Sentences with phrase «tamino shows»

But Tamino shows how the NIPCC Report you link to is a pack of nonsense: Skeptics: Real or Fake?.

As Tamino shows here (and in several other posts) winter max has been declining in recent years.

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.

Later Tamino showed me where to find Laskar's orbital data.

Tamino showed difference between RATPAC balloon measurements and satellite measurements, which sharply increases after the year 2000.

Back in December of 2009, after Tamino showed postive warming trend for GISS, RSS and UAH from 1980 to 2000.

Too bad wordpress ate the posts where tamino showed that the difference is negligible.

Not exact matches

Using either record in the same analysis as shown in the last figure would give the same result — that there is no practical or statistical evidence that there has been a change in the underlying long - term trend (see Tamino's post on this as well).

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

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.

It's a very serious accusation which Tamino counters by showing that paleo reconstrutions are at least not bad — therefore not the fruit of a corrupt tree.

Considering how small the change is (as very well shown by Tamino on Open Mind), I would not expect change to be warranted.

The anomaly they're studying (arctic warming of 1.7 C from 1920 - 1940) matches the amount of warming for the same period shown in Tamino's analysis linked to above.

(Tamino, 2009) clearly shows that surface temperatures north of latitude 60o are warming at an accelerated rate in the past few decades.

Tamino provides a nice simple graphic showing that global temperature remains within the projected range based on previous decades of warming:

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.

The earlier study — Tegen et al (2000) does not show the same observed decline that Tamino's sources do.

Not only it has no merit, but it shows that Don Don has not read Tamino's, except perhaps to find some baits and switches for his scam.

Tamino's peanut gallery also shows what happens when people let their prejudices get over their reading.

(Perhaps Tamino might show that graphically, but you'll really have to squint to see the difference)

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.

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.

As tamino's post linked above shows, when we limit ourselves to a decade's worth of data, the uncertainty in the trend grows to nearly + / - 0.2 °C per decade (Figure 2).

For example, see this post by tamino, which shows that the global warming trend since 1975 is roughly 0.17 + / - 0.04 °C per decade in data from NASA GISS (Figure 2).

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.

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.

Tamino has just now shown that RATPAC balloon thermometer data of the lower troposphere does not support a «pause» in warming over the past 18 years as fake skeptics claim RSS data do.

I saw Tamino's post claiming that the Best data show the same trend after 1998 as before.

Tamino added a simulated reconstruction with some spikes and noted that the Marcott method would show the spikes, but they would be attenuated some what.

Rational argument could be used to show Tamino is possibly incorrect in his argument, but that would require a high degree of understanding on your part which you probably don't possess.

In order to test this theory, several independent researchers (Tamino, Ron Broberg, Zeke Hausfather, Joseph at Residual Analysis and others at the Clear Climate Code Project) and have calculated whether the stations dropped showed less warming than the ones kept.

Similar to Tamino's results, Clear Climate Code found that the dropped weather stations show a greater warming trend than the kept weather stations.

... and this was after showing that the trends for 2000 - 2009 for GISS, RSS and UAH were all positive — but Tamino excluded 2010 from the range as it hadn't begun yet.

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

But Tamino's work has shown that any deviations from linearity in the underlying trend over this period are too small for us ton know their form or direction.

Tamino's graphic display of the various data sets, adjusted as indicated, is available here: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/2017-temperature-summary/#more-9559 UAH, even with their flawed data, show an.7 degree increase in global temps since 1980.

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.

And then being shown incorrect by tamino at

None taken, I've been insulted by experts everywhere from Tamino to Deltoid; as for feedback from clouds I think I said clouds were a moderator [sic] and this can be contrary as my night example shows; that is, clouds at night warm whereas clouds at day cool; as for Professor Pinker, my friend Steve Short summed up her findings and cloud feedback thus:

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

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

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.