That is one scary looking hockey stick.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Francis Barnett on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
- Billyjack on Mission Accomplished
- conrad ziefle on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- conrad ziefle on “pushing nature past its limits”
- conrad ziefle on Mission Accomplished
How about Scenario F?
That way, it can double up as a grade for Hansen’s “science”
Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead,
there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you….
I made a scenario D back in mid 2008. http://users.vianet.ca/paulak2r/AGW/MyModel.jpg My scenario assumes that what has happened will likely continue to happen. It actually has two scenarios where the red line assumes we will maintain the most recent warming while the green line assumes we will go back to the warming we had earlier in the 1900s. I explain what I did on the http://users.vianet.ca/paulak2r/AGW/ page, but basically, I copied the 1947 to 2007 data and appended it to the end of the graph lining up the 1947 temperature with the 2007. That was done twice to get 120 years into the future. Of course, volcanic eruptions are included which obviously won’t occur at the same times, but already my scenario is closer to reality. — John M Reynolds
jmrsudbury How would that chart go if you started around 1450 AD?
http://a-sceptical-mind.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Comparison-charts.jpg
It was rather easy to use the 60 year (or so) ocean cycle. Your 1450 graph presents the problem with knowing what year should be used as the start point of the cycle. Should it be 1000, 1100, 1200, …? I don’t know, so I took the strongest cycle that was already apparent in the 1850 – 2007 record. — John M Reynolds
Thanks John. I think the problem is in assuming just one cycle.
Have you seen this?
http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari3.htm
Lance Pidgeon.
At least you got the 60 yr ocean cycle. There is also longer cycles. Dr. Joan Feynman identified two in the 850 year Nile River level/ Aurora data. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.
Top alternative uses for broken hockey sticks. For your Mann cave.
http://www.pinterest.com/wintersnights/broken-hockey-stick-projects/
The idiots who plotted this think that global temperature correlates with CO2. In fact, global temperature correlates with the derivative of CO2.
Ask Murry L. Salby, the genius who has proven mathematically that AGW is pure BS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts–9I
Scenario A was if we did nothing. We did nothing. But actually the amount of CO2 emissions, probably because of unexpected growth from China, was larger than Hansen predicted in the do nothing Scenario A. Scenario C was that we would have had to basically bring civilization to a halt in 1988, drastically cutting CO2. We could have destroyed our civilization with those draconian cuts, and temperatures would be just the same as they are now. Except most of us would probably be dead, as from disease or starvation or conflict. The climate, though, would be fine, just as it is now anyway. CO2 has risen more than the catastrophic Scenario C predicted, but temperatures have dropped even lower than the Scenario A prediction.
But they’re still at it. Some now calling for 100% cuts in CO2. Can’t they get it through their thick heads that CO2 doesn’t do anything? And for the luke warmers who insist on saying that “the argument isn’t whether CO2 causes warming, it is about how much warming,” I don’t see how you can look at the above chart and say that with a straight face. Is this our version of the Stockholm Syndrome? Do we have to just go along with them to some degree even if the evidence doesn’t support that? There is no evidence of a causal correlation between C02 and temperature in the immediate past, none. And this outstanding 3 minute video, looking at ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years, also shows that there is exactly zero evidence over the long haul that CO2 causes temperatures to rise or fall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Lag
Beautifully said. Don’t buy into the swindle for a second.
Even if you buy this bogus greenhouse effect, which is impossible in an atmosphere with air that’s free to move around in (actual greenhouse works by blocking convection), it’s still clear that CO2 has virtually zero warming effect.
One theme warmists love is: what will our children think of what we did? They’ll think we’re f’n stupid if we destroy the economy as Hanson asks. And they’ll be pretty pissed off they have no jobs and have to wear hair shirts to keep warm as the ice age glaciers advance.
I wouldn’t call it a case of the Stockholm Syndrome. It’s our own ‘science’ based version of the European Witch Craze.
How about “Scenario R”……
For “Reality” vs. computer-generated fantasy model predictions “A”, “B” and “C”.
Or ‘Scenario P’, for prison.
Obama would enjoy a little taste of Scenario D.
It’s scenario P!
P for politics – keep pushing the message to the sheeple and their leaders and that way the UN eco green programs get funded, with your money, regardless of metrit or worth.
http://www.bluehill.org/climate/anntemp.gif This is a pretty good graph, the only thing I question is the affect of a major highway built next to recording station in 1960. The station is sitting on top of a hill.
Mann’s hockey stick has gone flacid. It cannot be possible that the alarmists have a bit of credibility at this point.
Also, can we have a scenario E? F? G?!!