Sentences with phrase «tamino actually»

Quote: «Tamino actually applied Monckton's test to the Mauna Loa observatory CO2 data since about 1968 and found that the 10 - year slope in the data has been pretty continuously rising, including over the last several years.»

Not exact matches

Actually I think tamino provided a very good service in allowing sheldon to post though I'm not sure he himself thinks so.

I thought that Tamino, Gavin and Mike have actually dealt with the evidence not dismissed it.

It's therefor rather amusing that, having given up on the older strategies, focusing either on the invocation of various explanatory «forcings» or else, as in a blatantly misleading post by Tamino, questioning the logic behind the evidence for a pause, the latest efforts have taken the form of attempts to actually alter the data itself.

But if you impose a forcing (AGW) which changes the degree of independence, making the tails fatter / less Gaussian, doesn't that mean the forcing ACTUALLY makes the probability of what were once 3,4,5 sigma events MUCH higher than indicated by tamino's method of analysis, which removes these effects?

Sorry to be so blunt, Judith, but when you make a claim that Tamino's review has «numerous factual errors and misrepresentations» it behooves you to actually list the errors and defend your point of view.

Timothy Chase writes in 142: Of course contrarians will point out that instruments at poorer sites will have a bias, but as tamino (# 91) points out, this bias is corrected for, and it is quite possible that given the methodology employed, removing the urban sites would actually result in a higher average temperature, and as Hansen points out (see tamino's first reference in # 93), the bias introduced by urban sites is quite negligible.

To answer Don Don's accusation («where were you»), let it be noted that I actually asked Tamino to support his claim that

Maybe you could display less intellectual laziness by reading tamino's posts and actually learning something, but you don't really seem up to it.

That is actually the scientific method; not the posturing, politicking, insulting or demeaning of those with opposing views practiced by the Mann's, Romm's, and Tamino's of the world, or useful idiots like Naumer or «Michael.»

Two examples leap to mind, alongside this stuff: WUWT posting the Daily Mail «u-turn by Prof Jones» story (though he was careful not to actually endorse that story, I note) and this bit of genius that Tamino took apart, where Watts had a guest who, unknowingly it seems, because they were so incompetent, took GISS data and turned it upside down.

Again, if anyone actually wants to discuss an actual scientific paper that seems to have important consequences, I noticed «John Doe» at tamino's site has a link to the full permafrost feedback article (it's about the 18th comment down):

Tamino, you might be able to turn off auto - embed of videos so you don't have to keep scolding people for doing something they didn't actually do.

I would add one further thought to Tamino's analysis showing that when CO2 concentration increases are evaluated on a longer timeframe than 7 years, so that linear and exponential increases can be distinguished, and when the proper analytic method (log transformation) is used to make the distinction, the rise is actually greater than exponential, much less linear.

I'm actually curious why [edit: Tamino] didn't note it... or mention approvingly McC's posts from last February.