********************************EXCERPT********************************************
Pat Frank Says:
January 15th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Thanks to everyone for their interest.
#1 cementafriend, errors usually sum as the sqrt(sum of squares), but I agree with you that a full accounting of error in the global temperature record will be much higher than usually admitted. We’re all waiting for Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo to publish their study of site errors in the USHCN network. No doubt but that it’ll be a stunning revelation. I just concentrated on the instrumental error, under ideal conditions, to get a handle on the minimal expected measurement uncertainty. That, by itself, turns out to be enough to render the global temperature trend moot.
#2, Dave, you’re right and that’s the whole conclusion.
#3, thanks, woodNfish, and pattoh, #4, looking at your graph we can follow the Idsos and observe that there’s not much evidence of global warming there.
To all, I mistakenly sent Warwick a prior version of the article abstract. I’m guessing that in a day or so he’ll replace it with the correct one that I just sent him. Just so you know there’s no fancy two-step going on. 