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
- First Tracks In The Snow
- UK Green Energy Record
- UN Is Upset
- “Fascist Salute”
- Record Warmth Of January 1906
- Heat Trapping Difficulties
- Visitech – Data Made Simple – Antarctic Sea Ice
- Visitech – Data Made Simple
- California Governor Refused Firefighting Help
- Internet For Drowned Island
- A Toast To President Trump
- 97% Of Government Experts Agree
- Green Energy Progress
- Scientists Concerned
- New Data Tampering By NOAA
- Magical Thermometers
- Responsive Government In California
- Collapse Of The Antarctic Sea Ice Scam
- NPR : Cold And Snow Caused By Global Warming
- Snow Forecast In All 53 States
- 97% Consensus
- “Melting ice reveals millennia-old forest buried in the Rocky mountains”
- America Burning
- Mediterranean Britain
- Californians Celebrate Annual Wildfire Tradition
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on Heat Trapping Difficulties
- conrad ziefle on “Fascist Salute”
- arn on First Tracks In The Snow
- Gamecock on UN Is Upset
- scott allen on UN Is Upset
- arn on “Fascist Salute”
- dm on UN Is Upset
- dm on UK Green Energy Record
- Francis Barnett on UK Green Energy Record
- Greg in NZ on Record Warmth Of January 1906
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.