Sentences with phrase «stick shaped data»

After all, surely the addition of this little hockey stick shaped data curve to the raw data is not arbitrary simply to get the answer they want, the additions have to represent the results of some heretofore unaccounted - for bias in the raw data.

Not exact matches

«We seem to be compelled to shape facts and data, as we know them,» says Koestler, «into hard bricks, stick them together with the slime of our theories and beliefs.

«We seem to be compelled,» wrote Koestler, «to shape facts and data, as we know them, into hard bricks, and stick them together with the slime of our theories and beliefs.

There's a reason for that: the hockey - stick shaped pattern is in the data, and it's not just noise it's signal.

However, the «hockey stick» shape is clearly in the data, from both the Northern and Southern hemispheres (see for example the data for Grindelwald, d'Argenti & # 232re, and Franz Joseph in the figure at right).

The CETR also shows a stronger hockey - stick shape than the central England series used by MBH98, in part because it includes earlier data (from the late 17th century) than the Bradley and Jones dataset.

When MM applied PCA to the North American tree - ring series but centered the data in the usual way, then retained 2 PC series just as MBH98 had, lo and behold — the hockey - stick - shaped PC wasn't among them!

I probably need the Complete Idiot's Guide, but what I get out of this is, using the mean of the whole data set (if it does have an actual hocky stick shape) as zero creates a higher horizontal line from which all the data vary in various amounts & it tends to «pull up» the negative differences & makes the positive differences look not so big (or it makes all the data look on average equally large in distance from the mean, both in pos & neg directions), making the whole thing look like nothing much is happening, aside from cyclical changes.

As Lloyd noted on Twitter (see below), if you look at the shape of the charted data, it's no mere hockey stick.

If (1) you have a few hockey stick shaped series in a smallish data set which otherwise is cancelling noise, and (2) then re-scale your average to a temperature scale in the calibration period, you can get hockey stick shaped «reconstructions».

Critics of the hockey stick say this shape, and thus the implication, can exist solely by giving undue weight to a small amount of data.

M&M argued that the hockey stick relied for its shape on the inclusion of a small set of invalid proxy data (called bristlecone, or «strip - bark» records).

Moberg's proxy data ends in 1979, and then the hockey - stick shaped instrumental data is tendentiously grafted onto the end of the proxy record so as to hide the decline.

Two leading critics, mining consultant Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick, argued that MBH's computer program generates hockey stick - shaped graphs from random data.

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)

I consider the 20th century temperature record to be reliable, roughly hockey stick shaped over the last 1000 years and there has been no significant data manipulation.

There is nothing to cite that the Natural Climate Oscillation is being altered by simplistic productions of «temperature plots» no matter HOW MANY supposed proxies are proffered and there is no value at all in wasting more time on the «hockey stick debacle», time to realise that the «hockey plot» is not proffering any worthwhile information on ANY Real process, and its entire «shape» was defined NOT by «data» but by an attitude of predetermination within the group of «experimenters».

Using Mann's data - centering method, band - limited («red») noise often * will * produce a hockey - stick - shaped leading principal component.

Mann's critics claimed that they could easily obtain «hockey - stick» shaped leading principal components from data that consisted of nothing more than random noise if they used Mann's data - centering method.

That claim that Mann's data centering convention could favor «hockey - stick» shapes actually true.

If Mann had used the correct data, there would have been no hockey stick shape.

The particular «hockey stick» shape... is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a «hockey stick» shape.

Put simply, McIntyre showed a series with a prominent hockey stick lost it's hockey stick shape if a little data from the same area was added.

Mann's critics claimed that they could easily obtain a «hockey - stick» shaped leading principal component from data that consisted of nothing more than random noise if they used Mann's data - centering method.

What the graph shows (in plain English) is how the purple data set was deleted from the equations (and graph) and replaced with the thick black data at the end of the series — which gave this chart and all its later version the Hockey Stick shape.

What is missing in all this is whether the higher order PC's that would have been derived from the red noise proxies, and included in the full PCA, would have eliminated the hockey stick shape in the full representation of the data, using the correct number of PC's.

As Muller reported in his Technology Review article, there were math errors made by Mann et al. that would have caused randomized data input to the program to have an output that had the hockey stick shape.

One of the Hockey Stick team and RealClimate.org organizers named Rahmstrof used a very odd mathematical alternative curve shape instead of just fitting a curve to his data.

Ice core data supports the general cooling trend in case of the last 2000 years, but the hockey stick shape is missing again: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo4.png

It was clear that the Yamal data differed from Hantemirov and Shiyatov because it produced totally wrong results because the Hantemirov and Shiyatov data had no hockey stick shape.

Its hockey - stick shape depended heavily on one set of data from bristlecone pine trees in the American south - west, enhanced by a statistical approach to over-emphasise some 200 times any hockey - stick shaped graph.

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

The basis for selection, obviously, was not whether trees exhibited a hockey stick shape or not; in cases where there are enough instrumental data, the criterion is whether they correlate well to that — too bad the temperature data show warming over the 20th century, I suppose.

Despite having no trend in the underlying proxies the MBH98 method regularly produces hockey stick - shaped PC1 s which then fit neatly against the temperature data, despite having, in principle, zero explanatory power.

A hockey stick shape in a data set provides a perfect opportunity, since the blade of the stick represents a significant excursion from the shaft of the stick, while the shaft represents the stable system that we need to start with.

[Mann's] improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not.

One only needs to look at Michael Mann's MBH98, MBH99, and subsequent publications, which have really astonishing major errors — such as Mann flipping the Tijlander data upside down in order to produce a hockey stick shape — to see that Lord Monckton's critics are trying to create a tempest in a teapot.

Advocates deemed the conglomeration of proxy temperature data from 7 land regions as scientific confirmation of the notorious hockey - stick - shaped temperature -LSB-...]

But it doesn't overcome the point that even a random data series might just randomly have a hockey stick shape in it.