They found that there is
a consistent warming signal in each ocean basin.
Not exact matches
While rainfall in the region is
consistent with the emerging El Niño, the unprecedented amounts suggest a possible climate change
signal, where a
warming atmosphere becomes more saturated with water vapor and capable of previously unimagined downpours.
Th only possibilities
consistent with the theory are: (1) if you don't see
warming in a particular metric, it is the result of the lack of good metrics or because it is out there somewhere or, (2) if you don't see
warming and you think the metrics valid, then what you are looking at is an insignificant trend — just noise amidst the
signal.
Lastly Parker does not seem to speculate on the fairly
consistent higher trend of temperature increase he found on windy days compared to calm days, except to say it is the opposite of an urban
warming signal and earlier in his paper to speculate that the windy days might not be as impacted by bad temperature sensing apparatus and siting.
Were the hypothesis that
warming will increase at least 1C / decade averaged over a millennium at 95 % confidence, nineteen times in twenty, given the noise in the
signal, all other things being equal, we'd first need 17 years at least to get some kinda sketchy data, and then could begin calculating from the set of subsequent running or independent 17 year spans (a different calculation for each, depending on the PDF) the probability that a -20 C decade would be
consistent with a +1 C / decade hypothesis.