For those of you that want to see a detailed analysis of the data the weather stations mentioned here have produced, please take a look at Climate Audit at www.climateaudit.org
There a number of highly intelligent people are thinking through a number of the issues raised here. For example, it appears that adjustments made to the measured data by researchers may actually enhance the urban heat island effect.
But its hard to tell for sure, because key software programs and formulae used to create such types of analyses for the IPCC haven’t been made fully public. There is a Freedom of Information act effort going on in that regards because some requests for data sharing and formulae used to analyse the data have been rebuked.
Whats certain is that between the inconsistencies found with some of the surface weather stations and the lack of full disclosure on the methods used it warrants further study and investigation. One of the tenets of good science is data and methods sharing and repeatability by others. It is baffling that NOAA is not allowing their methods to be tested in this way.
Why would you find it baffling that NOAA would be fighting the request for access to the information? This behavior is completely consistent with Bush administration policy. This administration has classified information at a faster rate than any previous administration. Heck, they even re-classified information that had been public for years.
The NASA data set is just one of 3 international land sets that all show the trend, on 6 of 7 continents, global warming.
The ocean surface (and below) temps show the same trend, in every ocean in the world – global warming –
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-5.htm
The oceans act as a low pass filter and eliminate the noise, clearly showing the trend. The same is true of yet another independent technique – borehole temperature measurements. NASA satellites confirm temperature rise by radiation senors. Tell us, are these located near a space shuttle exhaust vent?
Read about those things in the scientific literature, not the Wall Street Journal. You won’t find climate clown McIntyre’s name on any of those results however.
No one disputes that there are other indicators of trends, but its also no excuse for the condition we find the surface temperature record in. Some of the other trends show far less positive indication than the surface temperature record. The surface temperature record is the impetus for much of the other studies.
By not checking the points of data collection and “assuming” that the weather stations meet the published NOAA and WMO standards appears to have been standard practice for many researchers.
If you were conducting an experiment where the results were likely to shape national and world policy, wouldn’t it be prudent to check the origin of the data set?
Government (NOAA, NWS, NCDC, Karl, et al) was charged with providing a relatively homogenous data set. Yet like many govenment programs, it fell off the radar of due diligence. The problem is real; some of the measuring stations (perhaps many) have not been properly kept up nor properly quality control checked. It’s a typical failure of bureaucracy that we’ve seen in many levels of government agencies.
If accurate science is to be done, accurate data is needed. That is a fundamental part of the scientific process.