Yes, this is a real current temperature presented by NOAA/NWS for the forecast of Addison, TX near Dallas.
![160-in-addison-tx-national-weather-service[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/160-in-addison-tx-national-weather-service1.jpg?quality=83)
I checked the airport ASOS at Dallas Addison Airport (KADS) and sure enough, the reading is there:
Source: http://w1.weather.gov/data/obhistory/KADS.html
This is likely an ASOS station failure, which is a fairly common occurance, like I pointed out in Honolulu a couple of years ago:
More on NOAA’s FUBAR Honolulu “record highs” ASOS debacle, PLUS finding a long lost GISS station
I find it amazing they don’t have a simple data sanity check built into the NOAA data dissemination system. This wouldn’t even pass in Death Valley. How many other incorrect temperatures get logged but never noticed because they aren’t so absurd as to be impossible?
h/t to D.B. Stealey and Moonbattery
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Relative humidity seems to be calculated from that temperature and is way off too, as is the heat index. That’s enough red flags would you think not?
What would the frequency of this happening on getting erratically high temp readings? How much of a temperature difference would it take to screw up (skew) avg temp readings?
My short guess is PLENTY.
How can anyone in their right mind blindly accept such unverified, unaudited data and then use it to feed their doom prediction computer models?
Garbage in garbage out.
REPLY: To be fair, we don’t know if this will make it into the monthly average or not, but we’ll check – Anthony
Ha! I, for one, would welcome those ‘readings’ come January and February …
.
But it’s a dry heat.
…has anyone ever seen one that was too low?
That’s what happens after a cold front comes through, it gets hotter – all caused by global warming.
“This is likely an ASOS station failure, which is a fairly common occurance”
Since the prior reading is 64 and the following 59, I think the true reading was 60 and someone typed a ‘1’ in front of it.
Here are the raw metar observations for Addison Airport. These do not appear to be ASOS observations. Note they report visibilities greater than 10 miles at times, something not possible with ASOS observations. Looks like a typo, observer meant 17 but manually entered 171.
KADS 151747Z 30018G22KT 10SM SCT013 SCT028 20/17 A2996
KADS 151830Z 35012G21KT 13SM OVC008 19/16 A2996
KADS 151848Z 35010G19KT 10SM -RA OVC008 18/16 A2997
KADS 151947Z 34014KT 10SM OVC008 171/15 A2998
KADS 15
KADS 152147Z 34012G19KT 11SM OVC070 15/13 A2999
KADS 152147Z COR 34012G19KT 11SM OVC007 15/13 A2999
KADS 152247Z 34012G16KT 8SM OVC007 14/12 A3001
Must be the not well-mixed cloud of CO2 drifting over from AT&T Stadium in Arlington, exhaled during Sunday’s Cowboys & Redskins (or Indigenous Americans) game.
We have had this happen in our area with wind speeds. Apparently a problem with birds landing on the wind equipment and then taking off again with no quality control.
BTW, this is NOT a forecast as the headline states but simply an observation. Big difference.
160 was supposed to be 60 degrees!!
How quickly before someone points back to it (corrected or not) and states, “Look, it’s in the record. That makes it a fact!”
Okay, maybe I just think poorly of the warmist crowd, you get that.
How is this data entered? Automatic? or manually?
However I expect Seth the bore at AP to proclaim “New Record High”.
Probably another dumpster fire.
More worryingly, how many failures occur that result in plausible readings? And how do you detect that anyway?
Latitude said
October 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm
…has anyone ever seen one that was too low?
Those are immediately checked out.
You’d have thought someone with an intact brain cell would have noticed an error of that magnitude. It just shows that no-one is watching the data. Surely it is not too difficult to create an error-checking app to flag such erroneous data?
charles the moderator says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:03 pm
But it’s a dry heat.
——————————————————————
Yeah, maybe these things don’t show up on Infra Red …
Remove “1” from “160”, and you get “60”. Just a typing error…
This reminds me of the local bank time and temperature phone number I encountered about 15 yrs ago. I called the number, and the recorded voice said “Our temperature system is working accurately now, thank you for your calls and concern…time, 7:38 pm, temperature, 518 degrees…click.”
There really should be a flag (asterisk or something) to let us know that they are aware of a possible issue. On the other hand, it’s good that they don’t try to automatically scrub or fix things on the fly. Raw data should stay raw. What I’m wondering is: at what point does this raw data get adjusted/homogenized and disappear for good? That’s an honest question, no snark intended.
You can bet that some academic drone will dig this figure up in the distant future as “unequivocal documentation” that CAGW was for real.
See how it works yet – That missing heat will turn up randomly at any location and will also be more intense in the future, I am sure we all agreed to this model in AR4.
Right, but let me channel Steven Mosher for a moment and say, remember this when bitching about adjustments. Can’t have it both ways.