Oh, by the way, here is an interesting document to read.
If you read between the lines, all of the data referenced in the report has been homogenized, including satellite data which is apparently done by hand, at least that is what is inferred in the document. Check it out.
This is the same document that has the FOOTNOTE: "Some have expressed concern that land temperature data might be biased due to urbanization effects. Recent studies specifically designed to identify systematic problems using a range of approaches have found no detectable urban influence in large-area averages in the data sets that have been adjusted to remove non-climatic influences (i.e., “homogenized”)."
'Recent Studies'? Really? Produced by whom? The IPCC perhaps?
"U.S. Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1",
"Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research"
www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-all.pdfWhat is interesting are the many references to homogenized data sets, from what I can see, all of it, yet there is no real information about the rules of the game. There are 180 pages, and they could not find the room to explain how ground based temperature data is being massaged?
There are also 36 references to the IPCC.
Let me guess, NOAA is using data produced by the IPCC that has been heavily tainted by data homogenization, and they themselves probably do not even have the algorithms to share with the public. Some guy sitting at the IPCC comes up with a rule set that is the entire crux of the man-made global warming argument, and low and behold, writes a software program that demonstrates it. This sure sounds like transparent science to me.
I think I need to take another look at Scientology, because this Voodoo science has lost all appeal to me.