Of course we all know about that other ill-fated unabomber billboard last year that went over like a lead radiosonde balloon, but I like this one by CFACT (minus the date controversy of course).
Drive by this!
Science tells us that there is nothing out of the ordinary about today’s weather. There have always been droughts, floods, fires and storms and they will continue no matter what we do. A little historical research shows us that today’s weather is not even particularly extreme and by some measures is unusually tame.
NOAA and the U.K. Met Office, the two main sources of temperature data the UN’s IPCC rely on most, report that any warming there may have been has been limited to only three quarters of a degree in a century! Three quarters of a degree! Hardly the sort of thing to make a noticeable difference in extreme weather.
Further, the Met Office’s data shows no warming for the last 16-17 years! Our new billboard plasters the Met Office data in an easily understood graph right up in the sky.
It shows no warming for over 16 years 15 years. I’ve sent them a correction notice.
If you want to chip in to get one in your area, visit the link below. Billboards are surprisingly inexpensive.
http://www.cfact.org/donate/support-cfacts-billboard-campaign/
UPDATE: the 15/16 year issue discussed in comments is a matter of perception. If you count years, 97,98,99,00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12 you get a count of 16 years.
If you do the math, you get 15 years:
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=08&d1=31&y1=1997&m2=08&d2=31&y2=2012&ti=on
Note the extra day in that report. The issue has to do with defining the start point as zero or one. Counting years, like counting days, can give you can extra day. The timeanddate.com website allows for this by allowing you to not count the end day:
http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=08&d1=31&y1=1997&m2=08&d2=31&y2=2012&ti=off
Either way, te lack of warming over the time period is a compelling argument.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kindlekinser, think about this for a second. If the possibilities are warming and cooling, then perhaps we are doing neither and temperatures are stagnant. Isn’t this a good thing? I thought after all was that everyone has been worried about climate change since the 1970’s and if the Climate ain’t changing doesn’t that mean we have nothing to worry about? Read the billboard again if you need to but I think the stagnant temperatures are rather obvious.
Amazing how whenever a punchy bit of advertising is created, all sorts of people pop up saying “ooh, thats going a bit far”; “be better if (it were toned down in some way as to make it less effective)”. Now no-one could believe that an outfit like, say, Fenton Communications keeps a roster of people who are told to go leave a certain kind of comment on sites like this when something effective happens……. that would suggest that there’s an organised warmist conspiracy out there, what could be further from the truth. Everyone knows that warmists are just good people who really, really care…….
kindlekinser says:
“Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening?”
Out: “Global Warming”
In: “Global Not Getting Cooler”
Stand by for further developments.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:20 am
This billboard may have set a record for the ultimate cherry pick — I wonder why they didn’t pick April 1997 to April 2012 (+0.24 C) or May 1997 to May 2012 (+0.24 C)?
And actually, HadCRUT4 has Aug2012 – Aug1997 = 0.1 C.
And actually the surface temperature (“14 C”) isn’t computed, only the anomalies. But then, there isn’t the impression this billboard really cares about the science. Too bad.
————————————————————————————
Cherry picking. Tell me, have temperatures plateaued over the past 16 years or haven’t they?
DesertYote writes; “I guess you guys are a bit clueless about the lefties propagandist tactics that necessitate the processes that you are whining about. Think a little bit before posting next time.”
I’ve thought quite hard now, and I have decided my posting was just fine. In fact I will repeat myself: make it easy for people to fund the billboard ‘cos it’s too easy not to bother.
Kindlekinser
Think about it as walking up a hill (warming) then the ground levels out (the last fifteen years, no warming, no cooling). Where does it go next? Up, down or straight on? Who knows.
I’m glad the billboard has Al Gore’s name on it. He’s the leading propagandist, a Baghdad Bob, for the Climate war.
kindlekinser says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:01 am
If it is not warming, why has the temperature stayed at a high level for the last decade and a half? Shouldn’t it be cooling? I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here. Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening?
By what measure is the temperature “high”? It was, for example, .5C higher during the MWP, back when warmer was better, and agriculture and mankind thrived. Why do we have to be either warming or cooling? Don’t worry though, cooling is in the cards. Meanwhile, we should just enjoy the warmth instead of kvetching about it.
What is happening is that the much-ballyhooed GCM’s have been shown to be useless. You see, it turns out that in fact, C02 isn’t at all like a thermostat for our climate. It is not only not a major driver, it is a very minor one. We knew that, but it took mother nature to show it to the carbon-goggled Warmists.
c’mon people… think it through…. it’s 15 years, because you’re not counting the first year, it’s your base point. If you stated that the avg temp in Aug 97 was 14.5 and in Aug 98 it was 14.5 (just for arguements sake), you wouldn’t say that was 2 years of no warming, right? of course not. It’s 1 year. Of course, that wouldn’t be true in all cases. If you were measuring something independent, like, ‘how many years with an avg temperature below 16 (again, for arguments sake), then you could include the first year. But because you’re measuring ‘warming’ the first year doesn’t count – it’s a base point.
It is ineffective to address Gore. He and his movie just helped focus the hysteria of aimless greens and misguided youth. Gore was just a highly-paid (but technologically-challenged) marketing agent of global warming paranoia. It little serves to give the deluded marketers of doom a public nose-thumbing. “How’s that sky-falling thing going, there, Chicken Little?”
I would superimpose this graph against one showing the hockey stick shaped curve of spending on AGW over the same period. Use the simple heading “15 Years of Global Warming”.
” kindlekinser says: February 27, 2013 at 9:01 am
If it is not warming, why has the temperature stayed at a high level for the last decade and a half? Shouldn’t it be cooling? I really don’t understand the skeptic argument here. Since it got really, really warm in 1997, we haven’t seen cooling. Seriously, what do you think is happening? ”
Sine wave. Nothing unusual at all. If you look at the data in this link (my favorite post here at WUWT over the years and that says a lot) you will see it has been cooling for thousands of years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/
Get yer parka out 🙂
I agree with bill at 9:28, disagree with Bill Parsons at 9:53.
If I, a non scientist, non climatologist, ordinary person, hears or reads two opposing arguments about whether a graph supports 15 or 16 years of non warming, when I thought it had been warming all along, what is then the main takeaway message for me? The best thing would be that this becomes an issue that gets publicized.
In fact the louder the cry that it is warming, as per some comments above, the greater the perception that either 15 or 16 year graph should support that statement. If it doesn’t warm for another year then it can be milked further at that time. When it comes to persuasion then perception is everything, just look at the impact that AG’s movie had on public perception.
It’s 15 years cardinal and 16 years ordinal I think. If CFACT used 16 years cardinal and 17 years ordinal it would have shown a cooling trend because of the El Nino year. I think the billboard is honest.
Referring to the math: no, it is not arbitrary. You can’t claim either 15 or 16. For 15 consecutive years (assuming it is correct), there was no observed warming. For 16 years, you would have to move the origin back 1 further year. You could claim that we are NOW in the 16th year of no warming, but to make the claim that 16 years have PASSED with no warming, you would have to complete the current year, observing no warming.
So, no. It’s not semantics; it’s mathematics. I’m not correcting the science here, btw; I have no data to suggest that the 15 year no warming claim is either accurate or inaccurate. I’m just pointing out that you can’t just use, “When in Rome,” or “Let bygones be bygones,” or some other not-applicable platitude, to appease people who can’t be bothered to figure out basic math.
Those are the same people who thought the year 2000 was the beginning of the new millennium, vice the final year of the previous millennium (since the current calendar began AD reckoning in year 1, not year 0). 🙂
Aug 2012 was 6 months ago. At this point, I think 16 years is acceptable, if temperatures have stayed at the same flat level.
You need month and day for the dates to see if the claim is correct. From January 1, 1997 – December 31st 2012 would be 16 years.
MarkD says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:51 am
But your “base point”, as you admit, IS a year wide–so you can count it as a valid year, Mark–whatever the temperature it shows.
May I suggest YOU think it through?
Mark Bofill says: “Tell me, have temperatures plateaued over the past 16 years or haven’t they?”
Asked, and answered.
If you mean surface temperatures, there is a statistically significant warming trend: 0.07 (0.04) C/decade according to GISS, 0.04 (0.04) C/decade according to HadCRUT4.
If you mean ocean temperatures, there is a statistically significant warming trend in the 0-700 m layer, and insufficient data in the 0-2000 m layer.
If you mean ocean surface temperatures, there has not been a statistically significant nonzero trend in that time.
If you mean the lower troposphere, there has been a statistically significant trend according to UAH data, but not according to RSS.
The stratosphere has significantly cooled in the last 16 years according to both RSS and UAH.
But why 16 years? No climatologist would ever make a judgement about climate based on 16 years. Would you judge the Medieval Warm Period based solely on what was happening from 997 AD to 1013 AD?
Roger says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:23 am
“Referring to the math: no, it is not arbitrary. You can’t claim either 15 or 16. ”
The chart shows an ordinal value of 16 years of no warming, the claim is that there is no warming for 16 years, there is no semantics here, the chart is correct. The cardinal value of 16 in this case is 15.
Bill Parsons says:
February 27, 2013 at 9:53 am
——————————————
I respectfully disagree with the notion that “He (Gore) and his movie just helped focus the hysteria of aimless greens and misguided youth.”
Gore’s movie was portrayed by the US media (in my opinion) as the ultimate authority on climate change. Sadly too many “average” people in the US still consider the mainstream media to be a reputable source of information. Add to this the fact that the MSM insist on portraying skeptics as deluded fools, flat-earthers on the fringes of reality, it’s not surprising how few average folk even question the warmist dogma.
Sometimes it takes a billboard with a very simple and direct message that conflicts with peoples beliefs to make them actually put down the Angry Birds game and do a little investigating on their own.
Re:
Hi Ben,
I don’t agree with your post, which seems to saying that AGW believers can willfully misunderstand the graph’s message, and claim that “it actually shows…” I don’t see any room for ambivalence about the graph. 15 years: no warming.
However, it is often repeated that it is impossible (and unnecessary) to prove a negative, or the “evidence of an absence”. The rule of rhetoric applies here because CO2-induced warming, man-made CO2-induced warming, and indeed warming itself are all bogus claims about non-events. Refuting them gives them credence.
What no one can refute are the levels of spending which have been growing over the same period. That is why I proposed “superimpos(ing) this graph against one showing the hockey stick shaped curve of spending on AGW over the same period. Use the simple heading “15 Years of Global Warming”.
Nobody likes to see currency being incinerated, but that is what our government is, in effect, doing.
It really doesn’t matter if its 15 or 16 years, or 17 for that matter if we can simply reach a consensus on what number fits the narrative best.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am
———————————————–
Come on Phobos. Are you playing games here? Yes, 0.04 C/decade is warming, no, 0.04 C/decade isn’t important warming. 0.4 C/century isn’t worth talking about, and it isn’t what the IPCC predicts, obviously. You know this as well as I do, so what’s the point in an answer like that?
Why 16 years? Again, you know perfectly well why. Temperatures have been pretty darn flat for that period, and that fact doesn’t do much to support the IPCC’s position on CO2 and temperature.
Phobos says:
February 27, 2013 at 10:52 am
Funny ….
Hansen – in 1988 – used a shorter 13 year trend to BEGIN his crusade and his requests for funding FOR his theory of CAGW.
Then again, I would then be assuming Hansen is somehow, a “responsible scientist” instead of a screaming CAGW dogmatic extremist, er, criminal.
Pedantic bunch aren’t we? 🙂
Seriously folks ask one question: Is it effective? Heck yea is my vote.
Do all future versions more accurately? Sure. But you have to admit that is one very effective sound bite that makes a point in the space of time most people will actually spend analyzing things.