Ted Cruz shows his intentional CC denial by questioning NASA's need to engage in Earth science

[eyewall]

 

then read:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/nasa-california-has-one-year-water-left-313647

 

 

 

 

[A-L-E-K]

i bet his amwx screen name has #s at the end

[Jonger]

i bet his amwx screen name has #s at the end

 

Hyphens

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

ted cruz is a joke.

 

just like the rest of congress. 

[FreeRain]

ted cruz is a joke.

 

just like the rest of congress. 

Cruz got it right last week about the data not showing global warming over the past 17 years.

 

Jerry Brown and MSNBC then got it wrong by criticizing Cruz for what he said.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/all/critics-pile-ahead-ted-cruz-2016-announcement

[FloridaJohn]

Cruz got it right last week about the data not showing global warming over the past 17 years.

Which data is that?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Cruz got it right last week about the data not showing global warming over the past 17 years.

 

Jerry Brown and MSNBC then got it wrong by criticizing Cruz for what he said.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/all/critics-pile-ahead-ted-cruz-2016-announcement

 

I don't think you understand what global warming is.

 

1998 was an incredible anomalous event.

 

Using a 12th month yearly average of the super nino event as the gauge of the Earths energy balance is ridiculous. 

 

 

 

Chubbs posted this.  Move what constitutes a year and things are presented differently. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's warmed a lot and we are currently in a clear push again upwards in the baseline.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Which data is that?

The true statistical "hiatus" began in 2001, not 1997. Bob Tisdale's hi-res graphs are great tools when it comes to weeding out false claims.

You see a lot of bulls**t hyperbole thrown around when it comes to short term temperature swings. Skeptics obsess over the hiatus, alarmists obsess over short term Nino/PDO spikes the current one. Business as usual.

Here are the higher resolution graphs that bettee capture statistical variability on a monthly scale:

[FreeRain]

I don't think you understand what global warming is.

 

1998 was an incredible anomalous event.

 

Using a 12th month yearly average of the super nino event as the gauge of the Earths energy balance is ridiculous. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's warmed a lot and we are currently in a clear push again upwards in the baseline.

 

I don't think you understand why you can't use a linear regression from 1975 to 2014 to prove that a pause did not occur from 1998 to 2014 . MSNBC made the same "ridiculas" mistake, which was the point of my post, and now you do it.

[phil882]

Regardless of how you feel about Climate Change and Global Warming... saying that NASA does not need to engage in Earth Sciences is about a preposterous as it gets.

 

What Ted Cruz is suggesting is basically defunding most or all of NASA's earth science initiatives. Essentially no more GOES, no more POES. There is a reason why NASA is involved in earth sciences, and it has a heck of a lot more to do with monitoring our planet rather than making postulations of how humans are changing that planet.

 

I don't care if you are a democrat or republican or how you feel about Climate Change, but this person is a danger to the atmospheric science community (and most science communities) in general. 

[FloridaJohn]

I don't think you understand why you can't use a linear regression from 1975 to 2014 to prove that a pause did not occur from 1998 to 2014 . MSNBC made the same "ridiculas" mistake, which was the point of my post, and now you do it.

So what I am getting from your posts is that there has been no energy imbalance in the last 17 years? Is this what you meant?

[The_Global_Warmer]

That is totally irrelevant.  The Earth is much warmer today then it was in 1998.

 

There was no pause the Earth is much warmer than it was in 1998.

 

Why not use monthly temps?  January of 2007 is the warmest month anomaly on record.

 

 

Why not 3 month averages?  That puts Feb-Apr 2010 as the warmest.

 

Why not 6 month averages?  Sept of 2013 to Feb of 2014 is the warmest and it's not even close.

 

 

That super nino is the most anomalous event in our records causing a once in hundreds of years event releasing of heat out of the Pacific Ocean over a very short period of time.

[Juliancolton]

He's right. Had NASA quit dawdling, we would have had warp propulsion two or three administrations ago.

[The_Global_Warmer]

August of 1997 was 5th months into the Nino and already at Super NINO levels with he highest MEI on record.

 

August of 1997 on GISS had a 0.39C+ monthly anomaly. 

 

 

For those who don't know the year of 1998 has a 0.61C anomaly on GISS.  2014 is 0.67C. 

 

SSTS in August of 1997 show an incredible NINO. 

 

August of 2014 had a 0.73C+ on GISS.

 

Both ssta graphics are below. One is nothing like the other.  Eventually thermal inertia from the unprecedented super nino helped the year 1998 set a new global temp record at the time crushing ever other year before it.  After all this is unprecedented.

 

 

 

Sept-Feb 97/98 during the peak of the super nino averaged a 0.64C+ on GISS.  Sept-Feb of 14/15 has averaged a 0.76C+ with enso nuetral to a few months of the weakest nino possible.

 

 

It doesn't really matter.  The images below tell the story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AvantHiatus]

Good post, time to lock up the debate.

[StudentOfClimatology]

So what I am getting from your posts is that there has been no energy imbalance in the last 17 years? Is this what you meant?

The CO2 driven energy imbalance is relative. Almost everyone misunderstands this concept. There are factors to be adjusted for when netting your +/- figure, regardless of whatever spectral dampening is observed.

1) The elliptical nature of our orbit ensures that there will always be a large scale radiative imbalance (positive in boreal summer, negative in boreal winter). In fact, this imbalance is on the order of 23W/m^2, but it's unchanging in the scale of a human lifetime.

2) Tropical forcing/ENSO affects the planetary energy imbalance significantly, on the order of 4-7W/m^2 from year to year, or up to 10W/m^2 from week to week. This is easily measurable via satellite analysis.

3) There is also natural variability in the radiative budget due to observable changes in the location of cloud cover anomalies, mostly in tandem with circulatory changes associated with the PDO, AMO, and other factors that may or may not be related to AGW.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Cherrypicking specific months/timeframes to make a statistical argument will make anyone look stupid. I thought we'd moved past garbage analysis like that.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Global surface temps from August 2014 to Feb 2015.

 

Below is the same time period for 97/98 during the Super nino. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the 5 years sourounding the Super Nino.  1996 to 2000

 

Here is the last 5 years.  ENSO overall ends up pretty even with larger swings in the 96-2000 period.

 

 

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'm not understanding the purpose of the comparison to 1998. It occurred in a colder base state, well before this "hiatus" even began. What's the point?

[Eskimo Joe]

Regardless of how you feel about Climate Change and Global Warming... saying that NASA does not need to engage in Earth Sciences is about a preposterous as it gets.

 

What Ted Cruz is suggesting is basically defunding most or all of NASA's earth science initiatives. Essentially no more GOES, no more POES. There is a reason why NASA is involved in earth sciences, and it has a heck of a lot more to do with monitoring our planet rather than making postulations of how humans are changing that planet.

 

I don't care if you are a democrat or republican or how you feel about Climate Change, but this person is a danger to the atmospheric science community (and most science communities) in general. 

You hit the nail on the head right there.  We used to be the go-to country for space and science but not we are the middle of the pack.

[chrisf97212]

Regardless of how you feel about Climate Change and Global Warming... saying that NASA does not need to engage in Earth Sciences is about a preposterous as it gets.

 

What Ted Cruz is suggesting is basically defunding most or all of NASA's earth science initiatives. Essentially no more GOES, no more POES. There is a reason why NASA is involved in earth sciences, and it has a heck of a lot more to do with monitoring our planet rather than making postulations of how humans are changing that planet.

 

I don't care if you are a democrat or republican or how you feel about Climate Change, but this person is a danger to the atmospheric science community (and most science communities) in general. 

 

Ted Cruz is not in charge of NASA.  By himself he can't defund anything and he certainly doesn't write NASA's initiatives.

 

I look at Ted Cruz and his like as a predictiable knee-jerk reaction to the failed extreme alarmist predictions.  As has been mentioned many times before, politicians and sensationalist media have hijacked the science from the scientists.  We've probably missed our window for any meaningful curbs to CO2 emissions.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

somebody pass the advil.

 

the politics of global warming...

[AvantHiatus]

It was always a lost cause due to big oil lobbyists in DC. Nobody is willing to throw away huge profits in this culture. At the end of the day, simplicity and streamlined living is all you need for success.

 

 

Cherrypicking specific months/timeframes to make a statistical argument will make anyone look stupid. I thought we'd moved past garbage analysis like that. 

More hostile BS...

[FreeRain]

 

 

......I don't care if you are a democrat or republican or how you feel about Climate Change, but this person is a danger to the atmospheric science community (and most science communities) in general. 

 

A danger to most science communities?

 

I don't think so.

 

Cruz was pointing out that while earth sciences have been helped under the Obama administration, space sciences have been hurt.

 

I don't care if one prefers space science or earth science, if it's accurate to say that Cruz is a "danger" to the earth science community then it's also accurate to say that Obama is a danger to the space science community.

[WxUSAF]

A danger to most science communities?

 

I don't think so.

 

Cruz was pointing out that while earth sciences have been helped under the Obama administration, space sciences have been hurt.

 

I don't care if one prefers space science or earth science, if it's accurate to say that Cruz is a "danger" to the earth science community then it's also accurate to say that Obama is a danger to the space science community.

As a member of the space sciences community, I can say you're correct.  Obama has repeatedly proposed budgets that reduce space sciences budgets (particularly planetary science).  But Cruz wants to do more than just restore some sort of balance, he wants to eliminate NASA's role in earth science.  Luckily Cruz isn't in charge of the appropriations committee, but the GOP-led Senate is a real threat to NASA's earth science program.    

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

NASA wants billions for everything though.

 

Like when they needed rockets for the shuttle...and their outrageous costs.

 

then an enterprenuer comes out of nowhere...gets his own rocket business...and charges only a fraction.

[AvantHiatus]

NASA wants billions for everything though.

 

Like when they needed rockets for the shuttle...and their outrageous costs.

 

then an enterprenuer comes out of nowhere...gets his own rocket business...and charges only a fraction.

Exactly. Leave the space exploration stuff to private corporations/companies like Boeing. NASA can then focus all its limited energy on Earth Sciences.

[phil882]

Ted Cruz is not in charge of NASA.  By himself he can't defund anything and he certainly doesn't write NASA's initiatives.

 

I look at Ted Cruz and his like as a predictiable knee-jerk reaction to the failed extreme alarmist predictions.  As has been mentioned many times before, politicians and sensationalist media have hijacked the science from the scientists.  We've probably missed our window for any meaningful curbs to CO2 emissions.

 

Ted Cruz is not in charge of NASA, but he is in charge of the committee that will likely introduce bills or advise budgetary modification to the appropriations committee. Of course by himself he can't defund anything, but his opinion now carries a larger amount of weight towards how NASA gets budgeted.

 

A danger to most science communities?

 

I don't think so.

 

Cruz was pointing out that while earth sciences have been helped under the Obama administration, space sciences have been hurt.

 

I don't care if one prefers space science or earth science, if it's accurate to say that Cruz is a "danger" to the earth science community then it's also accurate to say that Obama is a danger to the space science community.

 

No. Obama hasn't recommended the complete elimination of a sector of NASA's budget. The question is how the funding should be best allocated. The role of earth sciences is clearly more important to the immediate survival of mankind versus space exploration. This will clearly change as we move into the future and we become closer and closer to colonizing other planets, but at this point in time, it makes sense to allocate more funding to understanding our planet better. 

 

 

As a member of the space sciences community, I can say you're correct.  Obama has repeatedly proposed budgets that reduce space sciences budgets (particularly planetary science).  But Cruz wants to do more than just restore some sort of balance, he wants to eliminate NASA's role in earth science.  Luckily Cruz isn't in charge of the appropriations committee, but the GOP-led Senate is a real threat to NASA's earth science program.    

 

THIS is the main point I am trying to make. What Cruz is suggesting would shut down the US satellite program that has put geostationary and polar orbiting satellites around our planet for the last 40 years. Without that, you put numerical weather prediction back in the dark ages, we have no longer any means to measure ice concentration at the poles, or many other meteorological things we currently take for granted. This would be a disaster in every sense of the word.

 

Do you think that should be sacrificed in favor of adding funding to space sciences? Maybe short sighted politicians can't see the ramifications, but until humans no longer inhabit this earth, I think NASA's should be heavily involved in the realm of earth sciences.

[skierinvermont]

I don't think you understand why you can't use a linear regression from 1975 to 2014 to prove that a pause did not occur from 1998 to 2014 . MSNBC made the same "ridiculas" mistake, which was the point of my post, and now you do it.

 

Except there is not a pause from 1998 to 2014. All sources except RSS (which is one of the least accurate sources) show warming even beginning in 1998 which is an extremely cherry-picked and deceptive start date. Go work on your integrity and academic rigor and then get back to us.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I'd argue the "pause" began in 2001-02, not 1997-98. There's also a difference between "statistically detectable" warming and "statistically significant" warming.