Forecast for Dallas: 160°F with a chance of showers

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]

I checked the airport ASOS at Dallas Addison Airport (KADS) and sure enough, the reading is there:

Dallas_ASOS_160F

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John from the EU

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?

MAC

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.

Latitude

…has anyone ever seen one that was too low?

PeteP

That’s what happens after a cold front comes through, it gets hotter – all caused by global warming.

andyd

“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.

Mark Albright

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

milodonharlani

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.

cjames

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.

john robertson

How is this data entered? Automatic? or manually?
However I expect Seth the bore at AP to proclaim “New Record High”.

Lew Skannen

Probably another dumpster fire.

TimTheToolMan

More worryingly, how many failures occur that result in plausible readings? And how do you detect that anyway?

Steve Case

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?

Truthseeker

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 …

Casper

Remove “1” from “160”, and you get “60”. Just a typing error…

Severian

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.”

Dan in Nevada

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.

1sky1

You can bet that some academic drone will dig this figure up in the distant future as “unequivocal documentation” that CAGW was for real.

Lord Galleywood

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.

Mark Bofill

Right, but let me channel Steven Mosher for a moment and say, remember this when bitching about adjustments. Can’t have it both ways.

the1pag

I find it amazing they don’t have a simple data sanity check built into the NOAA data dissemination system.
Why imagine they can really be sane?

John F. Hultquist

Latitude says:
October 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm
“…has anyone ever seen one that was too low?

See my Tips and Notes comment on WUWT for
October 1, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Sensor problem was noted and fixed.
What stays in the record – who knows?

Latitude says on October 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm:
“…has anyone ever seen one that was too low?”
= = = = = = = = = =
Yes, but my “educated guess” is that as soon as they are spotted, They are “Adjusted up to what they surely must have been”

OOPS

Geoff Sherrington

This calls for the Dr Strangelove defence:
Muffley: There’s nothing to figure out General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
Turgidson: Well, I’d like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
Muffley: (anger rising) General Turgidson, when you instituted the human reliability tests, you assured me there was no possibility of such a thing ever occurring.
Turgidson: Well I don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip up sir.

Casper says October 16, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Remove “1″ from “160″, and you get “60″. Just a typing error…

In this day and age, there shouldn’t be any humans ‘in the loop’ … now, corrupted data (occurring in transit from the ASOS site to destination) is another thing; a parity error/checksum at some point should have caught that …
.

It took them 2 hours to fix it. I was trying to takeoff at an Air Force base once and the weather station was reporting overcast at 100ft even though there wasn’t a cloud in the sky. Several airplanes weren’t allowed to takeoff and were telling the weather man his station data was incorrect but the weather man said he couldn’t override the computer unless they got a pilot report from someone flying. Because I was in a helicopter I got a special VFR takeoff approved and immediately reported the true weather. Then they let everyone takeoff.
Strange how people have become subordinate to computers even when they are obviously wrong.

rabbit

Climate science should at all times be based on robust rather than classical statistics. Instead of a least-squares regression, for example, one should do a regression based on least absolute deviation or even M-estimation.
This reduces skewed results caused by outliers from instrument failure, misprints, and so on.

RobWansbeck

Lucky it was ‘Overcast’ or it would have been really warm.

Jim says:
I can’t say for sure, but I’ve worked with an ASOS a bit and the data was fed directly to a computer with no human input. We could only observe. That data was fed directly into a larger database. I’m not sure if anyone can manipulate the data it puts out.

RoHa

See. Runaway Global Warming. Just as predicted.

Andrew Harding

Thanks for this Anthony, now know where the “missing heat” has gone from the last 17 years; Dallas Airport! 14:47: 15/10/2013.
Can someone please phone the IPCC and tell them their predictions/projections/guesses/animal entrail patterns are back on track?

Maybe the weather station is located too close to the airport tarmac and a Southwest Airlines jet had to sit next to it before getting clearance for takeoff.

Psalmon

OMG I saw the same thing happen in Stamford, CT. Wunderground which uses the NOAA feed I think showed 80F and a half hour later it was showing 65 or so. It does not show up on the historical trace, but I’m sure I saw the same thing.

PaulH

Waiting for “Forecast The Facts” to help clear this up. (Not.)

Can someone phone the IPCC and tell them the missing heat from the last 17 years has not gone into the oceans?
It has gone to Dallas Airport at 14:47 on 15/10/2013!!

I like hot…

Robert of Ottawa

charles the moderator says October 16, 2013 at 2:03 pm:

But it’s a dry heat.

A dry heat? In Dallas? Come on! People in Dallas move from AC in the house to the AC in the car to the AC in the workplace. Just like people in Ottawa in winter.

Brian R

I’m sure that NOAA’s data homogenization processes will take care of it.
/sarc

Don’t deny it, 97% of all computers agree it was 160F.

Mark Bofill

Mark Bofill says:
October 16, 2013 at 3:33 pm
—————–
In case anyone’s curious, I’ve discovered it’s just as annoying when you do it to yourself as when Steven does it to you. Disagreeable little experiment I won’t be repeating. 🙂

It’s raw data.
Leave it be.
Actually you see this in all raw data.
Later during qa it will be flagged after the following is checked.
Past temps
Nearby stations
The surrounding days.
Qa doesn’t happen in isolation from other sources of information.
This is why raw data sucks

chris moffatt

FWIW the ASOS at KRIC (Richmond “international” airport) was found to be reading several degrees high. By my observations it was that way for several (at least ten) years always reading 4 – 5 degrees above the readings at my house (8 miles from KRIC). A maintenance crew found the thermometer screens at KRIC were routinely being clogged with grass clippings from grounds maintenance ops. They quietly fixed that and for the last three months or so KRIC readings agree with mine to within 1 degree. Whadayaknow!!
Of course all those excess readings went into the official record.

Goldie

Not knowing much about US Geography, I thought there was a Hell, Texas. Turns out its in Michigan. So no hell in Texas……until now!

john another

Mosher says “raw data sucks”
I’m sure the data that is represented by photographs of the large healthy trees exposed by the receding Mendenhall Glacier and across Canada, Russia and the vegetation being exposed on the Western Antarctic Peninsula must really suck.
Bye the bye, what is the “limit switch” for correction of diversions from past temps, nearby stations, and surrounding days? And why do such “corrections” always favor your belief system?