Sentences with phrase «hockey stick paper as»

Not exact matches

Many readers will be aware that three scientists (two of which are contributors to this site, Michael Mann and Ray Bradley) have received letters from Representative Joe Barton (Texas), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee specifically requesting information about their work on the «hockey stick» papers (Mann et al (1998) and Mann et al (1999)-RRB- as well as an enormous amount of irrelevant material not connected to these studies.

And as for the AIT, the hockey stick only got a brief mention, and that was by mistake (he used the wrong panel from a Lonnie Thompson paper).

What that means is that this paper actually has nothing to do with a «hockey stick» as it does not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures in a manner that is «statistically robust.»

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.

The paper featured an emblematic graph known as the «hockey - stick» that showed temperature rise in the twentieth century was unprecedented in recent history.

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.

(I've also shown Michael Mann acknowledges his original hockey stick is not robust as he had claimed in his paper.

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 placAs 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 placas 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 placas 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 placas 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.

My guess is that it will, like the Mann hockey stick, end up on the trashheap of scientific history as yet another bogus paper.

As if the authors of this second bogus - hockey - stick paper were too stupid to realize what they themselves did.

As observed elsewhere (I don't have the reference at hand, sorry): Either (a) The hockey stick paper (MBHxx) had bad statistics, and Wegman & co-author plagiarized various material for their report, or (b) the hockey stick paper (MBHxx) had bad statistics and Wegman & co-author didn't plagiarize various material for their support.

Do Mann's hockey stick papers taken as a whole make a good case study wrt that IAC report?

[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper's visibility... The «hockey stick» reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic.

Mr. Watts, while you are presenting this new study by Melvin et al. as something that provides results which allegedly refute Mann's hockey stick you do not tell your audience here that the temperature reconstruction shown in the graph, explicitly mentioned by you here, in the Melvin et al paper is done only for a region of Northern Scandinavia, unlike the temperature reconstruction in Mann et al., (1999), doi: 10.1029 / 1999GL900070, which was a reconstruction of the Northern Hemispheric temperature.

The Hockey stick in this paper doesn't even preclude the possibility of a Medieval Warm Period with about equal temperatures as in the 20th century, since the 20th century average temperature still lies within the upper half of the error band of Mann's Hockey Stick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval tstick in this paper doesn't even preclude the possibility of a Medieval Warm Period with about equal temperatures as in the 20th century, since the 20th century average temperature still lies within the upper half of the error band of Mann's Hockey Stick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval tStick in the part of the reconstruction that covers the Medieval times.

As IO have extensively proven in my papers and by proponent of the AGW (see for example Crowley, Science 2000), the traditional climate models produce a signature quite similar to the hockey stick graph by Mann which not only simply disagree with history but has also been seriously put in question under several studies.

Earlier this year, a paper by Michael Mann - for years a leading light in the IPCC, and the author of the infamous «hockey stick graph» showing flat temperatures for 2,000 years until the recent dizzying increase - made an extraordinary admission: that, as his critics had always claimed, there had indeed been a» medieval warm period» around 1000 AD, when the world may well have been hotter than it is now.

So, while the pols and some climatologists are still trying to keep the hysteria alive (as we see from the Science distortion of the Marcott et al. paper to create a «super hockey - stick»), they are having an increasingly difficult time doing so.

To now say the uptick itself wasn't robust is to contradict their paper, as well as all the «Hockey Stick confirmed» and «We're screwed» headlines.

[Sorry, McIntyre published a trivial paper that, by force of necessity, has been trumpeted by dishonest obstructionists like Watts as overturning all of climate science (i.e. «The Hockey Stick») when it did no such thing.

As one example, here is a quote from Mann's 1999 paper which (since, you clearly haven't read it) is where the hockey stick was extended out to include the MWP:

And for good measure Turnbull also rounds on the Hockey Stick curve, as did GWPF Briefing Paper No3.

This paper ignited a major # $ % ^ storm, as intense as anything seen in the hockey stick debate.