Yes it is.
Standard error of the mean
The standard deviation measures the precision of a single typical measurement.
It is common experience that the mean of a number of measurements gives a more precise estimation than a single measurement. This experience is quantified by the standard error of the mean.
If each measurement has a standard deviation
s and the measurements are all independent, then the mean of the
N measurements has a standard deviation
s/√
N. This quantity is called the standard error of the mean. For a proof of this formula see the tutorial on expectations and estimators .
Thus, for the mean to be ten times more precise than a single measurement, 100 independent measurements need to be taken.
Oh yes! Let's dive into temperature variance, shall we? This highlights yet ANOTHER issue with the temperature data that we have and people who are trying to apply it to the whole Earth.
Temperature can have a variance as high as 20degF/mile. If you really want to know the temperature of the Earth to any sort of usable accuracy, you would need over a billion UNIFORMALLY SPACED thermometers across all of the land, water, and atmosphere of the Earth. Anything less than that would lead to pure guesswork because temperature variance is so high (as much as 20degF/mile).
All land data are the temperatures of the atmosphere immediately above the Earth's surface. Ocean data is SST data.
... which excludes the temperatures of all of the atmosphere above what is immediately above the Earth's surface, and above that, and above that, and above that... ... ... This is called LOCATION BIAS. They also aren't uniformly spread across the Earth. That's also location bias.
No bias is introduced by the process.
... except for all the biases that I've been mentioning.
Measured values are the recorded data
This you have correct.
and known biases ARE removed at the outset.
No they aren't. If thermometers aren't uniformly spaced across the whole Earth, then there is location bias. This bias is known and is an issue.
You cannot remove all biases as measurements are taken simply because they are not all known.
Of course one cannot remove what one doesn't know about. I'm talking about known biases. As I've been bringing them up, they are most definitely known (at least by me).
This is incorrect. As noted above, all land surface readings ARE atmospheric readings. The US CRN does not have thermometers stuck into the ground.
Sorry. I'd didn't realize you'd be a prick about it, so I should rephrase. The existence of ALMOST ALL of Earth's atmosphere is being ignored (except for a little bit just above the surface where the thermometers are).
Because you couldn't resist being a prick, you've just brought up yet ANOTHER problem. There are no thermometers stuck into the ground. The ground is also a part of Earth, and thus should also be included in measurements of Earth's temperature. This includes going underground, all the way to Earth's core. Leaving those areas out is location bias with regard to claiming to know "Earth's temperature".
Childish.
And since different locations on the Earth have different temperatures and those different temperatures are what scientistst are looking to measure, there is no such thing as "location bias"
That is exactly WHY there is location bias dude... holy crap... Different locations have different temperatures, and those locations can easily vary by as much as 20degF/mile. If you don't have thermometers uniformly spaced all within a mile of each other, then your calculated results for "Earth's temperature" could be (and are) WAYYYYYYYYYYYY off due to the existence of this very high variance. Remember, the Earth has almost 200 million sq miles of surface area, and that's just the surface area, let alone all of the atmospheric area and all of the underground area.
TLDR: You (and "the experts") are taking too few pinpoint locations of Earth and are attempting to calculate the temperature of the entirety of Earth from them.
unless the geographical location of a measurement was in error, which is exceeedingly unlikely to be common, produce a bias or be a systemic error.
I'm assuming that the geographical location is correct. The issue is that many geographical locations are being left out, and having a thermometer just a mile over from another potential location means that the snapshot temperature data, at any given time, could vary from the potential location by as much as 20degF.
Read the linked article. You have several erroneous ideas about how global temperatures are calculated.
Your issue, not mine.
And you cannot refine tens of thousands of readings from the planet's surface into a single value representing the planet as a whole without performing a little math.
Of course not, but the point is that tens of thousands of readings (which have location bias because they aren't uniformly spaced -- and also have time bias if they aren't simultaneously read by the same observer) aren't nearly enough readings given how high temperature variance is. You would need over a billion uniformly spaced and simultaneously read thermometers to know Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy.
Time bias was a known factors centuries ago and I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by "location bias". I suspect you don't either.
Now you're in paradox. First you claim that it isn't an issue. Now you claim to not even know what it is. I've already identified it and explained it to you.
Still speaking from ignorance.
Your issue, not mine. All of the atmosphere above the surface level area is being completely ignored. That's location bias, as not all locations are being taken into consideration.
You would move the entire graph up or down but would make no other changes whatsoever.
Wrong.
I'm sorry, but you are accomplishing nothing here but embarrassing yourself.
Your issue, not mine.
Some of us... yeah.
Just looked up TLDR. So... uh... yeah.
Your issue, not mine.
www.ncei.noaa.gov
