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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
See. Runaway Global Warming. Just as predicted.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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 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
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.
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!
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?