Both the linearity and
stationarity assumptions may be checked using the training and validation periods of the instrumental record.
While we still maintain
the stationarity assumption for historic weather, it is clear climate change will affect future rain projections.
This is
the stationarity assumption.
Not exact matches
(b)
stationarity is a strong
assumption especially given that rapidly increasing warming, whether of natural or anthropogenic origin, appears to lead to increasingly chaotic climate; and
I'm hoping someone can explain why the
assumption of «
stationarity» should be accepted as plausible, especially given the number of series that fail to correlate with observed temps in the last century.
«Thus the
assumption of
stationarity seems only to be valid for short time periods (maybe a century), not for 1000 year studies.»
However «compelling» a particular dendro study might be (whatever «compelling» might mean), what bearing does that have on the
assumption of
stationarity across both the instrumental and pre-instrumental periods?
Future studies involving three (or more) time points in which the parental behaviors, EF and academic outcomes were measured at different time points would permit the underlying
assumptions of
stationarity and equilibrium to be tested formally (Cole and Maxwell, 2003).