Sentences with phrase «tamino graphed»

then, tamino graphed it using 5,10,30 year averages (or something like that) and came up with those «hockey stick» graphs.

The Tamino graph uses differing methods and yields a peak of 2.1 mm / yr through these year.

Firstly, why do we not see «similarly high rates» to 3,2 mm / yr (+ / -0.4 mm / yr) in the Tamino graph?

Not exact matches

Notice that the general 1970 - 2000 trend in Tamino's graph is posited to be the underlying trend for surface temperatures — that is, the actual trend of surface temperatures, with noise removed.

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

This, like Tamino's graph, is inconsistent with the linear growth (that is, a decelerating growth rate) suggested by the satellite data.

I have not bothered to check my numerical working because you can see similar effects in a graph provided by Tamino on three changed dice.

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.

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.

Glancing over the graphs at UCAR's Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) site, it looks like the index is computed only for land, as Tamino implies, which makes sense.

Lambert uses this graph from his mate Tamino:

Look at Tamino's graph of average annual extent for the period from @ 1995 - 1995, or 1990 - 2000.

I note that in 1995 Tamino's graph indicates the sea level rise was approximately the same as the peak in 1950.

If you had gone to Tamino you would have seen this graph of the speed of sea level rise calculated from Church and White:

If you go to Tamino's thread (previously linked) the next to last graph (easiest to read) shows sea level as -160 mm in 1880 and +70 mm in 2013.

I linked the article containing Tamino's graph there also.

Keep in mind that the IPCC data is all at least 6 years old and Tamino's graph shows rapid acceleration over the last six years.

Well it does because Tamino's solar and ENSO adjusted graph — and that other guy's — clearly show no flattening when those two are taken into account.

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

If we read the POGA - H minus HIST graph, as marked out (by Tamino?)

Tamino may or may not be right, but there are others with other graphs and other conclusions.

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.

Tamino, just to clarify, your last two graphs represent the confidence intervals for the underlying trend, not the actual trend correct?

Tamino, last August, posted graphs (here) which suggest that a spike in both Arctic and Antarctic methane started in the last couple of years.

Thanks tamino — those graphs deserve to be disseminated.

dhogaza: Tamino outed himself as Grant Foster at RC when as «guest poster (sic)» on 16 September 2007 he proceeded to plagiarise (if he was not one of the authors) the paper by GF, Annan, Schmidt and Mann which had been submitted to JGR on the 10th; the paper attacked Stephen Schwartz» paper in JGR before that had even appeared; Tamino's graphs required direct access to the data in GF et al, and it would certainly be very odd for Gavin Schmidt to commission the guest posting if not from his co-author, who at one point uses the term «we» confirming that «Tamino» was the lead author.

I'd like to consolidate my earlier comment by appending your graph and presenting again here and over at RealClimate and Tamino.

Tamino — thanks for this info — the graphs in particular are very helpful for showing to those without relevant scientific training (i.e. 99 %?).

Speaking as if to Tamino, I said «the steepest trendline you use...», which means I was talking about the linear trend line shown on his specific graph, not one from wood for trees or giss or anywhere else, the one shown on his graph that he used to make his point.