With the WMO’s report stating that climate data is ‘distressingly limited’, what are the Warmers using?

BB asked:


From: THE SECOND REPORT ON THE ADEQUACY OF
THE GLOBAL OBSERVING SYSTEMS FOR CLIMATE IN SUPPORT OF THE UNFCCC April 2003 GCOS – 82 (WMO/TD No. 1143)
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
There has been some progress in halting the decline of observations from in situ atmospheric networks. However, there continue to be closures of sites that have long-term high-quality records. These closures jeopardize our ability to detect climate trends and climate change in many parts of the world….. progress in completing the global database has been distressingly limited.

The GCOS Surface Network (GSN) contains about a quarter of the 4,000 stations within the WWW reference synoptic network.
FINDING: The problems with the observation and exchange of GSN data, which have been reported regularly over the past decade, require the urgent attention of nations. Many developing countries need assistance and capacity-building to resolve these problems.
FINDING: There remains a significant problem with the availability of data from up to one third of both the GUAN and full radiosonde network, especially in the tropics. These problems are occurring either because observations are not being taken due to a lack of resources, or because data are not being exchanged.
FINDING: Clouds and water vapour provide the strongest and most uncertain feedbacks in the climate system. Priority should be given to the development of an effective strategy for monitoring these variables.

http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/Publications/gcos-82_2AR.pdf

AntarcticIce, I believe that if the surface (insitu) data is so flawed which it actually is), then it should not be used at all. Though this flawed data does not disprove data, which by the way I did not state, it certainly strips a good deal of credibility from the AGW cause. The ’cause’ needs to clean up its act and stop trying to pass pigs off as race horses if they hope to stop being the butt-end of jokes.
“though this flawed data does not disprove AGW” ……..

sorry about the typo.
BTW, I read the entire document…… Both the first and second reports. There was a lot more political posturing in the second one.

It is also noteworthy that James-I-want-to-be-just-like-Al Gore- Hansen, was one of the authors of the first report which was much more critical of the state of the data being used for climate forecasting.