The Climate Hockey Stick is Wrong!

This is a hockey stick:


This is the Grim Reaper's Scythe:


This is global temperature over the last 10,000 years projected into the immediate future using good scientific estimates:


You decide. Should the Hockey Stick be replaced with the Grim Reaper's Scythe?

More information on the climate change graphic HERE.

See more climate change graphics HERE.

If you are not sure what any of this is about, you can read about the Hockey Stick thing here.

More like this

Did you ever read a textbook on economic history, or an in-depth article on the relative value of goods over the centuries expressed in current US dollars? Have you ever encountered a graphic that shows long term trends in rainfall patterns or other climate variables, using a couple of simple lines…
On April 2nd, I posted three iconic graphs showing some of the clear observational evidence that we’re changing the climate. That post produced a substantial, and largely thoughtful response, and a request for more information and data along these lines. Here are three more, along with a bonus…
This is about the law suit filed by Michael Mann against the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the National Review, Mark Steyn, and Rand Simberg because of accusations they made that were actionable. Michael Halpern summarized: Competitive Enterprise Institute’s space technology and policy analyst…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic. Objection: Global surface temperatures recorded over just one hundred and some years is not long enough to draw any conclusions or worry about anyway.…

Only thing is the curve at the top of the scythe. Really important to avoid giving the impression that things can go backwards in time. :-)

By Iain Davidson (not verified) on 22 Mar 2013 #permalink

I know, but I did get a handle with a nice ME. warm period curve in it!

Nice job. Do you think it will really curve backward in time, like the scythe? That could give us a few more years ...

By climatehawk1 (not verified) on 22 Mar 2013 #permalink

Ah, according to the graph, the Earth's average temperature will be 180F by 2300...sounds legit. (The underlying data used in the graph was found to be flawed, there isn't a blue uptick like that)

By Clifton Westin (not verified) on 22 Mar 2013 #permalink

If the graph is flawed there will be peer-reviewed publications showing exactly is wrong with it. At the moment it is confirmed by some other overlaps for part of it. Till something shows up that withstands peer review in journals calling it so flawed as to be completely wrong I wishful thinking.

By Dan J Andrews (not verified) on 22 Mar 2013 #permalink

--is wishful thinking--

By Dan J Andrews (not verified) on 22 Mar 2013 #permalink

So what is your definition of "good scientific estimates?"

Another interesting (and grim) fact about the abundant anthropogenic input of CO2 into our atmosphere is that even if we reduced our CO2 output to 0 today, there will still be a large global increase in temperature. Because the half-life of CO2 follows a negatively exponential scale, there is no possibility of a significant reduction of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 within the next thousand years. A must-read for those who are interested: