You aren't getting it Socold!
1. Every single link you posted is not an observation record but a reconstruction record.
Phil Jones takes temperature data from different greenland stations and performs an analysis to produce a single graph of temperature from those individual records. What part of the process makes it a "reconstruction"?[/color][/quote]
Weighting is employed to produce a single graph of temperature elevating poorly sampled region errors over well sampled region errors. A course in upper division statistics would explain what that means to you.
It is an effort to arrive at an absolute value and its a constructed value, not a measured value.
I can say flat out that when you look at the available graphs for individual station sampling periods the US is almost painted black from records exceeding 80 years in durations. No other place in the world rivals such sampling except relatively small portions of Europe and Asia.
If you want to explain global warming from its fundamental basis of increasing global heat content you need to understand why the best sampled area of the world has not warmed over the past 70 years.
Until that is answered that fact alone implies huge uncertainties in the global climate record. Logically it might deal with the Pacific Ocean but that would mean the Pacific Ocean isn't keeping pace with estimated climate change, but this is key climate understanding as the Pacific ocean covers nearly half the planet and to understand climate change you need to understand how the Pacific is reacting to it.
So you are left with three possibilities. One is the climate reconstructions are wrong because of biases in analysis and/or poor historic sampling. Or the Pacific Ocean is heavily moderating climate change to the point climate change is undetectable in the continental US. Or the Pacific is calling the shots and the rest of the world is delayed in response.
Most likely a combination of all three considering how complex this issue is and what we do know about the dominating effect of the Pacific Ocean.
Spending millions on temperature smoothing work by Hansen and CRU is just a complete waste of money until some better answers are generated on the above.
A thorough audit of Jones and Hansen would reveal the biases in the temperature record to the extent they exist, which undoubtedly they do considering the attitudes of these people and give you a far better perspective on the remainder of the issues than we have right now.
Since there is so much data sharing a single audit would probably accomplish that.
The CRU raw data issue has sort of fallen from view but it is a real issue. I suspect where ever you start your audit it is going to come back to some of that missing data.
This sounds like twaddle and I think you are hiding the fact that you are using "reconstruction" to describe any effort to produce a single temperature graph from multiple stations.
So just explain the process you would go about to produce a single graph labelled "Greenland temperature" from several greenland station temperature records.
And explain how that differs from a "reconstruction"
You are focused on coming up with a "greenland" temperature. I wouldn't even attempt that without far more complete GIS data than we currently have. I also don't think there is any need to come up with it.
What I would do is simply average the stations after reviewing the individual stations and classifying them in a way similar to the WUWT station classification system so you could do some analysis for station accuracy.
Now I am aware that simply averaging stations creates the potential for regional biases but I would classify regional biases as being "weather" from the perspective of a global warming trend.
If such a record is affected by regional weather biases then the record is too short to be a reliable measure of a climate trend. You can't argue that smoothing data from poorly sampled areas into unsampled areas does anything to correct for that because you don't know what areas of the world are being affected by weather and which areas are the more reliable measure of climate.
The data smoothing exercises like Hansen's and Jones' merely serve as a measure of the degree of regional weather bias in the record and provide a away of feeding data into a GCMs but I don't see any basis for declaring a smoothed dataset as being a more reliable predictor of a climate trend than an averaged dataset and the averaged dataset will be clear of anthropogenic bias provided bias does not enter into the selection of the dataset.
Since an averaging of stations would extend regional weather variation beyond 70 years the fact is we cannot come up with a good quantifier of climate anomaly based upon CO2 science because almost all of the excess CO2 has been emitted in the last 70 years.
Akasofu presents a reasonable approximation of climate and weather cycles in his reconstruction. It is far from complete, primarily because it does rely greatly upon the climate reconstruction work of Jones and Hansen, but he does outline where some of the problems are.
Akasofu also doesn't offer an answer to why the US didn't warm over the past ocean cycle suggesting there is more material regional weather pollution in the dataset than he identified.
I am interested in the warming over the instrument period probably best beginning for Greenland during WWII.
The correct way to assess the change would be a careful analysis of the military data from Greenland beginning with the creation of several weather stations at Thule, Sondrestrom, Ikateq, Gronnedal, Scoresbysund, and Narsarsuaq in 1941 and 1943 during WWII the data coming out of there enabled the allies to successfully land in Normandy when Rommel was celebrating his wife's birthday in Germany when his weather forecasters failed to detect a break in the weather. . . .so you at least have established some skill on that data.
How would this careful analysis work? At some point you will have to merge the data from these stations? Explain why Phil Jones method is inadequate to do this.
[/color][/quote]
I did explain above.
Hansen has argued that absolute temperatures are not as important as measuring the trend. Yet the Jones and Hansen methods of gridding and smoothing data is trying to get to an "absolute" anomaly in the presence of regional weather pollution of longer periods than the existence of an adequate global instrument record. (which in fact may still be lacking).
So the extension of Hansen's argument applies to his own work in comparison to an unweighted averaging of stations to determine a trend. He did nothing to fix the inherent basic problem with uncontrolled variables.
In fact such an averaging would make a good test of the gridded dataset trend. Since AGW theory produces different warming by latitude the fact that the best sampled region is in the mid latitudes any latitudinal error from averaging stations should be reduced. At any rate any error from averaging may well produce far less error than using questionable data from a few remote outposts to estimate warming for the unsampled areas of the region.
Of course nobody is going to do that because they don't want people to know there are problems with the dataset.
To go ahead and grid the temperatures like Hansen does pretty clearly results in biases favored by Hansen. So he accepts it and defends it. But only inside his own egotistical mind has he proven anything. The glaring fact is he has done nothing whatsoever to explain the weather biases in the record.
With lawsuits popping up over falsifying regional temperature records its an appropriate time to fully audit the record.
Its also shameful the way the ARGO program is being handled. It comes up with what is perceived as the wrong answer and since then it has been a flurry of "adjustments" to the ARGO record and apparently a defunding of study work on ARGO.
Somebody needs to own up to whether the ARGO project is a failure or if what we are waiting for is for it to return the "right results" whereupon it would no doubt be heralded as the "second coming".
Meanwhile funding for climate science has reverted to the old XBT system because its coming up with the politically expedient answers.
If climate science were an oil tanker it would be up on a rocky shoal spewing oil into the environment and it seems nobody wants to recognize that fact.