Sentences with phrase «climate hockey stick»

he way Team minds seem to work is that since they assume there is a climate hockey stick out in the real world, therefore, any data shaped like a hockey stick is good

Not exact matches

To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick.

There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey - stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2.

That so - called «hockey stick» diagram became a lightning rod in the debate on whether humans were influencing the climate.

Applause, and gentle mocking, from climate scientists Michael Mann, the Pennsylvania State University climate scientist who created the «hockey stick» analysis of past temperatures, had a very different reaction.

«Traces of pollution, fly ash particles coming in, evidence of recent climate change — all the records from that site basically look like hockey sticks.»

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines, by Michael Mann.

Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University in State College, is perhaps best known for his work on the «hockey stick» reconstruction of past climate.

The climate change «hockey stick» is a graph first published in 1998 by Michael Mann et al. that attempted to reconstruct the mean surface temperature on the planet during the period A. D. 900 to the present, using multiple proxies, such as tree rings, to measure temperatures before formal instrumentation was in use.

In 2005, Rep. Joe Barton, R - Texas, called Mann before Congress to testify about his now ubiquitous «hockey - stick» graph, showing temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere over the past millennia, with an abrupt spike upward at the end showing human influence on the climate.

This research received wide attention, in part because it was illustrated with a simple graphic, the so - called hockey stick curve, that many interpreted as definitive evidence of anthropogenic causes of recent climate change.

The hockey stick - shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been verified by many scientists using different methodologies (PCA, CPS, EIV, isotopic analysis, & direct T measurements).

Mr. Cuccinelli is well known for his harassment of Michael Mann, a climate scientist vilified by industry apologists for creating the «Hockey Stick» graph illustrating the increase of average global temperature measurements over the last millennium.

He's the author of three books and the famous target of climate deniers for his early recognition of rapid global warming dubbed «the hockey stick graph».

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State who created the famous «Hockey Stick» graph of global temperature records going back hundreds of years, said that the spiral graphic was «an interesting and worthwhile approach to representing the data graphically.»

Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the overall state of knowledge on global climate change.»

Our «hockey stick» graph became a vivid centerpiece of the climate wars, and to this day, it continues to win me the enmity of those who have conflated a problem of science and society with partisan politics.

Climate Communication Science Advisor Michael E. Mann has been traveling the U.S. on tour for his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines.

The new 2015 Toyota Sienna also gets a more intuitive climate control button layout, as well as a standard panoramic backup camera with handy guidelines for navigating hockey - stick - ridden driveways.

Headline at Climate Progress: «Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral — Schmidt to Curry: «In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator.

Isotopious (# 50) argues that the hockey stick (a thousand years of stable temperatures followed by a rapid rise) does not constitute evidence of climate change, that it is in fact «absolutely nothing out of the ordinary».

Scientists respond to intimidation from Rep. Joe Barton (R - TX) RealClimate has the complete scoop on how scientists have responded to efforts to intimidate scientists by Rep. Joe Barton (R - TX) over a particular detail (the now famous hockey stick) in the climate science.

There is all sorts of evidence for and against natural climate change at various stages of history (and prehistory) that bears discussing, but we rarely ever get to it because everyone is banging on about the hockey stick being inaccurate or accurate (depending on your point of view).

The hockey stick provides compelling evidence for the emergence of a human - caused warming signal from the background noise of natural fluctuations in climate.

[Response: Jeffrey, you'll be pleased to hear that I use * both * of these metaphors in The Hockey Stick & the Climate Wars.

I was somewhat involuntarily thrust into the center of the public debate over climate change at this very time, when the «Hockey Stick» temperature reconstruction I co-authored, depicting the unprecedented nature of modern warming in at least the past millennium, developed into an icon in the debate over human - caused climate change [particularly when it was featured in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2001].

If you don't know much about climate science, or about the details of the controversy over the «hockey stick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political hockey stick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political pstick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political pStick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political pstick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political power.

... not to mention that the continuing explanations of the hockey stick graphs always sorts out in the end to substantiate the alarming trends of anthropogenic climate change.

Indeed, I express many of these very sentiments in my recent book «The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars».

I have to wonder — and I would like to solicit opinions on this from the RC scientists who initiate the posts — why Michael Mann's «Hockey Stick» and he himself are always such scapegoats when these people launch yet another propoganda crusade against actions to counter destructive climate change.

I am reading the book «Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars».

RE: # 67 if in MBH98 the Hockey Stick result lies in PC2 and this method fails red noise tests, and in MM03 it appears in PC4 then just exactly what do the MAIN signals in the proxy record in PC1 (MBH98) or MM (PC1, PC2 and PC3) correspond to in the climate record?

Finally, Montford asks the question as to why the scientists and the IPCC promoted the hockey stick at such a high confidence level so prematurely, and why such extraordinary efforts were made to defend it when it arguably isn't a critical piece of the climate puzzle, rather than to learn from outside statisticians and do a credible error analysis on the data and the inferences.

«It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics.»

[UPDATE, 4:45 pm: Steve McIntyre, seeing a familiar climate «hockey stick» curve, has weighed in with some complaints about data choices.

This is what my limited climate science knowledge tell me, if the hockey stick were wrong.

[UPDATE, 11:45 a.m.] Andrew Freedman at the Capital Weather Gang blog has interviewed Gerald North, the climate scientist who headed the National Academies panel that examined the tree - ring data and «hockey stick» graphs.

There's a letter - writing template as part of the effort to block Mann's talk, which presumably is related to his new book, «The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.»

It's the latest research in more than a decade of work producing a climate «hockey stick» — graphs of global or regional temperatures showing relatively little variation over a millennium or more and then a sharp uptick since the middle of the twentieth century (the blade at the end of the stick).

Dummies Guide to the Latest «Hockey Stick» Controv Most climate change denial is normally left to nuts posting on the internet and the occasional bit of disinformation published by right wing think tanks and astroturf organisations.

If the hockey stick is wrong, and there is more climate variability in the past, then we might be in for more trouble (than if it were correct).

I can't claim to be a whiz at statistics but I remember telling some skeptics on another forum, Accuweather / climate change I believe, that the major point and problem with this paper were that the results still showed a «hockey stick» indicating current warming was pretty anomalous and that the authors were not climatologists, nor did they seem to consult any to discuss why certain methods were used over the ones they decided to use.

So if the hockey stick is incorrect & climate varies wildly from natural causes, then even a «small» (as skeptics view it) input of human GHGs, would then have a much larger impact by virtue of triggering a more sensitive and wild nature.

Having read the comments here and in Jones and Mann (2004) «Climate over past millennia», I have been reflecting on some of the comments about the hockey stick wrt the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Discussion about the «hockey stick» is conducted with considerable fervor in the public media, where this curve is often presented as if it were a proof, or even the most important proof, of anthropogenic influence on climate.

It supports the hockey - stick representation of shallow fluctuations of climate over the past 1000 years and points to the sudden «unprecedented» increase in 20th century temperatures as evidence that increased CO2 levels are the main contributory factor.

My comment was not about M&M as individuals but really about how the hockey stick controversy and M&M's arguments fit into the bigger picture of the climate change debate.

The same issues have dogged other attempts by climate scientists to glean clues on climate trends from bodies of data collected by satellites and weather balloons for other reasons (not to mention ongoing attempts to discern climate patterns in tree rings, ice layers, and other natural substitutes for thermometers; remember the «hockey stick» debate?).

Its all part of the legitimate, honest give - and - take of science that I discuss in my book «The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars» (http://bit.ly/sRasaq) and which is to be distinguished from the dishonest attacks by the Watts / McIntyres / Singers / Michaels of the world.

The hockey stick is not illusion, Mann and others not guilty of scientific misconduct, and climate science not corrupt.