Michael Tobis wrote: > I believe your calculations presume independent samples. > > Because there are known low frequency phenomena in the atmosphere the > purely statistical probability (leaving out physical arguments) that > the observations are distinct from a null hypothesis of no sustained > warming, while surely quite high, is nowhere near as high as is > obtained from assuming independent samples.
More broadly, please see "The Insignificance of Significance Testing" by Neville Nicholls, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 82, No. 5, pp. 981–986 (2001). Public access to BAMS is free. Go to: http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-toc&issn=1520-0477&volume=82&issue=5 and scroll down (under "commentary and analysis"). -- Raymond W. Arritt tel +1-515-294-9870 Professor, Department of Agronomy fax +1-515-294-2619 3010 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011 USA http://www.mesoscale.iastate.edu Unit #02582 (TINLC) ---------------------------------------------------------------- When in doubt, keep it simple. -- Jack Casady --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
