Another Hockey Stick Smoking Gun

The hockey stick shows a sudden unprecedented warming starting about 150 years ago, which is implicitly blamed on humans.

ScreenHunter_38 Mar. 09 16.11

The only problem is – nothing humans did 150 years ago could have caused this. CO2 didn’t  start rapidly rising until much later. Phil Jones has attributed the 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 warming to natural causes, like the sun.

ScreenHunter_39 Mar. 09 16.15

BBC News – Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

Jones says that most of the rise since 1860 was due to natural causes – which can mean only one of two things

  1. Something radically changed in the climate system around 150 years ago.
  2. The hockey stick temperature reconstruction is garbage

The first possibility is absurd, which leaves only #2 – the hockey stick is garbage. There is no reason to believe that the last third of the warming is any different than the first two thirds.

ScreenHunter_44 Mar. 09 16.28

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Two thirds of the hockey stick is natural. Yet another peer-review parody of science.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Another Hockey Stick Smoking Gun

  1. miked1947 says:

    That entire Hockey Stick is a bad attempt at creating a new Fantasy! That it got published, shows the lengths the Chicken Little Brigade will go to in an attempt to distort science!

    • powers2be says:

      not Fantasy, rather, Mythology, advanced by our Central Government Planners complete with mythological heroes Al Gore, Matt Damon

  2. When I saw the stick it looked like a combination of really bad science and evidence against anthropogenic causes as the rapid warming trend starts far too early.

  3. 2rja says:

    I saw the hockey stick and I thought, someone has way too much time on their hands to be able to create silly lines on their computer.. check McIntyre.. or someone has found a new path into the public trough and will begin draining their unfair share of the booty.

  4. Bill Thomas says:

    You guys probably don’t believe in Evolution either (I know your grandpas didn’t).

  5. usurbrain says:

    The Point you make has always been a concern of mine about AGW hype. I have a different perspective on the effect, or maybe it is just semantics on my part. The amount of CO2 was fairly level back in the 1800’s, and the change around 1850 – 1900 was only about 3 ppm. Since then, not only have we had an increase in the level of CO2, the rate of increase has increased. My thought is that if CO2 was a factor in CAUSING the warming the line showing global temperature would also have a definite, obvious, curve to the change in temperature, perhaps even logarithmic in nature FOLLOWING the change in CO2. However, if the change in temperature is LEADING, like I see in many recent studies, then the warmer it gets the more CO2 will be released from the warming ocean, the faster decaying plant material, and the release from frozen lands. And as it gets warmer the rate increase in the level of CO2 will increase, as the warmer it is the more you make. These easily verifiable observations tell me that the rise in CO2 is a LAGGING factor.

  6. Craig says:

    Here is some perspective for the Admiral and all the others concerned with rising sea levels. From the height of the last ice age when ice was two miles thick over N. America, the sea level was around 200 feet lower. Maybe more. In a span of 10,000 years to about 10,000BC, the level rose. Man made structures are underwater from this time. Here is the perspective, Why are we worried about a few inches rise by 2100? What did we do before? Why, moved of course. Rebuilding lower levels on New Orleans is absurd for this reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *