Sentences with phrase «tamino does»

that fact that tamino doesn't think vs is woth the time is fine — but it does not mean that tamino is correct because well, he says so.

Gilles, that is what Tamino does.

So, putting her position on its head as Tamino does effectively skewers the stupidity of her assumptions.

Well Tamino does like his little visuals doesn't he.

On his blog, tamino does the statistical analysis of the BEST data and finds that because the timeframe in question is so short, the uncertainty is too large to say for certain that the short - term trend in question is any different than the long - term trend.

the statistically significant slope of snow cover decrease seems to be around — 2 Mkm ^ 2 for 40 years (although Tamino doesn't give its precise value).

Tamino doesn't want to admit that there's been no detectable acceleration in the global average rate of sea - level rise in response to ~ 2/3 century of steadily increasing CO2 emissions and levels, but that's what the data unambiguously shows.

What of course Tamino doesn't reveal is if you do fit a ARIMA model and show the model fits over this period, what the temperature «trend» coefficient reduces to.

That out of the way, the point is that you can (as Tamino does) fit other curves to the data — notably, that cubic curve in the last graph.

The discussion at Open Mind on Shelby County shows how a mere tinkering (as I hope tamino doesn't mind me calling the post relative to the GHCN QC effort) can raise possible errors and show which stations would be flagged for further investigation.

even in the annual graph you and tamino did, i DO see a big jump at the end.

i think tamino did something different than just «smooth it out».

If you want to be taken seriously, you will have to rectify that & address the totality of the data, as Tamino did.

It's also what Tamino did here in this excellent post.

Eagle - eyed readers may notice a problem towards the end of the record, as tamino did: the April 2010 BEST anomaly is -1.04 °C, which represents a sharp cooling of 1.9 °C from the previous month, and is followed by a 2.1 °C warming the following month (Figure 2).

eadler2, «What Tamino did was multi variable regression to account for natural effects on the global average temperature to find what he called the real global warming signal.»

If you factor out the volcano effects, (I recall tamino doing something similiar on his site) and then look at the 8 year trend you will get a different picture.

The only reason tamino did there was cause he was arguing about it in the comments.

Not exact matches

As Tamino notes, Milankovic cycles do lead to a slight modulation of the annual average, but it is very small, especially for the 100KYr cycle.

Judith Curry: Too bad Tamino's review was posted during a period when I don't have much time to put into blogging.

They plot surface, HadAT2, UAH and RSS data together, as does Tamino in his first «this», 29.

Tamino: «they got the right answer» «We'll be interested in your answer to the question: if their work is so horribly wrong, how did they get the right answer?»

But as Tamino points out, the McIntyre method of doing a sensitivity analysis is to eliminate all of the data he does not like.

As tamino points out, there are lots of ways that people like Houston and Dean who want to fool themselves can do so when their goal is to get a particular result rather than do a correct analysis and thus they don't do any sort of sanity - checks on their results.

I think we need Tamino to do a statistical analysis of how quickly Judith Curry has a new post on her blog, after Gavin and company do a take down of something she has just written on there, compared with how often she posts on her blog generally... Judging by the comments on both her blog and Real Climate, it appears she had a new post up only three hours after Gavin posted his take down of her!

I was going to mention tamino's post there... but discovered that the Dark Lord of Wikipedia (or something similar) otherwise known as WMC was too quick and had already done so.

Tamino: «You don't flatter yourself repeating this argument.

What a valid waste of time Tamino dedicated himself to do.

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?

I don't see why Tamino considers scientists engaging in a propaganda war a good thing — I haven't seen him doing it.

All she did was stroll through here and make snide remarks, followed by basically copying her homework off the book jacket in an attempt to raise objections to Tamino's treatment of rubbish claims.

To echo Tamino's earlier comment — that doesn't give me much comfort in terms of climate change.

As Tamino illustrates here, that seems to have been done repeatedly by others and they come back with the same answer.

Although that perhaps doesn't go well with the rigor «Tamino» requires in paper reviewers.

Yes, Tamino has remarked on this somewhere on his «Open Mind» blog, to the effect that he doesn't trust the Discover data for the last year or so.

@ 56: Tamino — well, OCO and Glory did use the same launch vehicle before.

So given what the book is about, it is not to hard to imagine what i meant when i said Tamino's review was inaccurate: it simply did not portray what Montford said nor did it catch what the book was all about.

If we're just doing a head count, I agree entirely with tamino, and not at all with you.

A couple of months ago Tamino said «By at least one calculation, the difference is «statistically significant», but doesn't cite the source.

I note that, in contemporary comments at Tamino (where you posted at the time), you did not state that you believed that NASA software was incapable of «fixing» such inhomogeneities.

Discounting Tamino's analysis because you don't like it or don't consider him objective doesn't detract from the fact the Tamino is a professional time - series analyst whose work in climate science not only stands the test of time but is widely considered a de facto standard in climate science.

Curious that Gavin, Tamino, Romm and other IPCC insiders spend most of their life blogging, but never had enough time to tell us about the incredibly lousy job the IPCC was doing.

FYI, Reto Ruedy states in the GISS emails that their software could not «fix» inhomogeneities — perhaps you could convey this to Tamino's readers, together with a clarification that you do not believe that NASA software can «fix» inhomogeneities.

I did not participate and never even heard of it until recently despite reading Tamino's blog off and on in 2010.

It's not just that Mann's friend «Tamino» does not refer to Mann as «Uncle Mike», or Schmidt as «Uncle Gavin» or Trenberth as «Uncle Kevin», but they don't even dismiss the guys on the other side in that way: Fred Singer is not «Uncle Freddie» and Richard Lindzen is not «Uncle Dickie».

Looking at the graphs Tamino puts up to discredit the WT article regarding bodies on a pier, which they are quite effective at doing, I must say that none of them indicate any AGW effect.

Tamino, thank you for doing this straight - forward analysis.

If Tamino says it's raining outside, I suggest that you look out the window before you go any further... and if you plan to do anything on Tammy's site other than to osculate his fundamental orifice, don't expect a warm welcome.

Tamino at the Open Mind blog and Skeptical Science's own Alex C have done a nice job refuting this myth.

Tamino, and others — if you'll allow a brief aside from the serious statistics — I've found showing amateurs the woodfortrees site, including the site's caution about fooling yourself with trends, does encourage people to poke at this themselves.