This paper has been completely discredited.
Here the conclusion to an article on Skepitcal science found here
https://skepticalscience.com/frank_propagation_uncertainty.html .
I suggest you read the whole thing
Conclusion
You might ask, how did this paper get published? Well, the publisher isMDPI, which has a questionable track record. The journal -Sensors- is rather off-topic for aclimate-related subject. Frank’s paper was first received on May 20, 2023, revised June 17, 2023, accepted June 21, 2023, and published June 27, 2023. For a 46-page paper, that’s an awfully quick review process. Each time I read it, I find something more that I question, and what I’ve covered here is just the tip of the iceberg. I am reminded of a time many years ago when I read a book review of a particularly bad “science” book: the reviewer said “either this book did not receive adequate technical review, or the author chose to ignore it”. In the case of Frank’s paper, I would suggest that both are likely: inadequate review, combined with an author that will not accept valid criticism.
The paper by Patrick Frank is not worth the electrons used to store or transmit it. For Frank to be correct, not only would the entire discipline ofclimatescience need to be wrong, but the entire discipline of introductory statistics would need to be wrong. If you want to understanduncertaintyin global temperature records, read the proper scientific literature, not this paper by Patrick Frank.
AdditionalSkeptical Scienceposts that may be of interest include the following:
Of Averages and Anomalies(first of a multi-part series on measuringsurface temperaturechange).
Berkeley Earth temperature record confirms other data sets
Aresurface temperaturerecords reliable?
