Multivariate trend comparisons between autocorrelated climate series with general trend regressors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inference regarding trends in climatic data series, including comparisons across different data sets as well as univariate trend significance tests, is complicated by the presence of serial correlation and step-changes in the mean. We review recent developments in the estimation of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation robust (HAC) covariance estimators as they have been applied to linear trend inference, with focus on the Vogelsang-Franses (2005) nonparametric approach, which provides a unified framework for trend covariance estimation robust to unknown forms of autocorrelation up to but not including unit roots, making it especially useful for climatic data applications. We extend the Vogelsang-Franses approach to allow general deterministic regressors including the case where a step-change in the mean occurs at a known date. Additional regressors change the critical values of the Vogelsang-Franses statistic. We derive an asymptotic approximation that can be used to simulate critical values. We also outline a simple bootstrap procedure that generates valid critical values and p-values. The motivation for extending the Vogelsang-Franses approach is an application that compares climate model generated and observational global temperature data in the tropical lower- and mid-troposphere from 1958 to 2010. Inclusion of a mean shift regressor to capture the Pacific Climate Shift of 1977 causes apparently significant observed trends to become statistically insignificant, and rejection of the equivalence between model generated and observed data trends occurs for much smaller significance levels (i.e. is more strongly rejected).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".