I don't know what you mean?
Obviously not.
Unless a soure of bias is newly introduced or varies over time, then a time series of temperatures
all with that same bias will still reveal a trend.
I had decade in mind when I was writing that. It's kind of irrelevant, I was just trying to put it into context. It's hard to measure something as small as temperature change with instrumental error that large.
Not if the instrumental error remains the same over time.
If this Antarctic instrumental error (which you'll agree applies only in certain circumstances, and at most half the time) really introduces wild inacurracies we would see equally wild variations in Antarctic annual average temperatures, but we don't.
No it isn't, I know how inaccurate the measurements are and how little change they're trying to measure. It's nothing new to me.
Of course not, it's the sort of thing you'll see constantly chewed-over in your comfort-zone. That and snide innuendos about the warmist bias of climate scientists.
You'll have noticed that in the abstract you're so entranced by (which no doubt features very prominently on WattsUpMyButt and ClimateFraudit), there is mention of adjustments being made to take account of the particular circumstances that apply. They
may be inadequate, but they clearly exist. The most obvious adjustment is to reject measurements that suddenly spike upwards by 8-10C.
Exactly, land based measurements are useless.
From apparent errors in particular circumstances in the Antarctic (which is hardly representative of the global) you hurle away the burden of
all land-based measurements. That must be an enormous relief to you, given what they're pointing to.
Talking about any change prior to satellite measurements is just as pointless.
Then lets never speak of them again. No more "0.5C since 1880", because that's
way before the satellite era.
And yet you said "the bias in temperature measurements is
always positive". Why are you lying to us?
once in a while there are fractional errors that turn out to be positive, but they are few and far apart. It's just lazy and a clear indication of the confirmation bias inherent in the current studies.
Calling the scientists who actually do the work lazy is typically low of you. It's
your confirmation bias, backed-up by the echoing voices in your comfort-zone, that leads you to throw out data which affronts you and accuse scientists of manufacturing a warming (which is what you are doing). In fact scientists work extremely hard to get their measurements right.
In very few cases resulting in very small changes.
Whatever happened to Anthony's Watts's Picture Gallery Project? The one which was going to demonstrate how the UHI which he had discovered was going to prove all those scientists to be lazy and biased? Guess it didn't work out.
They come up infrequently and they are discussed openly in all the cases I've seen.
Now you're making stuff up. Or you were lying when you said "the bias in temperature measurements is always positive". Why are you lying to yourself?
Do you have an example of a 10 degree positive bias?
Do you? Occasional 10C errors in measurements are not a bias, they are errors which are easily identified and rejected.
Fat chance of that. They're always small and they're almost always a result of over compensating for the positive bias in measurement!
"Well we're going to show about 2 degrees warmer than it actually is"
"So adjust down 2 degrees"
"Hey, guess what, we only OVERESTIMATED the temperature, again, by 1.5 degrees"
That's called bias. The bias is almost always positive. You don't get brownie points for underestimating your over estimate.
I guess if I'm going to have a serious discussion about the paper and the bias I'll have to wait for the propaganda machine at RealCrapClimateScience.com to turn out another expose in how to handwave away reality.
You make some stuff up and then support yourself on it. Meanwhile the world warms, the ice melts, and satellite data confirms surface measurements.
.
