any phenomenological explanations for how this can occur.  Data error is Occam's-razor-common, but nice to hear thoughts on what / how.  Such thinking can encourage the production of better instruments.  

---

