Sentences with phrase «of tamino»

So please, either show where vs's disproof of tamino and De Witts assertions are incorrect, or shut up about it.

I also noticed an interesting comment on one of Tamino's blogs.

As for Eric's comment, and along the lines of Tamino's comment, I've never noticed that physicists are very strong at stats.

Your acceptance of Tamino's criticism is to me more indicative of your own biases than a substantive understanding on your part of actual issues with the original graph.

In addition to Lucia's evisceration of the Tamino bogue (which might account for the roughly 0.18 C drop in the FAR, SAR, and TAR envelopes between the SOD figure and the final, there are at least two other cheats in the finale.

I interpret this comment as a misogynist attack on Judith in the vein of Tamino et al in the past.

As to your question about my opinion of Tamino's rant: it does not appear to be plagiarized.

That example of Tamino was built to produce the result obtained.

Josh doesn't come within a country mile of Tamino.

As to the appropriateness of Tamino's work being termed «original», I think his own words in the «For The Record» post say it best:

Read some of Tamino's stuf and you will be better able to determine if there is a trend from a graph.

But if his work is just a simplified version of Tamino's, it isn't going to tell me anything I haven't already seen, and thus I'm not interested in it.

My interpretation of Tamino's discussion (particularly the 3rd and 4th figures here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/increased-variability) is that Hansen lumped together dependent variables and treated them as independent.

I submit that my phrase was not a severe distortion of Tamino's meaning.

Apologies for repeating myself through the «authoritative» words of Lewis via the enlightened stream of consciousness which is Doc Snow and out of the physical cyberspace of Tamino's Open Mind and back to the redundant past comments on Real Climate.

The point of Tamino's article is that the hockey stick has been to subjected to this over and over, and it stands up.

Note it is referred to as a review but it is really a critique of Tamino's criticisms of the book.

In 144 I used the phrase «temperature extremes have gotten enormously hotter» which I meant as a paraphrase of Tamino who wrote: «any way you slice it severe hot outliers are increasing.»

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.

Another excellent discussion on statistics can be found at Tamino's The Power — and Perils — of Statistics.

Xref — some discussion of paper (with links to more at SKS (Schmittner comment), Planet3.0 interview, Tamino's Open Thead) here at Tamino's (link)

-- WhatsUpWithThat — specifically the Basil Copeland / Anthony Watts series of posts on solar cycles [the basis of which was demolished by Tamino].

Prince Tamino and the rustic bird - catcher Papageno lost in the woods aren't so different from the characters in search of love in Smiles Of A Summer Nighof love in Smiles Of A Summer NighOf A Summer Night.

«Peering over his shoulder, we discovered that he had written «I have overcome my fear of writing, just like Tamino in The Magic Flute.»»

I applaud the fact that you link to Tamino's explanation why the increased variance may simply be a natural artifact of regional variability and where the baseline was chosen, and * not * actual increased variability.

Of course, that is the part of the record we know best, but since the proxys follow the instrumental curve in the validation period we have some confidence in them, and since, as Tamino points out, the more proxys we add the more confident we can be, and we can even take a bunch out and get more or less the same behavior, why yes, there is a probleOf course, that is the part of the record we know best, but since the proxys follow the instrumental curve in the validation period we have some confidence in them, and since, as Tamino points out, the more proxys we add the more confident we can be, and we can even take a bunch out and get more or less the same behavior, why yes, there is a probleof the record we know best, but since the proxys follow the instrumental curve in the validation period we have some confidence in them, and since, as Tamino points out, the more proxys we add the more confident we can be, and we can even take a bunch out and get more or less the same behavior, why yes, there is a problem.

Tamino's point about ocean levels may have a corollary in the re-organization of regional climates and air currents.

To repeat, Judith Curry first states that Tamino's review contains (IN HER OWN WORDS) «numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book».

Then its a matter of believing one chap against the majority, nothing is gained by pitting one view against another, everything earned by effort in observing validates the mainstream, championed by Gavin, Hansen, Tamino, Hank and Pat to name a few... Happy holidays to all

The key points of Montford's book that Tamino ignores are: 1.

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

tamino — the econometric techniques are all time series, and are used on all kinds of data.

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.

Thank you Tamino for your superb take - down of another truth - slayer.

See Tamino for a discussion of recent papers.

-- WhatsUpWithThat — specifically the Basil Copeland / Anthony Watts series of posts on solar cycles [the basis of which was demolished by Tamino].

Is it possible to have a «green slope» version of Mr. Tamino's analysis in «The Monford Delusion», i.e. in everyday language?

HR (@ 25): Reminds me of when Victor showed up on Tamino's pages under the name «docgee».

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

Nat» l Geo should be taken with a few grains of salt, but while the website you reference (incorrectly, as tamino points out) for the 7000 ppm figure may have some interesting information on West Virginia fossils, given that it's apparently put together by an engineer for the WV Office of Miner's Safety, it might best be accompanied by a bucket - full if you're reading it for information on climate change.

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?

Specifically, tamino addressed 3 sources of variability: 1) ENSO, short term 2 - 3 years, averages out, removing it removes most of the noise 2) solar, 11 year, but roughly sinusoidal and well characterized, easily removed for that reason 3) volcano, episodic, no characteristic time period.

First, in # 74 she claims that Tamino's review has «numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book».

But the rest of the abstract sounds like something that was being discussed over at Tamino's just recently:

Tamino has demonstrated clearly that Montford's book is full of errors and insinuations that have no basis in fact.

I heartily agree with Rich and Tamino regarding the importance and dedication of the Real Climate team.

These are valuable contributions, and open some doors for interesting new science (although on first skim I thought the AMO paper was a good example of this, Tamino's take - down of it has changed my mind).