But what if two of those games only saw a single goal scored? The average of 5 goals is going to be distorted by these two very low scoring games. There is a huge list of famous ice hockey teams and players who have had great successes in the sport.
As well as ice hockey tips, you can find a wide variety of betting tips on sporting events every day. Check out our bettingexpert tips page and read what our best tipsters are predicting!
The username or password you entered is incorrect. Please check the username, re-type the password, and try again. Please specify a username so people know what to call you on bettingexpert. Please enter a username with more than two characters. Please write a username with maximum 30 characters. Please specify an email so we know where to reach you.
Please specify a password so you can log in to bettingexpert. Please write a password with 8 or more characters. Please upload your image in one of these formats: The image you are trying to upload is too heavy.
Please try with a smaller image: Please accept bettingexperts Terms and Conditions in order to proceed. We can't seem to upload this image. There might be something wrong with the file. Please try with another. When you signed up we sent you an email with a link to confirm your email address. In order to log in today we need you to click on that link. If you'd like we can also resend the email to you. This account has been banned. We've resent the confirmation email. Division 1 - Norra. Division 2 - Norrland.
National Premier Leagues Play Offs. Southern League Central Division. Southern League South Division. Vanarama National League North. Vanarama National League South. National 2 - Group A. National 2 - Group B. National 2 - Group C. National 2 - Group D. Calcutta Premier Division A. Persian Gulf Pro League. Serie C - Group C. Serie D - Group A. Serie D - Group B. Serie D - Group C. By , the Clinton Administration had signed the treaty, but vigorous lobbying meant ratification of the treaty was successfully opposed in the Senate by a bipartisan coalition of economic and energy interests.
Lobbyists such as the Western Fuels Association funded scientists whose work might undermine the scientific basis of the treaty, and in it was revealed that the American Petroleum Institute had hosted informal discussions between individuals from oil companies, trade associations and conservative policy research organizations who opposed the treaty, and who had tentatively proposed an extensive plan to recruit and train scientists in media relations.
Global Change Research Program , over the scientific consensus shown by the IPCC report and about the peer reviewed status of the papers it cited. As reported by Pat Michaels on his World Climate Report website, MacCracken said during the hearing that "the last decade is the warmest since ", implying that the warming had been caused by the greenhouse effect , and replied to Walker's question about whether thermometers had then existed by explaining the use of biological materials as temperature proxies.
He said the Science Committee had been told of this, and of comments by one IPCC reviewer that this was misleading and the text should say "Composite indicators of summer temperature show that a rapid rise occurred around , this rise was prior to the major greenhouse emissions. Since then, composite temperatures have dropped slightly on a decadal scale. Variations on the "Composite Plus Scale" CPS method continued to be used to produce hemispheric or global mean temperature reconstructions.
From , this was complemented by Climate Field Reconstruction CFR methods, which could show how climate patterns had developed over large spatial areas, making the reconstruction useful for investigating natural variability and long-term oscillations as well as for comparisons with patterns produced by climate models. The CFR method made more use of climate information embedded in remote proxies, but was more dependent than CPS on assumptions that relationships between proxy indicators and large-scale climate patterns remained stable over time.
As part of his doctoral research, Michael E. They then teamed up with Raymond S. They were able to detect that the multiple proxies were varying in a coherent oscillatory way, indicating both the multidecadal pattern in the North Atlantic and a longer-term oscillation of roughly years in the surrounding region.
Their study did not calibrate these proxy patterns against a quantitative temperature scale, and a new statistical approach was needed to find how they related to surface temperatures in order to reconstruct past temperature patterns. For his postdoctoral research, Mann joined Bradley and tree ring specialist Malcolm K. Hughes to develop a new statistical approach to reconstruct underlying spatial patterns of temperature variation combining diverse datasets of proxy information covering different periods across the globe, including a rich resource of tree ring networks for some areas and sparser proxies such as lake sediments, ice cores and corals, as well as some historical records.
Their method was based on separate multiple regressions between each proxy record or summary and all of the leading principal components of the instrumental record. The least squares simultaneous solution of these multiple regressions used covariance between the proxy records. The results were then used to reconstruct large-scale patterns over time in the spatial field of interest defined as the empirical orthogonal functions , or EOFs using both local relationships of the proxies to climate and distant climate teleconnections.
A balance was required over the whole globe, but most of the proxy data came from tree rings in the Northern mid latitudes , largely in dense proxy networks. Since using all of the large numbers of tree ring records would have overwhelmed the sparse proxies from the polar regions and the tropics , they used principal component analysis PCA to produce PC summaries representing these large datasets, and then treated each summary as a proxy record in their CFR analysis.
The primary aim of CFR methods was to provide the spatially resolved reconstructions essential for coherent geophysical understanding of how parts of the climate system varied and responded to radiative forcing , so hemispheric averages were a secondary product. Their original draft ended in as most reconstructions only went that far, but an anonymous peer reviewer of the paper suggested that the curve of instrumental temperature records should be shown up to the present to include the considerable warming that had taken place between and The paper announced a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution, building on previous multiproxy reconstructions.
The authors concluded that "Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years are warmer than any other year since at least AD", and estimated empirically that greenhouse gases had become the dominant climate forcing during the 20th century.
Hegerl described their method as "quite original and promising", which could help to verify model estimates of natural climate fluctuations and was "an important step towards reconstructing space—time records of historical temperature patterns". Release of the paper on 22 April was given exceptional media coverage, possibly due to the chance that this happened to be Earth Day and it was the warmest year on record. Later reports appeared in Time , U. In the CBS interview, John Roberts repeatedly asked him if the study proved that humans were responsible for global warming, to which he would go no further than that it was "highly suggestive" of that inference.
The New York Times highlighted their finding that the 20th century had been the warmest century in years, quoting Mann saying that "Our conclusion was that the warming of the past few decades appears to be closely tied to emission of greenhouse gases by humans and not any of the natural factors".
Most proxy data are inherently imprecise, and Mann said: They are somewhat sizable as one gets farther back in time, and there is reasonable uncertainty in any given year. There is quite a bit of work to be done in reducing these uncertainties. Phil Jones of the UEA Climatic Research Unit told the New York Times he was doubtful about adding the year thermometer record to extend the proxy reconstruction, and compared this with putting together apples and oranges; Mann et al.
Jones thought the study would provide important comparisons with the findings of climate modeling , which showed a "pretty reasonable" fit to proxy evidence.
He noted that it used almost all the available long-term proxy climate series, "and if the new multivariate method of relating these series to the instrumental data is as good as the paper claims, it should be statistically reliable. He asserted that "almost all of the warming described in the article took place before —long before major changes to the greenhouse effect—and the scientific methodology guarantees that the early s should appear as the warmest years", citing the papers by Jones to support his view that all of the warming took place between and This era is known as the Medieval Warm Period.
It said that the Medieval Warm Period predated industrial greenhouse gas emissions, and had a natural origin. They took issue with tree ring reconstructions by Briffa et al. They reiterated the suggestion that MBH98 only went back to to avoid showing the Medieval Warm Period, and implied that it too suffered from the tree ring divergence problem which actually affected a different reconstruction and not MBH Michaels subsequently gave Mann the opportunity to post a reply on the website in September Jones, Keith Briffa , Tim P.
Barnett and Simon Tett had independently produced a "Composite Plus Scale" CPS reconstruction extending back for a thousand years, comparing tree ring, coral layer, and glacial proxy records, but not specifically estimating uncertainties. As Bradley recalls, Mann's initial view was that there was too little information and too much uncertainty to go back so far, but Bradley said "Why don't we try to use the same approach we used in Nature, and see if we could push it back a bit further?
We can actually say something, although there are large uncertainties. In considering the Jones et al. Mann carried out a series of statistical sensitivity tests , removing each proxy in turn to see the effect its removal had on the result.
He found that certain proxies were critical to the reliability of the reconstruction, particularly one tree ring dataset collected by Gordon Jacoby and Rosanne D'Arrigo in a part of North America that Bradley's earlier research had identified as a key region. To find out why, Mann compared the two datasets and found that they tracked each other closely from to , then diverged until around when they again tracked each other. He found a likely reason in the CO 2 " fertilisation effect " affecting tree rings as identified by Graybill and Idso, with the effect ending once CO 2 levels had increased to the point where warmth again became the key factor controlling tree growth at high altitude.
Mann used comparisons with other tree ring data from the region to produce a corrected version of this dataset. Their reconstruction using this corrected dataset passed the validation tests for the extended period, but they were cautious about the increased uncertainties.
The Mann, Bradley and Hughes reconstruction covering 1, years MBH99 was submitted in October to Geophysical Research Letters which published it in March with the cautious title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Though substantial uncertainties exist in the estimates, these are nonetheless startling revelations. The reconstruction found significant variability around a long-term cooling trend of —0. This curve followed a downward trend shown as a thin dot-dashed line from a Medieval Warm Period about as warm as the s down to a cooler Little Ice Age before rising sharply in the 20th century.
Thermometer data shown with a dotted line overlapped the reconstruction for a calibration period from to , then continued sharply up to A shaded area showed uncertainties to two standard error limits, in medieval times rising almost as high as recent temperatures. They raised questions later adopted by critics of Mann's work, including the point that bristlecone pines from the Western U. The temperature curve was supported by other studies, but most of these shared the limited well dated proxy evidence then available, and so few were truly independent.
The uncertainties in earlier times rose as high as those in the reconstruction at , but did not reach the temperatures of later thermometer data. They concluded that although the 20th century was almost certainly the warmest of the millennium, the amount of anthropogenic warming remains uncertain.
With work progressing on the next IPCC report, Chris Folland told researchers on 22 September that a figure showing temperature changes over the millennium "is a clear favourite for the policy makers' summary".
In November, Jones produced a simplified figure for the cover of the short annual World Meteorological Organization report, which lacks the status of the more important IPCC reports. Two fifty-year smoothed curves going back to were shown, from MBH99 and Jones et al.
Briffa's paper as published in the January issue of Quaternary Science Reviews showed the unusual warmth of the last century, but cautioned that the impact of human activities on tree growth made it subtly difficult to isolate a clear climate message. Crowley and Thomas S. Lowery 's reconstruction incorporated data not used previously. It reached the conclusion that peak Medieval warmth only occurred during two or three short periods of 20 to 30 years, with temperatures around s levels, refuting claims that 20th century warming was not unusual.
Reviewing twenty years of progress in palaeoclimatology, Jones noted the reconstructions by Jones et al. In what has become a recurring contrarian theme, he said "This reconstruction shows neither a Medieval Warm Period nor a Little Ice Age.
But extensive evidence shows that both these events occurred on a global scale and that climates fluctuated significantly. He said there had probably been no global warming since the s, and "Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of , one sees a cooling trend.
The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted 'hockey stick' graph with its 'unusual' temperature rise in the past years ". Its list of sources said that the temperature data was from MBH99, but the graph did not show error bars or show which part was reconstruction and which was the instrumental record.
He wrote that this graph "asserts that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were higher than those of today", and described climate changes as due to solar variation.
Above it, figure 2. This iconic graph adapted from MBH99 was featured prominently in the WG1 Summary for Policymakers under a graph of the instrumental temperature record for the past years. The text stated that it was "likely that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the s was the warmest decade and the warmest year" in the past 1, years. The Working Group 1 scientific basis report was agreed unanimously by all member government representatives in January at a meeting held in Shanghai , China.
Houghton , as Co-Chair of the working group, presented the report in an announcement shown on television, leading to wide publicity. The original MBH98 and MBH99 papers avoided undue representation of large numbers of tree ring proxies by using a principal component analysis step to summarise these proxy networks, but from Mann stopped using this method and introduced a multivariate Climate Field Reconstruction CFR technique based on the regularized expectation—maximization RegEM method which did not require this PCA step.
A paper he published jointly with Scott Rutherford examined the accuracy of this method, and discussed the issue that regression methods of reconstruction tended to underestimate the amplitude of variation. Rather than displaying all of the long-term temperature reconstructions, the opening figure of the Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC Third Assessment Report TAR highlighted an IPCC illustration based only on the MBH99 paper,  and a poster of the hockey stick graph was the backdrop when the report was presented in January ,  in a televised announcement.
The graph was seen by mass media and the public as central to the IPCC case for global warming, which had actually been based on other unrelated evidence. Jerry Mahlman , who had coined the "hockey stick" nickname, described this emphasis on the graph as "a colossal mistake, just as it was a mistake for the climate-science-writing press to amplify it. That's the data we've had for the past years, which is quite consistent with the expectation that the climate is continuing to warm.
Mann later said "The label was always a caricature and it became a stick to beat us with". Controversy over the graph extended outside the scientific community , with accusations from political opponents of climate science.
As Mann said, "Advocates on both sides of the climate-change debate at various times have misrepresented the results for their own purposes". Environmental groups presented the graph flatteringly, and the caution about uncertainty in the original graph tended to be understated or removed: National Assessment on Climate Change report. Similar graphs were used by those disputing the findings with the claim that the graph was inaccurate.
When a later Wall Street Journal editorial used a graph without error bars in this way, Gerald North described this as "very misleading, in fact downright dishonest". Funding was provided by the American Petroleum Institute for research critical of the graph. A section disputing the "hockey stick" curve concluded it was merely a mathematical construct promoted by the IPCC to support the "notion" that recent temperatures were unprecedented.
Iconic use of the IPCC graph came to symbolise conflict in which mainstream climate scientists were criticised, with some sceptics focussing on the hockey stick graph in the hope that they could damage the credence given to climate scientists.
An early attempt to refute the hockey stick graph appeared in a joint paper by Willie Soon , who had already argued that climate change was primarily due to solar variation , and Sallie Baliunas who had contested whether ozone depletion was due to man-made chemicals. They sent their paper to the editor Chris de Freitas , an opponent of action to curb carbon dioxide emissions who has been characterized by Fred Pearce as a "climate contrarian". Chris de Freitas approved the paper for publication in the relatively obscure journal Climate Research , where it appeared on 31 January Two scientists cited in the papers later said that their work was misrepresented.
He wrote in a 21 April memo that "The recent paper of Soon-Baliunas contradicts a dogmatic view held by many in the climate science community". The Climate Research paper was criticised by many other scientists, including several of the journal's editors. Responding to the controversy, the publisher of Climate Research upgraded Hans von Storch from editor to editor in chief as of 1 August After seeing a preprint of the Eos rebuttal, von Storch decided that the Soon and Baliunas paper was seriously flawed and should not have been published as it was.
He proposed a new editorial system, and an editorial saying that the review process had failed. Inhofe made a two-hour speech opposing the bill. He cited the Soon and Baliunas paper to support his conclusion: With all the hysteria, all the fear, all the phony science, could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?
I believe it is. Three scientists were invited, Mann giving testimony supporting the consensus position, opposed by long-term skeptics Willie Soon and David Legates. Senator Jeffords read out an email in which von Storch stated his view "that the review of the Soon et al. The critique published in the Eos journal by Mann et al. They got just about everything wrong. The publisher of Climate Research agreed that the flawed Soon and Baliunas paper should not have been published uncorrected, but von Storch's proposals to improve the editorial process were rejected, and von Storch with three other board members resigned.
News of his resignation was discussed at the senate committee hearing. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol became a major political issue in Canada, and the government issued pamphlets which said that the "20th century was the warmest globally in the past 1, years". Toronto businessman Stephen McIntyre saw this as based on the hockey stick graph, and in he became interested in the IPCC process which had featured the graph prominently.
With a background in mineral exploration, including the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy, he felt that he had the mathematical expertise and experience to independently audit the graph. Following email exchanges, Mann's assistant sent the information as text files around 23 April McIntyre then made a series of comments about the data on the internet discussion group climateskeptics, and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen suggested that he should write and submit an article on the topic.
McIntyre drafted an article before they first met on 19 September , and they then worked together intensively on an extensive re-write. After review, resubmission on 14 October and further corrections, the paper was published on the web on 27 October , only three and a half weeks after its first submission.
McIntyre and McKitrick said that they had not been able to replicate the Mann, Bradley and Hughes results due to problems with the data: A draft response by Mann, Bradley and Hughes was put on the University of Virginia website on 1 November , and amended two days later. They said that MM03 appeared seriously flawed as it "used neither the data nor the procedures of MBH98", having deleted key proxy information. This made use of all the progressively richer and more widespread networks available for later periods by calculating separately principal components for each period of overlapping datasets, for example —, —, and so on.
In treating these as one series with missing information, MM03 had eliminated whole datasets covering the 15th century. Mann, Bradley and Hughes commented that "The standard protocol for scientific journals receiving critical comments on a published paper is to provide the authors being criticized with an opportunity to review the criticism prior to publication, and offer them the chance to respond.
Mann and colleagues were given no such opportunity. In the same debate, Senator Olympia Snowe used the hockey stick graph to demonstrate the reality of climate change. On the morning of the vote, USA Today carried an op-ed by Tech Central Station editor Nick Shulz saying that MM03 "upsets a key scientific claim about climate change", and that "Mann never made his data available online".
The vote was 55—43 against the McCain-Lieberman bill. After Mann and associates showed the newspaper that the data was available online, as it had been for years,   USA Today issued a correction on 13 November.
McIntyre was flown to Washington, D. Marshall Institute, co-hosted by Myron Ebell of the Cooler Heads Coalition , McIntyre said that he had contacted Mann for the data set but found problems in replicating the curves of the graph because of missing or wrong data.
They prepared their corrections in a proxy data set using data, and using publicly disclosed methods produced a reconstruction which differed from MBH98 in showing high peaks of temperature in the 15th century.
They were not saying that these temperatures had occurred, but that Mann's results were incorrect. When they published their paper, it attracted attention, with David Appell being the first reporter to take an interest.
They said that after Appell's article was published with comments from Mann, they had followed links to Mann's FTP site and on 29 October copied data files which were subsequently deleted from the site.
Fantasy football tips week 6 2018 | Nhl prediction 2018-15 | World snooker latest betting | Boxing betting technical draw | Best mma betting sites canada | Ufc ea tips | Murphy snooker odds | Nfl odds week 4 cbs |