Yes it does. The bias isn't consistent from day to day and month to month. You obviously didn't read the paper to understand the sources of the bias.
[/uote]
I read the paper. I saw the source of the bias. I read that authors do not state that their results have any effect on global temperatures. The lack of this means that bthe paper really has no place ion this thread.
Even the authors state that the results have little to no effect on the temperature trend.
Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends
Temperature trend estimates vary according to site classification, with poor siting leading to an overestimate of minimum temperature trends and an underestimate of maximum temperature trends, resulting in particular in a substantial difference in estimates of the diurnal temperature range trends. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications.
As I said - the paper is putting better numbers on what is already known, i.e. that siting has little effect on temperature trends, e.g.
Menne et al. 2010
On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record (PDF)
Recent photographic documentation of poor siting conditions at stations in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has led to questions regarding the reliability of surface temperature trends over the conterminous United States (CONUS). To evaluatethe potential impact of poor siting/instrument exposure on CONUS temperatures, trends derived from poor and well sited USHCN stations were compared. Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining
the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of nonstandard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures
are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
Yes they are. So are Canada's and South America's and Asia,even little old Australia. They're all global temperatures. (cuz they're all part of the globe)
You obviously do not know this but in climate science, global temperature is the overall temperature of the globe. It is essentially an average of the Arctic, Antarctic, US, Canada, South America, Thailand, Australia and even little old New Zealand temperatures.
The US tempertaures are
regional temperatures.
Yes, what they know but don't like to admit.
Deny, deny, deny.
Wrong: What they know and really like to admit and educate people about, e.g. that surface station measurements need careful analysis.
Science, Science, Science.
!
) might.
