NPR: Ted Cruz says science doesn't support climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Over here it would snow as early as Halloween and this year its December 10th now and no snow or even sleet for that matter. It's 57 degrees here in CT right now. You have to be some kind of delusional to think there's no climate change.
 
I fucking despise this man. A sociopath, and along with Walker, one of the very few politicians to give me shivers down my spine. I'd probably be terrified just meeting him. Evil.
 
McLovin said:
Over here it would snow as early as Halloween and this year its December 10th now and no snow or even sleet for that matter. It's 57 degrees here in CT right now. You have to be some kind of delusional to think there's no climate change.
Click to expand...
There you go, irrefutable evidence.
 
The point of that recent study is that the rate at which the Antarctic is gaining ice is slowing, which means we are within sight of the trend flatlining, and then reversing, exactly as has always been predicted. This is not to even mention that CO2 acidifies oceans and undermines marine life and biodiversity.

Edit: Ted Cruz is not stupid. Look at his personal history. He is the epitome of Machiavellian politicking in the modern era.
 
jeff_rigby said:
There has been a 15 to 18 year pause that can't be explained. Explanations rely on the Pacific heating in it's El Nino La Nina oscillations. The originator of the cyclic nature thinks it could account for all the warming seen with CO2 having little to no impact.
Click to expand...

No, there hasn't been a pause (in the sense of: global warming has stopped in these 15 to 18 years).
Feel free to browse through this nature article for example: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

Data up until Sep. 2015:

GISS_through_sept2015.jpg


No pause, no hiatus. There is a very clear and visible trend of warming going on all the time, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, since the ~1970s.

Or maybe a nice quote from this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/hiatus-or-bye-atus/) from realclimate.org: "We have examined this issue in a series of three recent papers, which have converged on the conclusion that there is not now, and there never has been, a hiatus or pause in global warming."
 
KHarvey16 said:
They didn't "admit" anything. The published the data, and none of it contradicts with what we understand about global warming.

Any claim that there has been a pause is a lie.
You're not so good at this.
Click to expand...
Yup the 1970 theory stated that higher CO2 would cause more water vapor and the warming would cause greater storms that would move the water vapor to the poles increasing the snowfall and creating a mini ice age. Temperatures at the equator would increase but temperatures in the higher latitudes would decrease.

Over a few hundred years two mile high glaciers would develop in Canada. There was a 7 point countdown and we have gone through three of the points. The later global warming theory I think you are thinking of has some holes and I think this is why it's no longer called global warming as the poles will cool while the equator warms.

So how do the Global warmists account for their still saying coastal cities will be flooded if this was part of the always understood global warming where Ice at the poles increases?
 
jeff_rigby said:
Yup the 1970 theory stated that higher CO2 would cause more water vapor and the warming would cause greater storms that would move the water vapor to the poles increasing the snowfall and creating a mini ice age. Temperatures at the equator would increase but temperatures in the higher latitudes would decrease.

Over a few hundred years two mile high glaciers would develop in Canada. There was a 7 point countdown and we have gone through three of the points. The later global warming theory I think you are thinking of has some holes and I think this is why it's no longer called global warming as the poles will cool while the equator warms.

So how do the Global warmists account for their still saying coastal cities will be flooded if this was part of the always understood global warming where Ice at the poles increases?
Click to expand...

What the hell is "the 1970 theory?" Are you talking that stupid Time article that had nothing to do with what science actually thought?
 
jeff_rigby always argues for the strangest things in the OT. It's bizarre to see after only being familiar with his PS4 firmware posts.
 
Frankfurter said:
No, there hasn't been a pause (in the sense of: global warming has stopped in these 15 to 18 years).
Feel free to browse through this nature article for example: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

Data up until Sep. 2015:

GISS_through_sept2015.jpg


No pause, no hiatus. There is a very clear and visible trend of warming going on all the time, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, since the ~1970s.

Or maybe a nice quote from this article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/11/hiatus-or-bye-atus/) from realclimate.org: "We have examined this issue in a series of three recent papers, which have converged on the conclusion that there is not now, and there never has been, a hiatus or pause in global warming."
Click to expand...
It's better if we use this chart as it has all the info we need. After 2000 the average shows no increase for the last 15 years and if you account for La Nina decreasing air temperatures just before before 2000, no increase since the 1998 peak or 18 years. If you look at the Nino cycles at the bottom of the chart you see a curve peaking at about 1998 and dropping on either side. The decrease in El Nino after 1998 goes contrary to what would be happening if the earth were warming.

Global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980.png


Your cite does not deny the pause but considers it noise with a few more years needed to confirm it is a trend not normal variability. This is the same thing said 5 years ago but add that Nasa now says that the Antarctic Ice has been increasing for 5 years.
 
CornBurrito said:
But South Park taught me the truth is always in the middle.
Click to expand...

animlboogy said:
He is speaking in the language of alt science. And I guess expects normal people to just understand the things they obsess over at face value.
Click to expand...

He can't even read a graph:

jeff_rigby said:
It's better if we use this chart as it has all the info we need. After 2000 the average shows no increase for the last 15 years and if you account for El Nino increasing air temperatures and the volcano decreasing air temperatures before 2000, no increase since 1998 for 18 years. If you look at the Nino cycles at the bottom of the chart you see a curve peaking at about 1998 and dropping on either side. The decrease in El Nino after 1998 goes contrary to what would be happening if the earth were warming.

Global-surface-temperatures-relative-to-1951-1980.png
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Is this a joke?
 
Cruz knows what he's saying is complete bullshit, but he also knows his base will eat it up no questions asked. Dude is the real-life Frank Underwood.
 
jeff_rigby said:
You do know that NASA has admitted that the Antarctic snow and sea ice has been expanding for the last 6 years.
Click to expand...

This shit again? Please research sea ice vs land ice.

Also, this is from the author of the study I think to which you're referring and it has nothing to do with admitting anything:

The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. "I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he says. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming." As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear. [Nature, 10/2/15]
Click to expand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
 
ok, I just want to know if there's any chance that the next US pres is a republican?

I'm just asking because I'm in serious fear of our planet
 
Dave Inc. said:
Jesus christ I don't understand Ted Cruz. He's a very, very smart person, but the stances he takes, the opinions he has. I don't fucking get it.

Is he just some self-serving egomaniac willing to say whatever it takes to be popular? Would he watch the country burn so long as he was the one in the lime-light? Is he just plain evil?
Click to expand...

Does the coal industry lobby have a hand in this perhaps?
 
Sea ice is meaningless bullshit.

1. It has no effect on sea levels.
2. That one small area of the planet surface is colder doesn't refute that the average temperature of the entire planet continues to increase.

Which it does.

Last February we had record colds here in new england. It was still one of the hottest Februarys ever globally. At the same time as the cold temps in New England, Australia for example was on fire.

Snow is weather. It refutes nothing. Mean global surface temperatures continue to increase. The amount of total ice on land continues to decrease.

Whatever floating ice does or doesn't do is irrelevant. A small amount of self aware critical thinking would tell you this Jeff.
 
The "left wing conspiracy" is him regurgitating crap that Rush Limbaugh was saying 10+ years ago. (I know, I was a listener, but I have recovered.) Limbaugh would say that basically the modern environmental movement was where all the communists flocked to after the fall of communism, and environmentalism is their new approach to tearing down capitalism. So of course Cruz will repeat it, because for some stupid reason the right wing radio listener can't ask how in the world could virtually all scientists be a part of it.

How stupid do you think we are, Ted?

But since the typical right wing radio listener -- and that includes people that currently serve in Congress -- hasn't had an original thought since Limbaugh started reprogramming their brainwaves in 92 or whenver, I guess enough are quite stupid, indeed. (Again, this is the opinion of an admitted former Limbaugh listener.)
 
jeff_rigby said:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

NASA is the crazy website I cited. How many of you checked? Did you assume it was a right wing blog without checking...just relying on the gohepcat post? Shame on you.
Click to expand...
From the VERY ARTICLE YOU QUOTED:

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)
Click to expand...

Are you, perhaps, delusional?
 
dabig2 said:
The latter is certainly more pathological, disgusting, and diabolical considering how fucked we are in the future in regards to climate change and the negative effects it will bring on the world. It's comic book evil.
Click to expand...
Like most of these slimy republican types, no doubt he knows climate change is real. He's just clearly willing to put aside any shred of morals or conscience to win over stupid people.
 
He's the only human being that makes my skin crawl every time I'm unfortunate enough to listen to him speak.

Like, I only understood the concept of skin-crawling after seeing Ted Cruz for the first time.
 
Izayoi said:
From the VERY ARTICLE YOU QUOTED:
Are you, perhaps, delusional?
Click to expand...
I did read that there was a drop in Antarctic snow at the same time the Antarctic Sea ice reached record levels. For there to be record sea ice means there are record low temperatures and the seas around the Antarctic are colder which results in less evaporation so less snow.

Antarctic snowfall is down something a little less than half to 1.5 inches a year and until recently has been consistent for 10,000 years at less than 3 inches a year while snowfall in the Arctic is inconsistent but in interior Greenland has been 3 feet a year since before WWII, it has not been impacted by global warming. What was impacted by Global warming is the Sea Ice and without it the Glaciers have no support at their base and they calf more frequently due to the massive weight of snow and Ice inland.

Arctic sea ice melting means higher sea temps which should cause an increase in snowfall but that hasn't happened. Due to currents and winds the Arctic weather thus sea ice is more difficult to predict.

Be careful of the wording in articles and read more than one report: "Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)" This is correct but for the last few years the Arctic sea ice has stopped decreasing and has made modest gains. The wording in the article makes it seem like it's constantly decreasing. Antarctic sea ice has decreased it's expansion for the last two years and the Arctic has increased.
 
jeff_rigby said:
Yup the 1970 theory stated that higher CO2 would cause more water vapor and the warming would cause greater storms that would move the water vapor to the poles increasing the snowfall and creating a mini ice age. Temperatures at the equator would increase but temperatures in the higher latitudes would decrease.

Over a few hundred years two mile high glaciers would develop in Canada. There was a 7 point countdown and we have gone through three of the points. The later global warming theory I think you are thinking of has some holes and I think this is why it's no longer called global warming as the poles will cool while the equator warms.

So how do the Global warmists account for their still saying coastal cities will be flooded if this was part of the always understood global warming where Ice at the poles increases?
Click to expand...


You're a dumb person who doesn't even understand the things you're typing and you should stop because you're embarrassing yourself.

I mean I know you won't, but you should.
 
jeff_rigby said:
I did read that there was a drop in Antarctic snow at the same time the Antarctic Sea ice reached record levels. For there to be record sea ice means there are record low temperatures and the seas around the Antarctic are colder which results in less evaporation so less snow.

Antarctic snowfall is down something a little less than half to 1.5 inches a year and until recently has been consistent for 10,000 years at less than 3 inches a year while snowfall in the Arctic is inconsistent but in interior Greenland has been 3 feet a year since before WWII, it has not been impacted by global warming. What was impacted by Global warming is the Sea Ice and without it the Glaciers have no support at their base and they calf more frequently due to the massive weight of snow and Ice inland.

Arctic sea ice melting means higher sea temps which should cause an increase in snowfall but that hasn't happened. Due to currents and winds the Arctic weather thus sea ice is more difficult to predict.

Be careful of the wording in articles and read more than one report: "Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km)" This is correct but for the last few years the Arctic sea ice has stopped decreasing and has made modest gains. The wording in the article makes it seem like it's constantly decreasing. Antarctic sea ice has decreased it's expansion for the last two years and the Arctic has increased.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that support climate change then?

I mean, the fact that the sea is rising is cause for concern enough as it is, because all that extra water is coming from somewhere, but the fact that the climate is changing doesn't sound good either.

Edit: The guy from NASA seemed to think it was a problem in that article you linked. I'm not sure who to trust, you or the guy from NASA.
 
PlayALLtheGames said:
This shit again? Please research sea ice vs land ice.

Also, this is from the author of the study I think to which you're referring and it has nothing to do with admitting anything:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Click to expand...
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/al...adal-global-temps-to-oceanic-oscillations.pdf Page 165 says CO2 had no effect on PDO but the Sun and cloud cover do and are used in predicting PDO (about 30 year cycles). "A study by Gershunov and Barnett (1998) showed that the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO. The climate signal of El Nino is likely to be stronger when the PDO is highly positive;"

Low PDO might explain the pause and the El Nino effect appears to be decreasing as seen at the bottom in the chart I posted. If this is true then Cloud cover is increasing and the Sun's output is decreasing (this has been observed). The Sun has multiple different cycles and it appears we are going into a Maunder minimum which signals a mini Ice age due to increased cloud cover from Cosmic rays and decreased UV which means less Ozone which is a greenhouse gas.

Guys, all I do is connect the dots and I can be wrong as I'm not a professional. Also Bush is a Republican and he has been quoted as believing in global warming so it's not a Democrat vs Republican argument.

I'd suggest we start stockpiling food as there are two theories (one excess CO2, one the Sun is going into "sunspot" hibernation) that predict an Ice age is coming. In the former you can have higher temperatures at the equator and still have a ice age at the poles and lower. It's too soon to predict which is coming if at all but stocking food was a past function of the federal government.
 
Wickerbasket said:
Doesn't that support climate change then?

I mean, the fact that the sea is rising is cause for concern enough as it is, because all that extra water is coming from somewhere, but the fact that the climate is changing doesn't sound good either.

Edit: The guy from NASA seemed to think it was a problem in that article you linked. I'm not sure who to trust, you or the guy from NASA.
Click to expand...
The sea is rising at a steady rate due to the temperature increase of the seawater not melting poles. Yes there has been a temperature increase modulated by PDO for the last 80 years which means much of it is before CO2 can be blamed for the warming.

The slope of the warming in the two recent warming periods are nearly identical despite a doubling of CO2. This is one of the facts that bothers me and why I can't accept Global warming is due to CO2. The second is that hundreds of thousands of years ago we had ice ages with CO2 10 times what it is today and ice ages with CO2 levels below the 1945 levels...CO2 appears to not be a factor.

CO2 levels half of 1945 levels would result in the death of all plant life and our deaths. The planet appears to have been scrubbed of all surface carbon and carbon dioxide in the creation of coal and oil to a point that plants are at near subsistence CO2 levels.
 
jeff_rigby said:
....
Click to expand...
You didn't read the article did you?
But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”
Click to expand...
 
Tivor Tontomo said:
He's technically not wrong, there isn't a solid A to B connection to climate change, and that is the reason why many don't believe in it. Climate change has not been directly proven no matter how real or not real anyone thinks it actually is. It has evidence and you can see some correlations, but that's not actually enough to really convince those who don't believe in it to switch. Of course, this applies to other topics as well we led run on the streets so Im not surprised at the current push for regulations despite the heavy resistance.

I have no opinion on this either way.
Click to expand...

Sorry, an "A to B" connection between human activity and climate change has existed since the '70s. It's only been reinforced and expanded upon, decade on decade.

jeff_rigby said:
Yup the 1970 theory stated that higher CO2 would cause more water vapor and the warming would cause greater storms that would move the water vapor to the poles increasing the snowfall and creating a mini ice age. Temperatures at the equator would increase but temperatures in the higher latitudes would decrease.

Over a few hundred years two mile high glaciers would develop in Canada. There was a 7 point countdown and we have gone through three of the points. The later global warming theory I think you are thinking of has some holes and I think this is why it's no longer called global warming as the poles will cool while the equator warms.

So how do the Global warmists account for their still saying coastal cities will be flooded if this was part of the always understood global warming where Ice at the poles increases?
Click to expand...

If you use the phrase "global warming" you are already losing the argument I'm afraid, mate. The term is "climate change" - it's a destabilisation of the ecosystem and climate, not just a holistic warming or cooling (though that has an impact in various ways). It was identified that "global warming" is not what's happening years ago - or at least, that it's an erroneous term for one small element of what's happening.

Reducing the whole discussion to a "warming" or "cooling" dichotomy is ridiculous. The gulf stream has already all but stopped. Key mechanics which keep the Earth's ecosystem in check are grinding to a halt, because of various human influences.

This guy put it well:

plagiarize said:
Sea ice is meaningless bullshit.

1. It has no effect on sea levels.
2. That one small area of the planet surface is colder doesn't refute that the average temperature of the entire planet continues to increase.

Which it does.

Last February we had record colds here in new england. It was still one of the hottest Februarys ever globally. At the same time as the cold temps in New England, Australia for example was on fire.

Snow is weather. It refutes nothing. Mean global surface temperatures continue to increase. The amount of total ice on land continues to decrease.

Whatever floating ice does or doesn't do is irrelevant. A small amount of self aware critical thinking would tell you this Jeff.
Click to expand...

Basically this is all based on the now-totally-redundant language of "Global Warming" which is one of tens of things happening around the world. If you're using 'ice melting' arguments, you are already decades out of date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Former employee says Microsoft doesn't really care if you pirate Windows
Business  2
64
4K
MilkyJoe replied
Hot Chocolate Showdown
Science 
21
1K
Valedix replied
whart? where is the light theme?
Opinion Event Science 
20
596
Days like these... replied
my journey with ARBD
|OT| Community Science 
22
2K
Trilobit replied
'Stranded' NASA Astronauts Return to Earth on SpaceX Dragon
News Science 
32
1K
calistan replied
Top Bottom