Quote:
Originally Posted by PaugusBayFireFighter
Besides the obvious problem with the readings now at Lakeport Dam, where do you see anything to dismiss the earlier reported readings posted and commented on?
The temperature of 38 degrees on Nov. 15th was what you questioned. You said "I highly doubt the water temp is 38*....must be something wrong with the sensor. Its just too early for water temps that low."
Six days later on Nov. 21st, when Lakeport reported temps of 36 degrees, you said "Sorry PBFF. There's no way the lake is 36 degrees yet. It's just too early for those water temps to be accurate. Ice of any significance is at least a month away."
Now, knowing that ice started forming 2 weeks later, you still think the readings were bogus? It's not plausible that the lake could be 38 degrees on Nov. 15th and 35 degrees on the 28th with ice forming in the coves? What am I missing?
I agree the temps may be wrong at Lakeport now, but when you originally questioned my post I said that I confirmed the water temps by looking at my two dock thermometers, which are now under about 4 inches of solid ice, about a month earlier than last year.
The picture is looking across Paugus Bay at Lakeport where the temps are recorded. It appears to have "significant" ice, as does most of the lake.
http://www.rattlesnakecam.com/icein.htm |
Not looking in any way to get into a point/counterpoint with you sir! I wasn't the only one to question the water temps all the way back to October. Just go back and re read this entire thread. My comments are based on the reports from Lakeport Dam. They have been significantly fluctuating since the end of October. Several forum members including phoenix, FLL, and our own Webmaster have commented as to the temp reporting accuracy.
When I made the comment on Nov 15th "I highly doubt the water temp is 38*....must be something wrong with the sensor. Its just too early for water temps that low", you agreed with me!
So to answer your question...yes I am still suspect of the readings today and 6-8 weeks ago. Also, while much of the lake has ice on it, I wouldn't call it significant at all. Much of it is probably very thin. JMHO.
BT