A Remark on Chervin-Schneider's Algorithm to Test Significance of Climate Experiments with GCM's

It is shown by two examples that the algorithm proposed by Chervin and Schneider (1976) is of little use in deciding, with a given risk, whether a GCM result differing from others (or nature) is caused by chance or by prescribed changes of some boundary values. What remains is that one can believe in a “significant” change if the rate of rejections of local null hypotheses is quite large (e.g., three times expectation or more). Additionally, the Chervin-Schneider algorithm can be used to gain a first guess.