The trend function is a + b*t, so the trend coefficient is an unknown value "b". We need to decide whether b = 0 (null hypothesis) or not. We can only compute a quantity "B", which is an unbiased estimator of "b" (least squares linear estimator). The quantity "B" is a random quantity whose probability distribution has mean E[B] which is equal to "b". We can also estimate the standard deviation of "B", which we call "Sigma". If | E[B] | > 2 * Sigma, we can conclude that it is unlikely that b = 0 - because we got a value of the estimator "B" that is so far from zero.
If we imagine performing this observation many times (for different time epochs, or for different imaginary Earths), we will get different values of "B" - even though "b" remains the same. This is what I called the "natural variability". We can then plot the histogram of different values of "B" and see how likely it is that actually b = 0. A simple way of doing this is assuming Gaussianity and checking 2*Sigma. If the distribution is very far from Gaussian, we would have to, say, find "B" for many 10-year intervals throughout the data set and plot a histogram of its values. But I don't think it's far from Gaussian.
We can also check whether the distribution of "noise" U(t) looks like a Gaussian. Take the entire data set T(t) from 1901 to 2010, estimate a + b*t as A + B*t using least squares, and subtract from the temperature. The process T(t) - A - B*t has zero mean by construction, and is close to U(t). We can then plot the histogram of its values and see if the distribution is sufficiently close to Gaussian. I would expect that it will be.
Your calculation so far, with 10-year intervals, shows that "B" is distributed roughly within the interval [-0.2, 0.2]. If you plot a histogram of "B" for all 10-year intervals, you will probably see something like a Gaussian curve with mean close to zero. So, one will have to conclude that 10-year intervals have too much natural variability to show that the true trend "b" is nonzero; the null hypothesis cannot be refuted.
no subject
If we imagine performing this observation many times (for different time epochs, or for different imaginary Earths), we will get different values of "B" - even though "b" remains the same. This is what I called the "natural variability". We can then plot the histogram of different values of "B" and see how likely it is that actually b = 0. A simple way of doing this is assuming Gaussianity and checking 2*Sigma. If the distribution is very far from Gaussian, we would have to, say, find "B" for many 10-year intervals throughout the data set and plot a histogram of its values. But I don't think it's far from Gaussian.
We can also check whether the distribution of "noise" U(t) looks like a Gaussian. Take the entire data set T(t) from 1901 to 2010, estimate a + b*t as A + B*t using least squares, and subtract from the temperature. The process T(t) - A - B*t has zero mean by construction, and is close to U(t). We can then plot the histogram of its values and see if the distribution is sufficiently close to Gaussian. I would expect that it will be.
Your calculation so far, with 10-year intervals, shows that "B" is distributed roughly within the interval [-0.2, 0.2]. If you plot a histogram of "B" for all 10-year intervals, you will probably see something like a Gaussian curve with mean close to zero. So, one will have to conclude that 10-year intervals have too much natural variability to show that the true trend "b" is nonzero; the null hypothesis cannot be refuted.