Sentences with phrase «so tamino»

Steve Goddard (10:23:22): So Tamino suggests that winter snow extent might have been decreasing leading up to the current record high.

So Tamino suggests that winter snow extent might have been decreasing leading up to the current record high.

So Tamino, you often state that «noise» can mask the true signal.

Not exact matches

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 Night.

Indeed, she characterized her actions by «so I am taking a few moments to clarify the weaknesses in Tamino's review»

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?»

Gavin / Eli / Tamino: thanks so much.

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

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 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.

PS: tamino, # 169, there is no context so I'm assuming this is regarding the «noise goes up less quickly than the signal».

Trouble is the results are on an old comment thread at Tamino's place, and the post is no longer accessible, so I'm working from memory.

Of course, on a timescale of one decade the noise in the temperature signal from internal variability and measurement uncertainty is quite large, so this might be hard to determine, though tamino showed that five year means show a monotonic increase over recent decades, and one might not unreasonably expect this to cease for a decade in a grand solar minimum scenario.

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.

Comments 62 on, about Foster & Rahmstrof — tamino — your're right, I checked and the monthly temperature data that Foster & Rahmstrof use is trend stationary, so regression in levels with a trend is OK.

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.

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.

He's trying to throw out data — effectively a form of cherry - picking — and I don't think there's any doubt that Tamino has put his finger on exactly why Tim is trying to do so.

So NSIDC, Tamino, Nick Stokes, Steve Mosher, should prepare themselves for more years of no Arctic sea ice melting and even Arctic sea ice growth if AMO decides to turn negative.

Then read professional statistician (multiple peer reviewed publications on climate change) Tamino's explanation of a new paper supporting the existence of sea level rise acceleration so much that by the year 2100 sea level would be.654 meters higher than in 2005, supporting the projections of IPCC AR5's RCP 8.5.

First, sorry about anon — I do not post here preferring other places like tamino, RC, and SkS so did not include my usual handle for what I thought would be a quick comment.

I would have more respect for OpenMind if Tamino weren't wrong so often, or didn't take such offense when people pointed out his errors.

Can you explain why Tamino, an apparently excellent statistician, went so badly into the tank over the Hockey Stick, only finally, grudgingly, admitting error when the expert he cited called him on it.

And Tamino is only ruthless with those who so lack a grip on the science that they can not even understand that they are wrong.

So Mann, among his many contemptible acts, still enthusiastically promotes his pal Tamino.

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.

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.

So when Tamino removes enso, it is normalized to a period assumed to be «normal».

Such a comment posted on Tamino — Open Mind (you can not agree with it but it's worth reading — the more so because Tamino usually removes my comments):

Tamino «Assumes» he is removing ENSO, Solar and Volcanic so that his trend is ``: normal».

Tamino told me that the models show accelerating warming, so even the low amount of warming since 1998 doesn't invalidate any extreme scenarios.

he didn't like what the figure said so he, in classic Tamino fashion, tortured the data and twisted the language until he got something he liked better.

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

I also suspect that we would all rather have Tamino apply his time to the statistics he does so well and not waste his time on an idiosyncratic administrative bug at his site.

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.

Again, as I said over at Tamino's recently: If you find yourself pushing back on the advancing walls of human knowledge so there's room for your philosophy, it's a pretty good sign your philosophy is wrong.

In a way, keeping Tamino's identity secret may be good, so that his person may be kept out of the debate.

So congratulations to Stefan & Don on the paper and thank you Tamino for helping me get my statistical thinking right.

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.

One could spend a lifetime correcting monckton's errors so I see no point in Tamino wasting any more time on it.

I'd say that, if you expect the trend to quickly revert back to something like 0.2 or more per decade, then in 30 years, looking back at the data, the last decade or so will in fact look an awful lot like «a pause» (as even Jim Hansen says, though Tamino argues back above), with the last several years dipping significantly below the general trend line.

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.

You seem to get along with Tamino... and allow VS to post on your site so maybe this is possible.

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