The whole USHCN data set has been corrupted by a series of upwards adjustments (time of day, etc.) and inadequate downwards adjustments for urban heat effects.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif
They are currently adding nearly one degree on to the reported temperature rise, based on some very questionable data manipulations. Note how the raw and final data increasingly diverge over time.

Not surprising because the CO2 Research Lab at Oak Ridge are the keepers of the data.

Hmmm...let me get this straight. The sheep starting looking into the actions of the herder and the herder gets riled up and defensive. Right?

Nothing like a govt agency to get bent out of shape if anyone points out that they have, or create, sketchy info to further their importance.

I found it funny how a poster that has been on this site showed up in the thread on the linked site and started immediately doubting anyone who so much as questioned the intent of NOAA. Why do AGWers seem so concerned about more information being gathered?

Darren,

The thought of losing control of the AGW fraternity (whose members are easily identified by frequent use of the password "peer review") must be upsetting to them.

Apparently the definition of "peer" is "a professional climatologist who appreciates the value of keeping AGW funding coming in."

This is very disturbing news. I would think that all interested parties, regardless of their positions on Global Warming, would want the information to be public. I hope that anyone who has influence in these matters would make their voice known. Nothing is worse than a "cover up" real or perceived. It helps no one.
Jim Roth

While the people who worship their Limbaugh idols are going to say, "See, see, it's all a conspiracy!", there are legitimate privacy concerns here.

I don't know where these weather stations are located, but people, in general, are going to naturally be wary of strangers who are "observing" their property or their possessions.

Taking pictures with a view of the surroundings can sometime offer information on where a person resides, so posting pictures with no names or addresses doesn't necessarily guarantee privacy.

That being said, I fully support NOAA doing an audit of all the weather stations in their network and, if encountering situations where the procedures aren't being followed, fixing those situations. If there is a way to publish "proof" of how the weather stations are set up without infringing upon privacy, then I support that too. But, as stated, there is an exemption in the freedom of information act for these sorts of things, and NOAA is fully within their right to protect the privacy of their observers.

This is something that I have stated for years to people but it has only fallen on deaf ears. Obviously with the urban/heat island effect temp guages can only go up. They all need to be checked and made sure they are all calibrated and there are no external manmade influences that can have an impact. Even here in Asheville home of the NCDC they seem to like to use rooftop temperatures. Not thinking those are the most accurate. I mean the roof certainly couldn't be giving off any heat now could it?

Mark,

So, let me get this straight. Anyone who questions the locations of these sites is a conservative, Limbaugh-loving extremist. The seriousness with which your postings are considered drops precipitously every time you attack based on political affiliation.

More to the point, I would suggest that the locations of the stations is not malevolent. Merely, that urban sprawl or even simple home improvements is the more likely culprit that could adversely affect the accuracy of the measurements. Before we start taxing ourselves into oblivion, we should at least ensure that the information leading us down that path is accurate.

It is amazing that the same folks who agree with me that we should have checked the accuracy of information on Iraq before the invasion have no problem heading down the path to the "War on AGW" without the same level of rigor being applied.

HCN should welcome peer review, even if it doesn't make them happy. (what doesn't kill my data makes it stronger) Construction dates and details should have been clearly logged (as is standard for oceanographic data at sea). It would have been so much easier to compute offsets at that point, although some nearby altered v. unaltered sites could be correlated from archival data. Relocation of sensors away from hvac units seems essential.

Is there some ISO/ANSI/AMS standards bulletin on placement of climate sensors? If not why not? if so these stations or replacements need to brought into compliance.

On the other hand the many of the microclimates surrounding many of these sensors has truly changed so that to a degree the data reflect the actual state of affairs. The re-evaluation of the data needs to reflect that too.

Also truly complete coverage of climate data has only been in hand since satellite sensors have been in place. Surely this data has been calibrated against certain HCN stations. (this is too much for me to look up just now) Lack of data prior to remote sensing is painfully true of mid-ocean data such as sea surface temperature and sea surface height. Remotely sensed data is the future of data comparison. Satellite data collection needs to be maintained and improved, and the number of scientists devoted to development and analysis expanded.

Mark,
At least 60% of the non FAA/military/NWS observers work for public utlities, ranger stations, water works, fire stations, etc... all receive federal money to gether PUBLIC data. For the sake of scientific accuaracy, and standardization, the location and enviorment of these reporting stations must be made public. In light of recent problems associoated with both the NOAA suface stations and rawindsonde network, outside audits that are available to the public must be done. The names of the observers should remain private. If the observers do not like the policy they should quit. I knew plenty of farmers in the past who didn't mind the lat/long of thier sites being made public. Today, using Google Earth it is quite easy to get a fairly accurate observation of the local enviorment.

I spent over a decade as professional weather observer and forecaster, and I can tell you that the surface network isn't worth a cup of warm spit as far as accuracy is concerned. Professional meterologists depend on accurate data, and they are not getting it.

If scientific accuracy can be labled as being part of a vast right wing conspiracy, then the future of atmospheric science is bleak indeed.

Thanks JP for your expert opinion on the subject. Brett

Sorry not to include in previous. Guidelines are set by WMO, EPA and AASC. Standards are set by NWS.

Instrument Requirements and Standards for the NWS Surface Observing Programs (Land) NWS inst. 10-1302, September 20, 2005. Appendix E Siting and Exposure Standards for the Climate Observing Program.

The State Climatologist (1985). Publication of the American
Association of State Climatologists: Heights and Exposure
Standards for Sensor on Automated Weather Stations, v. 9, No.
4, October, 1985.

EPA (1987). On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for
Regulatory Modeling Applications, EPA-450/4-87-013 or EPA-454/R-99-005. Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Parks, North Carolina 27711.

Guide to Meteorological Instruments and
Methods of Observation, WMO-No. 8, World Meteorological Organization, draft 7th ed. (2006).
No. 8, 5th edition, Geneva Switzerland.

Now AMS or some other publicly minded person(s) needs to FOIA to see if HCN sites are in compliance, and help bring them into compliance.

You guys seem to be missing something. All the sites are already known, and an effort is underway to document them:

http://www.surfacestations.org/USHCN_stationlist.htm

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.surfacestations.org

brett,

thanks for posting this article on the blog...it will be interesting to follow how all the review and scrutiny of weather stations will shake out...i think it would be helpful to delve further into what mr. henry is saying about adjustments...perhaps a basic understanding of how temperature is taken, who takes it, how is that temperature adjusted, and what changes have been done historically with the data...for example, why is temperature adjusted and what is criteria for that?...perhaps you could find one sight and show us how this is done?...it seems to me that once the scientific community ball gets rolling critiquing the International Panel of Climate Conspiracy, this AGW thingy will be exposed for what it really is, a scam to make money...thanks again for the blog article...