Your response is inline with what I thought. Your last sentence you put in always and it is clearly trolling, trying to provoke someone and also shows what this all means to you. But that was clear already over the past few years.
Some remarks of you throughout this discussion shows how you dismiss valid problems with the station. I now see that it is in a village. I also see that you think that double checking with some other unknown station means we can be sure it is oke. However, ti s does nothing to add the necessary knowledge on the station site, ubication, surroundings etc.
Here some remarks of yours:
"It's a 2000 people town/village.It cant really be ''urban''.If you can find pics from the NOA site let me know ,I am searching for those too,I had no luck.No worries.The data seem pretty good and accurate if we contrast them with the other stations in South Crete both from HNMS and NOA."
"I think the Davis fan aspirated stations are really good in solving this issue to be honest.They are very accurate in temperature sensitivities provided they are correctly installed .As I said if you compare the daily data between Palaiohora (NOA) and Palaiohora (HNMS) stations they are very compatible albeit the later being slightly warmer.
"Anyways I think we are splitting hair here.It's a big village actually.Not really urban with really remarkable climatological conditions due to it's amazing topography.If you check pictures of the town of Palaiohora you will see how complex terrain ,with mountains ,hills etc it is.It's fascinating!"
"The data I believe are pretty good and accurate."
"Ok then the other station from HNMS,the WMO accredited one has ''solved'' it...and surprise surprise it's even warmer.What can the 10 vehicles that pass every 20 minutes from the centre of Palaiohora can do?And the station is not even in the center. Come on it's a big village.No urban heat island ,not full of vehicles etc"
"doubt it has an impact on the station.Besides the HNMS station is even warmer and it is a WMO station."
Here some points of mine:
1) WMO are guidelines and not standards, which is painfully clear when we look at Portuguese stations for example.
2) Heatisles build up because: lack of vegetation and moist mean all energy can be putin warming up the air (not into evaporation).
Concrete,asphalt etc are good in retaining heath. Much better than soil (sand especially for instance). This heath is reradiated back
into the localatmosphere which means nights are much warmer than the surrounding countryside, most of all if there is some vegetation over there.
4) trees, buidlings etc keep thewind at bay. The air is more stable and there is less mixing of colder air above with warmer air on the ground.
This means that heath can build up much better compared to open terrain. Again, a small village or even a large garden in the open field
is perfectly capable of causing this effect.
Talking about WMO: WMO guidelines explicitly note that there should be no buildings or trees in a 200 m radius. There is a reason for that....
Davis aspirated weatherscreens are PRONE to warming. it is the non artificially screen that is the cooler one under high insolation conditions as compared to Stevensonscreens and actually most other screens.
From the WMO report of 2011, which included among others a passive and an artifical ventilated Davisscreen:
"Other artificially ventilated screens gave disappointing results, with quite warm
temperatures in case of solar radiation. This may be due to their design and/or some
faults in the ventilation during the test (dust and sand reducing the ventilation
efficiency). For example, the ventilated DAVIS gave worst results (warmer
temperatures during day) than the passive DAVIS, which was not expected."
WMO report: INSTRUMENTS AND OBSERVING METHODS
REPORT No. 106/ WMO/TD-No. 1579
So unless other info is available on the station, we can conclude that this station does not come close to WMO guidelines, that a village is prone to warming. That an intercomparison with a Davis centilated screen is at best to be researched further, that an intercomparision is not helpfull if nothing is known about the exact location of a station.
Your dismissal of Spanish stations because of similar faulty ubication seems in stark contrast with your acceptance when it comes to Greek stations. The Athens case, of which we can find detailed reports of a very strong heat isle effect was also met with the same, noncritical approach of yours. Athens, however, seems is mostly seen in (recent) research as a typical example of a large heatisle effect.