To all the readers who make this blog worth writing: Thank you.
Thank you for sharing my work. One of the things that makes me proud is that often my blog posts are used as a reference source, linked to by other posts — and not just when they first come out. Every time I read in a comment at RealClimate, and in many other places, saying “See tamino’s post here,” it drives home the point that I’m not just making noise, I’m contributing to the internet’s knowledge base in a way that gets used. I’m making a difference. So are all of you. I’m not gonna stop.
I’m also regularly surprised (I guess I shouldn’t be) how much I learn from my readers. You’re a savvy bunch, and eager to share your knowledge. Because I moderate comments, I pretty much end up reading all of them. Believe me, my knowledge of the subject is considerably greater by virtue of your comments.
Finally: my wife reminded me that I shouldn’t be an ingrate, that it’s readers and donors who keep the effort alive. From time to time a reader makes good use of the “Donate” button on the right-hand side of the page. There are even a few who donate regularly. It’s a palpable expression of the fact that what I do here is considered something valuable. That makes me feel good, and it really does help me keep the blog going, maybe more than most folks fully appreciate.
Together, we’re all fighting to get the world to take the climate change issue seriously. Sometimes it’s hard, sometimes it’s quite unpleasant. But take hope, just as you give it; together, we’re making more progress than we know. With friends like you, it’s a lot easier to put up with all our enemies in denierville. Without you, the readers, it wouldn’t be worth it.
Keep up the good fight. I’m right there with you. Together, this will be our finest hour.
Reblogged this on Hypergeometric and commented:
And thanks, Tamino!
I tried to make a donation a couple of times but received an error message.
[Response: Do you know what the error message said?]
Thanks. I just tried to donate $5, but I’m not sure it it went through. Please tell me if it didn’t and I’ll try again.
“We cannot process this transaction because there is a problem with the PayPal email address supplied by the seller. Please contact the seller to resolve the problem. If this payment is for an eBay listing, you can contact the seller via the “Ask Seller a Question” link on the listing page. When you have the correct email address, payment can be made at http://www.paypal.com.”
[Response: Thanks for the notice, and the error message.]
No, Thank you Tamino. I too will continue to do what I can, come hell or high water.
And to you, sir, in spades.
Thank you for your efforts. Please keep at it.
[Response: I ain’t gonna stop.]
You don’t make noise, tamino…you analyze it far better than most!
Thank you, Tamino.
Not sure about a ‘finest’ hour because the globe will for the rest of my life enter a climate crisis of hardly imaginable proportions. But we’ll keep raising anticipation and awereness to prevent even worse and we might still succeed sort of on time.
The three sources I can’t do without: RealClimate, Skeptical Science, and Tamino.
. . . and now I feel guilty for enjoying all these years without donating. I had to set up a recurring contribution. You master manipulator, you!
I echo those who find the payment system error-prone. It took me a half-a-dozen attempts, and demanded email and a phone number, neither of which should be required fields in a credit card transaction. Anything the form didn’t like reset the credit card number, exp date, and security code, which I am now well on my way to knowing by heart. It was painful!
But you are worth it.
I tried to donate, which failed with:
“We cannot process this transaction because there is a problem with the PayPal email address supplied by the seller. Please contact the seller to resolve the problem. If this payment is for an eBay listing, you can contact the seller via the “Ask Seller a Question” link on the listing page. When you have the correct email address, payment can be made at http://www.paypal.com.
[Response: Thanks! I’m gonna get in touch with PayPal to find out, because some donations are going through fine but others not.]
The seller will only ship to confirmed addresses. To complete this transaction, you will need to enter your information again.”
Could you comment on the methods and uncertainties in fitting exponential curves to Greenland and Antartica ice loss as well as sea-level rise data as disucssed in this paper:
I generally don’t have anything to contribute by commenting here, but I have used lessons learned here in my discussions elsewhere, both on the web and face-to-face. I’ve often downloaded the same datasets and repeated your analyses to help my understanding and perhaps gain my own insights. I am grateful for your efforts and the clarity of your posts, so thank you Tamino.
I just tried to donate (via PayPal), and I got the same response that KR described. When you get this sorted out let us know via a comment on this thread, and I will give it another go. Thanks for all that you do.
I don’t comment too much these days but I lurk and link to this blog often. Like to spend time at GMFotD FB page.
And thank you!
linked to and shared every day, thanks GF
Many thanks also on behalf of those who lurk appreciatively but don’t reveal ourselves in the comments for whatever reason (for my part, usually it’s the lack of technical chops to make a decent contribution). Either way, I’m sure there are many unnamed visitors who value what you do.
I was never good at math- a use basics well enough and know how to read a graph but never knew [prior to this site] that there is techniques to give more accurate trends, but importantly misleading trends by the wannabe ‘skeptics’ and their calculators .The Victorians built the beginnings of modern science on public donations- Scott visiting the Antarctic for instance, and as much as government funding is vital you provide an important service and it is important that the odd donation helps sponsor small science- and do remind me more often- and I must remember $ ain’t £s, they’re tiny things!
Thank you Tamino.
You are making it fun to read about statistical analysis and your posts tend to stick because they are so well written.
I am very glad you will keep writing.
I came here today because of at popular science article I just read. I hoped to get you interested in commenting on the subject.
Three danish scientist are publishing a paper where they explain sea level rise in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea via oscilations. They use 5 (quasi-)oscilations based on the lunar nodal cycle to “fit” the data and they claim to see no signal from global warming (in the popular article).
Reading your posts and remembering from math that you can fit anything with sines I really wonder if this is healthy science. But I am not able to evaluate it myself.
I hope that you or any of the knowledgeable commenters will weigh in on this.
The paper can be found at http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-14-00204.1
From their conclusion in the paper:
“We developed a transparent method for least residual sineregression
iteration, which is capable of decomposing complex
sea-level curves into hindlying harmonic oscillations, and we
show that the sum of identified bi- and multidecadal sea-level
oscillations of the North Sea and Baltic Sea correlate extremely
well with the observed sea-level fluctuations.”
The popular article also references:
Click to access LNO_aplitude_Locking_CH5_NOVA.pdf
The popular article is here (in danish):
Thanks in advance for any comments on this.
[Response: So much mathturbation, so little time.]
I guess we should thank you for bringing sanity, analytical and rational thinking into the discussion by proving how wrong the “contrarians” are. That it humorously also shows how off the rails they are with regards to many questions within climate science is just a bonus. Keep up the good work!
Thank you Tamino. There are those times where there are no new posts by your for several months. I get it, you have a life beyond here AND you need to make a living. That said, I come here eagerly to read your latest posts…almost to the point of an addiction, it seems. And I am always delighted to see a new post.
Thanks for all that you do, and adding significant bulk to my arguments with friends about global climate change.
The arguments used to justify denial of climate change are also used to justify other stupidity.
Let us take what we learn here, and go forth, fighting ignorance as we do what must be done for the climate.
Some days it is like being a friar armed only with a book, a bell, and a candle preaching peace to rampaging armies at war. On the other hand, nobody told you statistics was easy.
You are welcome, my pleasure.
Thank you for the countless hours of work you’ve put in. I’m sure there are times when you are discouraged, never doubt that you make a difference! You have raised the level of discourse; you have de-mystified the math, interpreted the science and probably increased the IQ of everyone lucky enough to discover your blog! Cheers!
Thank you, ‘Tamino’. I’ve learned a lot about the climate, and even more about statistics.
No way! Thank YOU!
Thanks for writing this blog! In my opinion, you are the best at sticking it to the deniers and their lackeys with your well-written and fully supported rebuttals based on a real analysis of whatever data is being presented. You should be proud!
Thank you Tamino. I truly enjoy your site. I am also having the same PayPal issue as KR.
Thanks to you Tamino. I’ve enjoyed reading and learning from your posts (and those of your readers) for a couple of years now. I appreciate your passion.
Been reading every post since 2009 and only occasionally comment. The best thing about Open Mind is the clarity of explanation, making statistics digestible for lay people. Such is the power of explanation here that I can often spot and explain bad stats practice even if I can’t do the calculations myself – and that is pretty much always. This shield against pseudo-stats endures way beyond the focus of any individual or series of posts. As much as it is possible to understand statistics without having much skill at maths, Tamino is far and away the best source you could hope for.
[Response: Thank you. It’s what I strive for, and your comment is about as high praise as I can imagine.]