Sentences with phrase «hockey stick conclusion»

I beleive that is the same Steve that was involved in a congressional debate about the hockey stick his conclusions had substance but no significant relevance.

The new report shows that there is now a veritable hockey league of reconstructions that not only confirms, but extends, the original hockey stick conclusions.

There is a lot of proxy data out there and that when all of it is used there is no support for the hockey stick conclusions.

Not exact matches

Yet the basic conclusions of the «hockey stick» remain, and indeed have been strengthened by subsequent work.

Those in denial have now somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that the Hockey Stick is broken, not b / c of problems with the MWP (i.e., the «shaft») as originally alleged, but b / c of the «blade»?

In fact, this conclusion is from the 1995 IPCC report, and thus predates the existence of quantitative proxy reconstructions like the «hockey stick».

And, just as the original Mann et al «hockey stick» was followed by additional work leading to the «spaghetti diagram» of the IPCC in 2007 showing numerous similar reconstructions, with a robust common signal, we can expect that this new paper will for now serve as the standard, but will stimulate additional studies that motivate even stronger conclusions.

Can any conclusion regarding future climate change be drawn from the «hockey stick» reconstruction, and can any level of statistical confidence be placed on the conclusion?

These other reconstructions do tend to show some more variability than MBH98, ie the handle of the hockey stick is not as straight, but they * all * support the general conclusions that the IPCC TAR came to in 2001: the late 20th century warming is anamolous in the last one or two thousand years and the 1990's are very likely warmer than any other time in the last one or two thousand years.»

The conclusion in relation to the «Hockey Stick» is expressed in the Scientific American article on the research: «Novel Analysis Confirms Climate «Hockey Stick» Graph».

They tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick (their sticks are not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.

Quite simply, I have accused Michael Mann of committing fraud with his Hockey Stick papers and actions as a lead author of the IPCC TAR to promote his own conclusions.

It was when I realized that I was being used as a kind of hockey (stick) puck that I reluctantly came to the conclusion that the truth has no chance with a longstanding and dedicated political bunch.

Where has Steve McIntyre explicitly detailed by line item in IPCC reports how his audits have actually affected IPCC conclusions in Mann hockey stick graphs?

As I recall, they reviewed maybe as many as 200 peer reviewed papers from all over the place, and reached a conclusion that the MWP and the LIA were not «Northern Hemisphere» phenomena, as Michael Mann tried to imply in his hockey stick graph, but were in fact true global events, with evidence for that coming from all over the place.

Primarily w.r.t. the «hockey stick» since that's the point about «Mann's conclusions» that are specifically targeted in this thread and the North / Wegman reports.

``... Ten years on from the study that provoked all the ire, Michael Mann's conclusion is that far from being broken, «the hockey stick is alive and well».

Please see this article for a different take on the (not new, BTW) Hockey Stick controversy, there are dozens of other reconstructions that have supported the same conclusions.

In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been «thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal»; that «other professionals in the field who also have «looked in great detail at the problem at hand» and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre's findings being «valid and relevant», they instead have found them to be «without statistical and climatological merit»; that CA «fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing».

I think this is called progress... Primarily w.r.t. the «hockey stick» since that's the point about «Mann's conclusions» that are specifically targeted in this thread and the North / Wegman reports.

I believe that the main work is over on climateaudit.org, and their conclusions, as I recall, was that the phone numbers in a phone book input into Mann's «correction» software would produce a hockey stick.

I think a large part of it is just that people believe the conclusion behind the hockey stick, and thus, they don't look closely at the things which support it.

As for the «hockey stick» graph that my colleagues and I devised — showing a sharp spike in warming in recent decades — the physical sciences working group report has actually strengthened its conclusions regarding the exceptional nature of modern warmth.

You still get the hockey stick and you still arrive at a conclusion that is just as alarming — the recent warming is unprecedented over at least the last 400 years.»]

So, pray tell: 1] on what then are their conclusions - aka a major case of hockey stick resur - erection - based?

Conclusion Hockey - sticks are ubiquitous in past, present, and future climate - data analyses for one simple reason: The anthropogenic CO2 hockey - stick is driving all the other climate - change hockey sHockey - sticks are ubiquitous in past, present, and future climate - data analyses for one simple reason: The anthropogenic CO2 hockey - stick is driving all the other climate - change hockey shockey - stick is driving all the other climate - change hockey shockey sticks.

The attacks on the hockey stick graph led the United States National Academy of Sciences to carry out an investigation, concluding in 2006 that although there had been no improper conduct by the researchers, they may have expressed higher levels of confidence in their main conclusions than was warranted by the evidence.

There has been legitimate science that has been used and misused, sometimes by the scientists themselves (though, I hear you could play a good game of hockey with one misuse), and there has been some science created just for the express purpose of backing a conclusion that was decided before the science was even started (such as making sure you had a strong stick for that game of hockey when the stick's material was questioned).

Although they now apparently concede that «the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, can not be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions», this was definitely not the impression left by the authors when the article was published, when it was hailed as supposed confirmation of the Hockey Stick.

What they are really saying is this: In their humble opinion, the Mann hockey stick will not be deposed from its status as the generally - accepted temperature record for the last 2,000 years unless some major new study, one conducted by people with recognized stature in the climate science community, comes to a different conclusion.

How should an interested and informed observer go about evaluating the Loehle - McCulloch reconstruction, and the approach it uses to reach its conclusions, in comparison with the Mann hockey stick, given that the Loehle - McCulloch team currently has no stature whatsoever within the mainstream climate science community?

Rather, such problems lead to highly qualified conclusions, even in the controversial hockey stick papers.

The Wegman committee concluded that the M+M critique was valid for statistical reasons having nothing to do with climate science per se and that the «hockey stick» conclusions were not valid.

Professor Michael Mann, of Penn State University in the US, who led research that produced the famous «hockey stick» graph showing how humans were dramatically increasing the Earth's temperature, told The Independent the new paper appeared «sound and the conclusions quite defensible».

You can read that the Hockey Stick graph is broadly accurate, or that it was manipulated by the IPCC to agree with a predetermined conclusion.