If you are a government or academic climate scientist, you can (and will) use a variant of this trend line for graphing any and all climate phenomena.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
Recent Comments
- John Francis on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- Gamecock on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- Bob G on “even within the lifetime of our children”
- Gordon Vigurs on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- Charles Higley on “even within the lifetime of our children”
- arn on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- David M Kitting on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- Gamecock on Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- arn on “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- conrad ziefle on “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
Looks like you cherry picked your end points – the actual trend over the last 1.5 cycles is up.
Or maybe 1.25 cycles.
Their trend lines have direct correlation to funding levels.
Surely, that’s the Arctic ice trend line; the grant income trend line and the temperature trend line go the other way.
They usually use the 270° to 90° (4π/3 to π/2) trend with sine functions but a good hockey stick really needs to curve fit the tangent function of 270° to 90°… kind of like NOAA’s “adjustment” trendline.