Sentences with phrase «in spaghetti graphs»

In nearly all defences of the deletion of the decline in spaghetti graphs that yield a rhetorical effect of coherence between the Briffa and other reconstructions in the last half of the 20th century, it's been argued that the divergence problem was fully disclosed in a couple of 1998 Briffa articles and that this disclosure in the original technical literature constituted sufficient disclosure — a point that I contested long before Climategate.

The reality is that not all of the data and methods are available to recalculate the curves in those spaghetti graphs.

In spaghetti graphs after Jones et al 1999, instead of bodging the data to hide the decline, CRU deleted the adverse data to hide the decline.

If IPCC intended this range of projections to represent their uncertainty range, then that is what they should have shown in AR4 Figure 10.26 (which is more consistent with the Technical Summary than the range in the spaghetti graph.)

In my prior posts, I observed that Briffa et al 2001 had obtained a reconstruction with a greater rhetorical resemblance to MBH in the pre-1550 period using principal components and, then and only then, did they include this in their spaghetti graph.

The big question then is, why are the results from this model included in the spaghetti graph of figure 1.4 in the SPM or anywhere else in the report unless it were to point out its failure?

It retained the hockey stick reduction, but obscured it by burying it in a spaghetti graph of a dozen or so contemporary reductions.

Not exact matches

Finally, it should be noted that the bristlecone series are included in most of the post MBH98 reconstructions that the feature in the «spaghetti graphs» employed to validate MBH98.

BUT, it came sooner than stated and I especially like the spaghetti graph on the cover with the barbed wire and the major cracks in the underlain foundation.

The «Spaghetti graphs» in the following gives an impression of the huge variability among the datasets.

A leaflet I picked up at a renewable energy exhibition in France showed it large as life — without any other member of the spaghetti graph.

Their reconstruction was prominent in the NAS panel spaghetti graph in 2006 and in the 2007 IPCC AR4 and again in IPCC AR5.

The AR4 spaghetti graph shows the average of runs within a model for 21 models (A1B) and observations fall outside the range shown in Figure 10.5 A1B, giving a much different impression than that of the re-stated Figure 1.4.

As you observe, there is a spaghetti graph in AR4, the range of which (AR4 Figure 10.5) is wider than the projections shown in AR4 FIgure 10.26.

Nor can a comparison between observations and AR4 projections be made «scientifically better» — let alone valid in accounting terms — by replacing actual AR4 documents and graphics with a spaghetti graph that did not appear in AR4.

If «hiding the decline» has already been found to be «misleading» in one situation it can hardly fail to be «misleading» in the use of the spaghetti graphs.

However, as Steve has pointed out, none of the spaghetti graphs used by IPCC states that there has been «hiding the decline» in the particular graph.

The Briffa series as used in the TAR spaghetti graph was offset (upward) somewhat from the climategate version which Osborn initially sent to Mann based on 1881 - 1960.

In the instance of the spaghetti graph above, there was a nice piece of temporal correlation.

The so called «spaghetti» graphs used in figure 2 above are interesting, but their range of variability (excepting Moberg et al) remain almost as limited as their iconic predecessor the «Hockey stick» produced by Dr Michael Mann et al and from which the IPCC third assessment report graphic from 2001 was derived.

I'll simply note that the McShane and Wyner millenial reconstruction has a pronounced hockey stick shape, albeit with a higher Medieval Warm Period and wider error bars than the norm seen in various spaghetti graphs (apparently attributable to the Bayesian «path» approach).

The same should be true for climate change we should evaluate the changes in temperature (not anomalies) over time at the same stations and present the data as a spaghetti graph showing any differing trends and not assume that regional or climates in gridded areas are the same — which they are not as is obvious from the climate zones that exist or microclimates due to changes in precipitation, land use etc..

Are you disputing Steve's assertion that it is the two papers of Briffa that are used by defenders of the the various spaghetti graphs to demonstrate that the divergence problem was discussed in the literature?

The increasing power of computer reconstructions since MBH98 and 99 resulted in the more sophisticated «spaghetti graphs» using multiple proxies, which somewhat modified the findings of the earlier hockey stick, but reinforced the notion of a world rapidly warming over the last century, in a manner unprecedented for at least a thousand years.

-LSB-...] Hide the Decline: Sciencemag Science published one of the first spaghetti graphs (in Briffa and Osborn 1999 here) as part of an invited comment on -LSB-...]-LSB-...]

The Yang Chinese composite, after the Mann PC1 and Yamal, had the third - largest hockey stick shape of the proxies illustrated in the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph.