Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers
Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models. This difference might be explained by some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and internal climate variability.
Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval)1. This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). To illustrate this, we considered trends in global mean surface temperature computed from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5
models (see Supplementary Information).
These models generally simulate natural variability — including that associated
with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and explosive volcanic eruptions — as
well as estimate the combined response of climate to changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations, aerosol abundance (of sulphate, black carbon and organic carbon,
for example), ozone concentrations (tropospheric and stratospheric), land
use (for example, deforestation) and solar variability. By averaging simulated
temperatures only at locations where corresponding observations exist, we find
an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C
per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The
observed rate of warming given above is less than half of this simulated rate, and
only a few simulations provide warming trends within the range of observational
uncertainty (Fig. 1a).
Figure 1 | Trends in global mean surface temperature. a, 1993–2012. b, 1998–2012. Histograms of observed trends (red hatching) are from 100 reconstructions of the HadCRUT4 dataset1. Histograms of model trends (grey bars) are based on 117 simulations of the models, and black curves are smoothed versions of the model trends. The ranges of observed trends reflect observational uncertainty, whereas the ranges of model trends reflect forcing uncertainty, as well as differences in individual model responses to external forcings and uncertainty arising from internal climate variability.
The inconsistency between observed and simulated global warming is even more
striking for temperature trends computed over the past fifteen years (1998–2012).
For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four
times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b).
It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly
different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. The
divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the
early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends
from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively).
The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models
(when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce
the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global
warming over the past fifteen years.
This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the
observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are
exchangeable with each other (that is, the ‘truth plus error’ view); or (2) the models
are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (see Supplementary
Information).
Brief: http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/pcic_science_brief_FGZ.pdf
Paper at NCC: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309
- Supplementary Information (241 KB) CMIP5 Models
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-ocean-acidity-may-spur-climate-action-20130907-2tbe7.html
as an avowed Climate Cycler and denier of Climate Goring I cannot understand how useless the media have been in executing their responsibility to journalism, instead they have been nothing better than glorified story tellers. As per this ‘article’ the Ph has moved to 8.1 from the 8.2 of pre industrial levels. OH?? really?? what a drastic change. I am saddened by this massive shift and ask for all Greens to avoid electrical power and carbon based products immediately. NOW!!!
regards
Among the probability theory specialists being present here
e.g. Richard, Alan, Dan, dr Brown
I do have an interesting problem for you.
I took a random sample of 47 weather stations, carefully selected to be suitably globally representative.
I analysed all daily data, determining the change in temperature noted over time.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
I observed that the change in the speed of warming/cooling can be set out against time giving binomials with high correlation, >0.95. In the case in the drop of the speed maximum temp.correlation was >0,995.
Unfortunately, the binomial fit would show tremendous cooling coming up in the future… I therefore came up with the sine wave best fit for the drop in the speed of maximum temp.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
Now back in 1985 William Arnold reported a connection between sunspots and planet alignment.
Observe from my a-c curves (can be determined and easily estimated)
1) change of sign: (from warming to cooling and vice versa)
1904, 1950, 1995, 2039
2) maximum speed of cooling or warming = turning points
1927, 1972, 2016
Then I put the dates of the various positions of Uranus and Saturn next to it:
1) we had/have Saturn synodical with Uranus (i.e. in line with each other)
1897, 1942, 1988, 2032
2) we had complete 180 degrees opposition between Saturn and Uranus
1919, 1965, 2009,
In all 7 of my own results & projections, there is an exact 7 or 8 years delay, before “the push/pull ” occurs, that switches the dynamo inside the sun, changing the sign or direction of the warming/cooling….!!!! Conceivably the gravitational pull of these two planets has some special lob sided character, causing the actual switch. Perhaps Uranus’ apparent side ward motion (inclination of equator by 98 degrees) works like a push-pull trigger. Either way, there is a clear correlation. Other synodical cycles of planets probably have some interference as well either delaying or extending the normal cycle time a little bit. So it appears William Arnold’s report was right after all….(“On the Special Theory of Order”, 1985).
http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-astronomy/arnold_theory_order.pdf
My reasoning now is that the probability of there not being a relationship of the alignment of the planets Uranus and Saturn with the speed of incoming energy, is only 1 / 7 to the power 7
Am I right or am I wrong?
From HenryP on September 6, 2013 at 9:33 pm:
They were a carefully selected random sample.
Please provide what you think is the meaning of “random”. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Dan Pangburn:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 6, 2013 at 5:11 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1409960
Unfortunately, I have nothing more to add because I have explained my view in my previous two replies to you.
As I explained, the model you promote is a curve fitting exercise.
I write to try to help you understand the problem with the model.
I ask you to consider the post to you from Allan MacRae at September 6, 2013 at 7:51 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1410046
He says
I add that the other global temperature data sets vary, too. This is GISS
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Does the model only work for Hadcrut4?
If so, then it will not work soon because the Hadcrut4 data are altered most months.
Does the model work for Hadcrut4, Hadcrut3 and GISS which are different?
If so, then – as I said – it is a curve fitting exercise which provides no information.
Please note that the transient nature of the global temperature data sets is why in my above post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1408432
I argued that there are two separate issues when considering performance of numerical climate models, and these are
(a) the data
and
(b) comparison of model results with the data.
Curve fitting deliberately combines those issues and, therefore, it is not possible to assess one by using the other.
Richard
Henry P:
re your question to me an others.
Sorry, but I cannot provide an answer to your question until you have provided the clarification requested of you by kadaka (KD Knoebel) at September 6, 2013 at 10:48 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1410115
I have provided a reply to Dan Pangburn but – for some mysterious reason – it (and another reply I attempted to someone else on another thread) is trapped in moderation.
Richard
nevket240:
re your post at September 6, 2013 at 9:08 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1410078
You say concerning so-called ‘ocean acidification’
The pH of the ocean surface layer varies so much in space and in time that there is no possibility of such a small average change having been detected.
However, if that pH change has happened then it would induce an argument concerning which is cause and which is effect.
A change of only 0.1 in the average pH of the ocean surface layer would alter the equilibrium between atmospheric CO2 and oceanic CO2 concentrations to induce a rise in atmospheric CO2 which would be greater than the claimed rise from 280 ppmv to ~400 ppmv since the industrial revolution. Such a pH change could be (but probably is not) a result in variation of sulphur emission from volcanoes beneath the sea followed by the sulphur taking centuries before the thermohaline circulation conveys it to the ocean surface layer.
The subject of the carbon cycle is interesting but not pertinent to this thread. I have answered your post so it has not been ignored, so there is no reason to pursue the matter here.
If you want more info. on the carbon cycle then I suggest you use the WUWT Search facility for
Salby
then read the threads which that provides.
Richard
RMB said on September 7, 2013 at 5:58 am:
If I drop a pebble into water, there are ripples in the water.
The object doesn’t have to enter the water. I can skip a stone across a pond, and everywhere the stone touches the water there will be ripples.
The ripples are evidence of the transfer of kinetic energy.
The thermal energy of a gaseous molecule is basically just kinetic energy.
So picture a pebble as small as a molecule that hits the water, whether it enters or just bounces off the surface. It can transfer kinetic energy to the water, which is transferring physical heat.
Thus it is shown that air that is warmer can transfer physical heat to water that is cooler.
Thus you are wrong.
“it can transfer kinetic energy to the water”. I thought so too but when I tried to heat water through the surface using a heat gun thats not the result I got. At 450degsC the heat should quickly boil the water but the water remains cold including the point on the surface where the heat is being directed. The rejection of heat is very convincing. If you want to heat water through the surface, the only way to do it is to apply the heat source through a metal floating object. The floating object kills the surface tension and heat will flow. I don’t pretend to know exactly why the heat is so convincingly blocked but my guess is that we just don’t know enough about the properties of surface tension, after all not many people fire heat guns at buckets of water.
RMB-
Just some thoughts.
Getting a set amount of water to “boil” takes more than just a heat source that is 430 degrees. Boiling water is the result of convection and conduction, and only results with ALL of the water in a given container reach the boiling point.
Unless you replicate ALL of the conditions that impact the Ocean and it’s temperatures in your home experiment, you haven’t proven anything about the Ocean’s heat/energy absorption.
For example-
The saline/salt and nutrient content in Ocean water is different than tap water. This makes the way it conducts and radiates heat different than tap water.
The mineral content of ocean water also affects it’s surface tension, as does it’s movements.
Surface tension DECLINES when temperatures INCREASE.
Boiling water in a pan from the bottom introduces not just a heat source to the water, but the conductivity of that heat through metal, and the convection cycle of hot water and air on the bottom of the pan rising quickly to the top, overturning, and bringing the cooler water down to the bottom to be heated quickly.
Unless you have introduce a way for the warm water at the surface of your container to be forced to circulate to the lower depths so that the cold water can then come to the surface and be heated, all of the water will never reach the boiling point at the same time.
And those are just a few differences that I can think of off the top of my head.
Thermal energy DOES enter the Ocean, from the Sun above, AND from the Earth’s radiation below and around it. This radiation causes the molecules in the water to vibrate-which then release that energy as heat. But heat RISES, so that energy/heat remains and circulates in the top layers of the ocean, and does not “sink” to the bottom or hide etc. Warm water dragged to the depths of the oceans by currents, interacts with HUGE, and much larger amounts of much colder water, AND pressure and when it does, it cools, thus releasing the additional energy/heat, which then rises to the surface over time.
My reasoning now is that the probability of there not being a relationship of the alignment of the planets Uranus and Saturn with the speed of incoming energy, is only 1 / 7 to the power 7
Am I right or am I wrong?
You are wrong, and until you learn what post hoc ergo propter hoc means, and understand the difference between curve fitting numerology and science, you will never, ever correct your mistake. We’ve had this discussion before.
You might try reading books on this or something — there is too much to teach you easily online and you haven’t demonstrated any eagerness to learn, as you are too enamored of your own ideas to listen to any others. Also, you’re apparently a half-dozen college level math courses short of having what you need to really understand your mistakes. I will try just one time and then quit.
Fitting any small segment of data with any combination of functions and then using those functions to extrapolate outside of the fit region is a process fraught with peril. Interpolation — filling in in between the data points — has some basis if there is reason to believe that the function being fit is smooth on the granularity of the data (and can lead to well-known errors even then if your assumption turns out to be wrong). Extrapolation not only fails, but often one KNOWS that it will fail. If one tries to fit, e.g. a polynomial to a smooth curve, there is a theorem (Weirstrauss Theorem) that one can always do so within systematically reducing bounds. Indeed, there is a constitutive relation — Taylor series in calculus — that can accomplish such a fit either directly or piecewise, up to a point. But the Taylor series contains within it the prediction of its own FAILURE if you attempt to extrapolate outside of a certain radius of convergence or (more generally) the data range used to fit a known function. The higher order, neglected terms come back to haunt you by eventually increasing without bound unless the function being fit IS a finite polynomial.
The exact same thing happens if you use other bases (a basis in this context is a spanning set of functions that represent unit vectors in an infinite dimensional linear vector space that contains all arbitrary smooth functions, as you would know if you’d taken a university level linear algebra class or a class on functional analysis or ordinary differential equations) or mixtures of bases, such as a few polynomial terms plus harmonic functions (either of which can be turned into an orthonormal basis on any fixed interval or with some effort on the entire real line). You can fit something quite beautifully by accident in some finite region, but there is no reason at all a priori to think that the fit can be extrapolated!
You should look up Koutsoyiannis lovely hydrology paper that I’ve posted a dozen or so times on various threads addressing this point. The first page of his paper is the best illustration of this point I’ve ever seen, as he shows three successive blow ups of an actual data set that at first looks constant, then like it is linear, then exponential, then like a harmonic function, and beyond that it could turn out that ALL of this noise on a function that really is linear, or anything else. Think of a polynomial fit as always having an infinite number of terms with unconstrained coefficients waiting to jump out and snare you as soon as you get outside of the fit region.
The point of this is that what you are trying is actually even less justified then the GCMs. At least they actually incorporate a priori believed-to-be-known physics, reasons for the functional forms they try to apply and compute with. What you are doing is also known to be numerically unstable to extrapolation. And then there is post hoc ergo propter hoc, a.k.a. correlation is not causality.
I doubt that any of this will make the slightest dent in your armor, but we have to try, we have to try.
rgb
kadaka (KD Knoebel): Then why does water get colder at night, even when the air temp is significantly warmer? I don’t know the answer but I would suspect that the kinetic energy you speak of must be very very weak and most of the warming of water is by IR?
I would argue with your proposal. Radiation enters water but physical heat does not.
Every glass of cold water that has ever warmed to room temperature disagrees with you.
Every pot placed on a stove and brought to a boil disagrees with you.
rgb
You can heat water through the sides of a glass, you can heat water through the bottom of a pot but you can not heat water through it’s surface because surface tension blocks the heat. Try heating water through the surface using a heat gun. At 450degsC the water should quickly boil, instead it remains cold. To heat water through the surface it is necessary to float something on the surface like a pan or metal dish to cancel the surface tension then heat will flow. Exactly why the heat is so convincingly rejected is not something I claim to understand but I suspect that the scientific community have seriously underestimated the properties of surface tension. Not many people fire heat guns at buckets of water but Trenberth’s missing heat made me curious, so Itried heating water from above. I recommend it.
RMB,
“Heat is not a property or component or constituent of a body itself. Heat refers only to a process of transfer of energy.”
Radiative/infared energy (from the Sun) penetrates the water’s surface right through the surface tension and causes the molecules in the water to excite and then release energy as heat. The energy transfer and thus heat, occurs in the water past the surface’s tension.
Hot air, blown by a heat gun, gets blocked by the surface tension of the water. The “air heating process” takes place within the gun and most of the energy that air could transfer to the water is lost in the battle with the surface tension. What energy is left is not enough of the energy required to penetrate the surface and then excite /heat the water molecules and cause drastic heating.
Try heating your glass/container of water with an infared heater instead of hot air and see what happens.
You are a man after my own heart. You and I seem to be the only people on the planet who understand that physical heat will not penetrate the surface, surface tension blocks it, only radiation penetrates surface tension. The climate is therefore a locked box involving only the ocean and radiation, mankinds shenanigans don’t count. AGW is a complete nonsense.
I’ve already replied but I think it went to the wrong address after the update so here goes again. You and I must be the only people on the planet who understand that surface tension blocks physical heat but allows radiation to pass through. It may be simplistic to say this but the climate’s behaviour is controlled by the sun’s radiation and only that penetrating and energizing the the ocean. The climate is a locked box and mankind is only along for the ride. AGW is a complete nonsense.
rgbatduke:
re your post at September 7, 2013 at 7:22 am.
Yes, you are right and nobody could rationally dispute your arguments.
I write to explain why I have refused to provide a proper answer to Henry P but – instead – I am supporting kadaka (KD Knoebel) in his request for clarification from Henry P.
Your arguments were successful in explaining reality to Terry Oldberg when my arguments failed.
However, with respect, I suggest that in this case your arguments are a likely to fail, and the method initiated by kadaka (KD Knoebel) is more likely to be successful.
As you say to Henry P,
{emphasis added: RSC}
Similarly, I failed to explain matters to Terry Oldberg despite my many attempts over many months. You did it in a few days. Horses for courses.
In this case, I don’t think Henry P will consider the fundamental theoretical objections to his work which you present. This is because he fails to recognise the assumptions he has made and, therefore, he cannot question them (how can anybody question what they fail to recognise exists?). Hence, your arguments flow over him like water from a duck’s back.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) has asked Henry P to explain a basic flaw in his understanding. I have ‘piled in’ to support that because if Henry P does does try to explain that error then he may start to question his assumptions. Therefore, I will refuse to answer the assertions of Henry P until he explains what he means by “random”, and I will keep pressing him to explain.
As you say to Henry P
I agree, in concern for him and for others who may want to learn, we have to try.
Richard
RMB: I watch my swimming pool get heated everyday from the sun and cool down at night. I also know that the local lake is warmer in the summer than in the winter because people swim in it during summer and never in the winter, or almost never. Why? I will take answers from anyone.
Get yourself a heatgun and a bucket of water and try heating the water.
RMB: The Sun heats water just fine it would seem.
You are absolutely right but only by radiation, not by a transfer of physical heat. Thats why all those scientists are looking for heat that they are sure should be there.
Henry@Kadaka/Knoebel & Richard
will try to explain my sample procedure.
1 I took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data
2 I made sure the sample was globally representative (most data sets aren’t!!!) ……
a) balanced by latitude (longitude does not matter, as we are looking a average yearly temps. which includes the effect of seasonal shifts)
b) balanced 70/30 in or at sea/ inland
c) all continents included (unfortunately I could not get reliable daily data going back 38 years from Antarctica,so there always is this question mark about that, knowing that you never can get a “perfect” sample)
d) I made a special provision for months with missing data (not to put in a long term average, as usual in stats but to rather take the average of that particular month’s preceding year and year after)
e) I did not look only at means (average daily temp.) like all the other data sets, but also at maxima and minima… …
3) I determined at all stations the average change in temp. per annum from the average temperature recorded, over the period indicated.
4) the end results on the bottom of the first table (on maximum temperatures),
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
clearly showed a drop in the speed of warming that started around 38 years ago, and continued to drop every other period I looked//…
5) I did a linear fit, on those 4 results for the drop in the speed of global maximum temps,
ended up with y=0.0018x -0.0314, with r2=0.96
At that stage I was sure to know that I had hooked a fish:
I was at least 95% sure (max) temperatures were falling. I had wanted to take at least 50 samples but decided this would not be necessary which such high correlation.
6) On same maxima data, a polynomial fit, of 2nd order, i.e. parabolic, gave me
y= -0.000049×2 + 0.004267x – 0.056745
r2=0.995
That is very high, showing a natural relationship, like the trajectory of somebody throwing a ball…
7) projection on the above parabolic fit backward, ( 5 years) showed a curve:
happening around 40 years ago. Dr. Brown is right in saying that you have to be careful with forward and backward projection, but you can do this with such high correlation (0.995)
8) ergo: the final curve must be a sine wave fit, with another curve happening, somewhere on the bottom…
Now, what is not to understand about this?
@Dale Rainwater. Brown
If you do not understand the basics of sampling techniques, statistics and (justified) curve fitting, and probability theory I cannot help you, either.
I hope this clarifies.
HenryP:
Your methodology sounds as though there are no events. If so, that’s a mistake.
Surface tension prevents water from being heated from above?
Then it would seem the most efficient attic insulation would be a “plate” holding a thin layer of water with perhaps a layer with a vacuum beneath it.
Anyone who wants to is free to develop this idea further with the caveat that if they make $1,000,000 from it, please pay off my mortgage.
(I’m still waiting for my little check from Big Oil.)
HenryP:
Thankyou for your post at September 7, 2013 at 10:14 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1410485
Sorry, but your long answer did not “help” because it failed to answer the question put to you by kadaka (KD Knoebel); viz.
Your ansawer says
Let me spell out how your answer completely ignores the question.
We understand that you think you “took a random sample of weather stations that had daily data”. but we are asking you the following.
1.
How did you define “a random sample”?
2.
What procedure did you adopt to obtain that “random sample”?
3.
Importantly, how could your sample be “random” when you “made sure the sample was globally representative”?
I hope the question is now clear.
Richard
@richard
Sorry, yes, if that was not clear enough,
in this respect random means any place on earth, with a weather station with complete or almost complete daily data, subject to the given sampling procedure, as stated in 2)
a)
b)
c)
henry@all
let us not forget that my original problem was that up to now (it seems) only me William Arnold can predict global warming- and global cooling periods by looking simply at the alignment of the planets Saturn and Uranus.
Is there nobody else in this world who has seen this?
HenryP:
At September 7, 2013 at 10:55 am you ask
I answer:
no, nobody can. When you are able to explain what you mean by “a random sample” then there is reason to think you cannot.
So, can you please provide specific answers to the questions I itemised as 1 to 3?
To save you needing to find them, I copy them here.
Answers would be of the form
Question 1 followed by Answer 1.
Question 2 followed by Answer 2.
Question 3 followed by Answer 3.
Richard
Ouch!
Done it again, I really miss the preview function.
I intended to write
When you are NOT able …
Sorry.
Richard
@ur momisugly Richard,
maybe you missed my earlier reply on what I regard as random, here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1410521
if I say any place on earth it means any place on earth:
that could be miles apart or hundreds of miles apart
provided that in the end I ended up with a more or less balanced sample,
by latitude (i.e. NH lat + SH lat. = ca. zero) and 70/30 @ur momisuglysea/onland
If you scroll down here:
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
you will find another graph of a single place on earth with good daily (maxima) data going back to 1940. proving (to me) that each place on earth is on its own sine wave, depending on its compostion TOA>
These are the kind of double checks I make that proves that the projections I made before from the sample were true and can be relied upon….
Dr. Brown’s dismissal of my results cannot be relied upon.
HenryP:
At September 7, 2013 at 12:03 pm you say to me
maybe you missed my earlier reply on what I regard as random, here
No, I have seen it and read it.
Henry, I know you find this hard to understand, but I am trying to help you.
I really am.
Please remember that I am a sceptic. If you can convince me then you will know how to convince others.
So, please try to answer the specific questions in the way I have asked.
If you cannot, then what does that tell you?
And if you can then you will have told me something.
Richard
@richard
clearly, in your order
1) I have explained the sampling procedure and – technique to you in complete details in previous posts
2) e.g. here you can see the original data for New York Kennedy airport
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/New_York_Kennedy_International_Airport/744860.htm
Note that in this particular example you will have to go into the individual month’s data for 2002 and 2005 to see which months are missing (or have only partial data) and apply the correction as explained earlier in my sampling technique 2)d)
Once you have the whole set of data complete (for a weather station) , you can do the linear trending for the periods as indicated in my tables. Do you know how to do that?
3) the problem with other data sets is that they are not globally representative, so I made sure mine is. That would not interfere whatsoever with the randomness of taking a sample of a weather station anywhere in the world.
hope that helps
HenryP:
Your post at September 7, 2013 at 1:35 pm says to me
You have not, and if you had then you could have copied and pasted to here.
Henry, I am sure you think you have answered the questions, but you have not.
I repeat what I said to you before.
Please try to answer the specific questions in the way I have asked.
If you cannot, then what does that tell you?
Richard