Sentences with phrase «original hockey stick»

Figure 2: Original hockey stick graph (blue - MBH1998) compared to Wahl & Ammann reconstruction (red).

Like other temperature reconstructions done since 2001 (see graph), it shows greater variability than the original hockey stick.

Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick.

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can — and has — been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark.

The chief focus is the original hockey stick, a reconstruction of past temperature for the northern hemisphere covering the last 600 years by Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (1998, Nature, 392, 779, doi: 10.1038 / 33859, available here), hereafter called «MBH98» (the reconstruction was later extended back to a thousand years by Mann et al, 1999, or «MBH99»).

The authors of the original hockey stick papers and their allies initially conducted a furious counter-attack to defend their work and question the competence and motives of their critics.

For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30 - 40 years of data points slightly downwards.

However, they confirmed the principal results of the original hockey stick - that the warming trend and temperatures over the last few decades are unprecedented over at least the last 600 years.

They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

For all the thunder and fury the original hockey stick generated (and I trust Mann and his team have their hard hats at the ready again), it's not the hinge - pin argument for global warming.

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.

MBH98, the original hockey stick, was ring width only, postprocessed by Mann's decentered PCA as documented by Steve McIntyre.

That «Mann et al reconstruction» in the figure is certainly not the original hockey stick in the 2001 IPCC report.

The study shows the recent heat spike «has no precedent as far back as we can go with any confidence, 11,000 years arguably,» said Pennsylvania State University professor Michael Mann, who wrote the original hockey stick study but wasn't part of this research.

The original hockey stick authors had claimed that they had created a benchmark through other means, and that the figure was still zero.

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.

It will be difficult, but not impossible, for an IPCC author to dismiss in writing a peer - reviewed publication showing that previous reconstructions highlighted in AR3 and AR4 (especially the original hockey stick) are non-robust.

This is shown most clearly in the methods that gave rise to the original hockey stick.

«The stronger conclusions in the new IPCC report result from the fact that there is now a veritable hockey league of reconstructions that not only confirm, but extend, the original Hockey Stick conclusions.

Contrary to your claim of rigorous effort to address comments to the IPCC, Steve McIntyre's comments about temperature proxies and reconstruction were largely dismissed, despite the fact that most of them were directly supported by the NAS panel that reviewed the original hockey stick.

Nevertheless, the attacks on the original Hockey Stick continued, as has the harassment of Mann by right - wing pundits.

If Mann et al. thought that their original hockey stick analysis was a sufficiently accurate temperature reconstruction, they would not have spent the following decade trying to come up with better reconstructions.

And now, Nature, which published the original hockey stick paper in 1999, has weighed in with an editorial calling for GMU to hurry up, and making mention of the Office of Research Integrity as an alternative process.