Apparently some of the data the CRU has yet to cough up is the list of stations they both used or discarded in making the graphs. The raw data can’t be interpreted without that if somebody is trying to do a reconstruction of their work. Doesn’t mean the raw data is useless on it’s own, it isn’t. Doesn’t mean they are hiding any nefarious methodology. Does mean 95% upfront is not 100% upfront, though, and they need to be.

Speaking of which, I just looked at all the GISS stations in my state. An awful lot of them are less than 30’ from a structure, a bunch have the white paint peeling off the Stevenson boxes so they are now brown exposed wood (which makes the interior of the box hotter.) I think I also may be seeing more of a temp rise from 1980 to present in the stations that are in the middle of towns than the stations that are in the middle of fields. Just from this cursory look, there may be 25% of the stations in the state that adhere to good data guidelines for placement and some of those show warmer temps in the 1940’s than today which I don’t ever see on the official graphs, not even in the confidence intervals. So has all this data been thrown out of the averages? All have data from the early 1900’s to now, most do reflect the general trend of warming from 1900-1920 to 1940’s then cooling to 1960-1980 then warming again to present, though not all. The most urban ones show a straight run upwards thru the century. The most isolated ones show the biggest variation in temp up and down over the years. One has a metal boat parked right next to it which looks recent because the weeds haven’t grown around it yet, and the temp for 2009 is like 5 degrees hotter than the rest of the century. I hope they throw that data point out.

If this is a reflection of the quality of ground based sensors across the rest of the country, then we really, really need a more rigorous program to gather this data. Unless of course we don’t need it and satellite data is sufficient from this point forward, I really don’t know.

Just a note: Looking at the source data for myself does not make me a denier, just curious, OKAY? I’m trying to judge on my own the credibility of some of the counter-arguments (some are obviously stupid, some are not) and thus educate myself.