Well, possibly a more interesting title than ‘Is the near surface temperature record robust?’ All of the above, plus more besides, can affect the readings at temperature stations. Anthony Watts has been collecting photographs of the USHCN climate stations. He is now up to ‘How not to measure temperature, part 22.’ He has two websites Watts up with that? and surfacestations.org
Obviously, in order for surface temperature measurements to accurately reflect temperature trends, all non-climatic influences must be removed. Initially, Anthony examined the fact that Stevenson screens that house the temperature sensor used to be painted with whitewash, but have been painted with latex paint since 1979. He has purchased 3 Stevenson screens, one has bare wood, one is painted with whitewash, and the other with latex. The initial results were posted here. The latest results will be available in about a week’s time.
Moving on to the peer reviewed science cited by IPCC WG1 in order to support the robustness of near-surface air temperature trends, Roger Pielke Sr claims on his blog, “The IPCC WG1 Chapter 3 Report clearly cherrypicked information on the robustness of the land near-surface air temperature to bolster their advocacy of a particular perspective on the role of humans within the climate system. As a result, policymakers and the public have been given a false (or at best an incomplete) assessment of the multi-decadal global average near-surface air temperature trends.“ Pielke Sr has listed the papers cited by the IPCC, and those that weren’t. Additional evidence has been posted here.
I now have a list of UK stations used by Phil Jones et al. Maybe I’ll try and obtain photographs of each site. There again, maybe not!