Sentences with phrase «statistically robust changes»
But Screen and Simmonds found few statistically robust changes and what changes they did find were contrasting depending on the methodology they used.
https://www.cato.org/ Not exact matches
«We caution that the question of when a statistically robust trend can be detected in damage time series should not be confused with the question of when climate - induced changes in damage become a significant consideration...
... the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes...
The FDC analysis reveals that changes in low - to - moderate flows (Q60 — Q90) may not be statistically significant, whereas increases in high flows (Q5) are statistically robust (20 and 25 % for the mid - and late - century periods, respectively).
Perhaps the best way for regular folks like us to counter the damage done is that anytime Marcott et al is mentioned, to always refer to the Marcott et al graph as this version below, along with the quote from their FAQs since the uptick «is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes»:
These proxy measurements are independently verified and statistically validated by robust methods of comparison with instrumental data and should have a sound physical reason as to why they change with aforementioned climate parameter (correlation does not imply causation); only then are proxy reconstructions and their inherent quantitative and qualitative implications accepted by the community.
... contains a remarkable admission: «[The] 20th - century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of glbal temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.»
Marcott quote @RC yesterday: «the 20th century portion of the paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions».
Although they now apparently concede that «the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions», this was definitely not the impression left by the authors when the article was published, when it was hailed as supposed confirmation of the Hockey Stick.
Above we read:» Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.»
What is a 4th grade Science teacher (or a 12th grade AP physics teacher) going to do if one of her students asks what it means for Figure 1C of the Marcott graph given the recent caveat: «20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.»
Now that 1 - 4 have been pointed out, Marcott claims, contra 5, that the uptick is «not statistically robust» and «can not be considered representative of global temperature changes».