Since the method of calculating the adjustments has not been made available, people are left to question those adjustments. As D. Patterson wrote:

Quote:
Another potential source of error in a five degree square grid of mean temperatures due to invalid nominal lapse rate assumptions can be found when observation stations subject to adiabatic heating and cooling during events such as Santa Ana winds are used to adjust the raw air temperature observatiosn of stations not subject to such winds.

Increased air temperatures of 10C/29F per kilometer can result as the cold air descends from the observation stations located at higher elevations to the observation stations located at the lower elevations. See the discussion of Santa Ana winds at the following Website and note the many ways in which averaging the air temperatures of observation stations in a grid that are subject to such dissimilar conditions can introduce bias and errors into the mean value for the grid.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~fovell/ASother/mm5/SantaAna/winds.html

When reviewing such air temperature datasets for potential adjustment errors, some of the questions a reviewer may need to ask may be:

How many of the reporting stations used to determine an adjustment value were and were not subject to Santa Ana wind conditions, other meterological events which introduce actual changes to lapse rates in air temperatures, and other events? Where are the adjustment records which document such errors have not incorrectly influenced the adjustments?

If the adjustments took into consideration such meteorological events, were the quantitative values correctly determined and applied to the adjustments? If so, what were the quantitative values and where are the adjustment records documenting such evaluations?

How can the science be settled if the temperature data and calculations cannot be verified?