Sciencescience

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 05:27 AM

Ted Cruz: Just Plain Wrong

Ted Cruz: Just Plain Wrong
Posted on December 11, 2015 | 27 Comments

When Ted Cruz turned a senate hearing into his own climate denier circus, he didn’t just emphasize lower-troposphere temperature data — he deliberately ignored every other bit of climate data that exists. Way to go, Ted.


It was mentioned that the satellite data was calibrated to radiosonde data, i.e. temperatures in the upper atmosphere measured by balloon-borne thermometers. Apparently Ted Cruz took this to mean that balloon data show global warming isn’t happening, which is wrong. Just plain wrong. He also claimed that the troposphere tempereture data (as opposed to the surface, where we live) “are the best evidence we have of whether warming is occurring,” which is wrong. Just plain wrong. That’s Ted Cruz for you.

If the satellite data were calibrated by balloon data, and the satellite data (from RSS at least) have been flat lately, how can the balloon data not be? Ted Cruz will never understand.

Saellite data from RSS is indeed calibrated using balloon data. In fact it uses many different data sets: HadAT2 (from the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit), RAOBCORE and RICH (from the University of Vienna), and IUK (University of New South Wales). But from all I’ve found, none of these data sets covers enough time span to support Ted Cruz’s claim of the lack of warming: HadAT2 don’t go beyond 2012, RAOBCORE and RICH end in 2011, and IUK doesn’t go past 2010.

That’s why I’ve used RATPAC data; they’ve been kept up to date. The latest data I’ve retrieved is quarterly (rather than monthly) and extends to July of 2015.

Full Article

Gee, Cruz doesn't know what he's talking about or perhaps lying? What are the odds, right?

44 replies, 3559 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ted Cruz: Just Plain Wrong (Original post)
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 OP
maximumbrainusage Dec 2015 #1
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 #2
frankt8242 Dec 2015 #3
Jack Burton Dec 2015 #4
frankt8242 Dec 2015 #5
Jack Burton Dec 2015 #6
Junglejim43 Feb 2016 #43
nolidad Dec 2015 #7
frankt8242 Dec 2015 #8
nolidad Dec 2015 #11
Junglejim43 Feb 2016 #44
smalllivingeddy Dec 2015 #9
Argentina Dec 2015 #15
Sardis Jan 2016 #35
ibtruthin Dec 2015 #10
misanthroptimist Dec 2015 #13
ibtruthin Dec 2015 #16
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #24
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #23
sellitman2 Dec 2015 #12
Argentina Dec 2015 #14
Transcendence Dec 2015 #18
BlackSabbath Jan 2016 #42
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #22
Transcendence Dec 2015 #17
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #21
Transcendence Jan 2016 #26
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #27
Transcendence Jan 2016 #28
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #29
Transcendence Jan 2016 #30
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #31
Transcendence Jan 2016 #32
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #33
Transcendence Jan 2016 #34
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #36
Transcendence Jan 2016 #37
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #38
Transcendence Jan 2016 #39
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #40
Transcendence Jan 2016 #41
marmot84 Dec 2015 #19
misanthroptimist Jan 2016 #20
marmot84 Jan 2016 #25


Response to maximumbrainusage (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 08:38 AM

2. Yeah, I saw that.

I thought it was very clever and, of course, true. I think a lot of the denial types believe that the satellite-derived data is somehow magical, or even accurate. It's not, particularly when dealing with surface temperature, which I'm sure you know.

Another interesting thing about the satellite data is that if the year 1998 is left out, there is no significant difference in the satellite temperature trend for 1979-1997 and 1999-2015. The entirely imaginary "hiatus" is based on placing an extreme outlier year near the beginning of a period to distort what is actually happening, which I'm sure you know, too.

Why am I still typing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Original post)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 10:19 AM

3. Anybody seriously considering him for POTUS...

 

REALLY needs to get some "help"..SOON..!!!
He is the poster child for a whole sub species of humans..
"The highly intelligent, totally irrational, whacko, genre"..
(and his second in command is Dr Ben Carson)....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankt8242 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 10:46 AM

4. Interesting....

I thought the same thing about Obama and his supporters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 12:34 PM

5. that's no surprise...

 

given your track record for rationality..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankt8242 (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 01:00 PM

6. and you have nothing but personal insults

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jack Burton (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 01:46 AM

43. Yes, a black muslim atheist kenyan that hated america as president.

And his supporters. Well...

I think Jack's proclivities are well known.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankt8242 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 03:12 PM

7. Yeah and

Hillary and Obama and Reid and Pelosi and Sanders are so sane and rational! Welcome to the rabbit hole Alice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 04:21 PM

8. Wow..!! A welcome from the ..

 

Head rabbit..!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frankt8242 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 07:13 PM

11. Got any lettuce???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 6, 2016, 01:47 AM

44. Well your first sentenace was actual and factual.

You are making progress.

Have a nice day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Original post)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 04:45 PM

9. You can't be that deeply and consistently wrong unless

Last edited Sun Dec 13, 2015, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

you really know better and you're doing it deliberately.

Ted Cruz is not stupid or uninformed, rather he is deeply and unconscionably corrupt. He thinks nothing of misrepresentation of scientific data if he thinks it will advance his political career.

And if he's willing to misrepresent climate data, he can be expected to misrepresent anything and everything else to so long as his misrepresentations fit his narrative.

Meanwhile we've had December tornados in Texas, but of course that couldn't possibly be related to climate change . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 20, 2015, 07:49 PM

15. I agree. I'm sure Cruz knows the climate change data, but he's in the pockets of the fossil fuels

industries and is consequently lying about climate change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smalllivingeddy (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:25 AM

35. This!!!!!!!

This, this, this, this, this!!!!!!!!


Like, ten bazillion.

Fact is he's damned canny. He's not stupid, but he sure as shit understands stupidity. Underestimate him at your peril.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Original post)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 04:59 PM

10. From NOAA. Climate change is going to happen, nothing you can do about it.



We will probably experiencing a glacial maximum in the next 10,000 years.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibtruthin (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 19, 2015, 04:08 PM

13. "We will probably experiencing a glacial maximum in the next 10,000 years..."

Nope. That's what would have happened had we not dug up all that fossil CO2 and stuck in the atmosphere. But we did, and now the next Ice Age has been postponed on account of human activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #13)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 04:54 PM

16. You need to read some science books and natural history, I have a book shelf full

We can have 5x + the amount of CO@2 we have now and we will still go into an ice age, why? Read those history books, it's happened before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibtruthin (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:56 PM

24. A full bookshelf is of no use to one who can't bring perspective to bear

Conditions were very much different when we had higher CO2 in the past. Orbital mechanics, the positions of continents and their effects on ocean currents, even the brightness of the Sun were all very much different than at present.

CO2 is the most important knob in controlling the climate, but it's far from the only control knob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ibtruthin (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:52 PM

23. That's nonsense on all fronts.

Even the part you got right, climate is always changing, is misapplied. The current warming is caused by humans, full stop. The current warming is faster than any previous change not caused by a large catastrophe (volcanic eruptions, for example). And there is plenty we can do about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Original post)

Sun Dec 13, 2015, 09:07 PM

12. For Cruz and much of the GOP

Facts are just an inconvenience. They are to be twisted when possible or lied about.

Cruz is a habitual liar. He is the most dangerous of the whole GOP dung pile running for President.

He is a religious nut case who would turn back the clocks hundreds of years.

In short he is worse than Mein Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sellitman2 (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 20, 2015, 07:47 PM

14. Cruz is Mussolini to Tru,p's Hitler.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Argentina (Reply #14)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 07:38 PM

18. Godwin's Law Now In Effect

You lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Argentina (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:21 PM

42. the other way around

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sellitman2 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:50 PM

22. I agree completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 07:33 PM

17. Missing the Point (as usual)

The question is not whether or not the world is warming (it is), but how much is it warming.

Answer: Not as much as predicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:49 PM

21. Your proposed answer is completely wrong.

The world has warmed as much as projected (not predicted) by physics. (Now whip out one of Spencer's graphs for me to laugh at...and gut.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #21)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 03:31 PM

26. How about a graph by Gavin Schmidt of NASA? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #26)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 03:36 PM

27. How about one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:34 PM

28. Here you go

This is from 2012:



A telling observation: Gavin used to produce this graph every year (2009, 2010, 2011), but then in 2013 he mysteriously stopped. Perhaps the reason is because observations fell outside the 95% CI?

Here is 2014:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:52 PM

29. So, the only graph of Schmidt's...

...that you produce manifestly fails to support you. To cover for that you show a different graph from a different (and less than credible) source that disagrees with Schmidt's graph. You may look at 2007 to see just how different the two graphs are.

Further, you then engage in conspiracy ideation, "but then in 2013 he mysteriously stopped. Perhaps the reason is because observations fell outside the 95% CI?" I suppose that's a possible, though implausible, explanation. A rather more mundane explanation is that his boss, James Hansen, retired in 2013. Schmidt assumed Hansen's duties and was subsequently named Director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). So, he probably didn't have the time.

But don't let reality get in the way of an exciting conspiracy theory that only you and a few like you are smart enough to unravel. It sounds very rewarding - a bit masturbatory, but rewarding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 08:29 AM

30. Let's take a little quiz

Are the colored lines above or below the black line?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #30)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 09:27 AM

31. Wrong first question

The real first questions should be, "Is that graph accurate and is it relevant?" Coming from Lucia there is no reason to believe it is without checking. Plus, there is prima facie evidence to reject it since it doesn't match Schmidt's graph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:37 AM

32. Sigh. We will take this one step at a time

Is this accurate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 11:46 AM

33. Since I compiled it, yes, it is as accurate as possible

I don't believe there to be any substantive errors

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 19, 2016, 08:58 PM

34. And is this accurate?

It's a histogram of CIMP5 model outputs for change in temperature per decade (from the IPCC):



I'll be referring in particular to graph (a).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 10:18 AM

36. I have no idea if it's accurate or even from the IPCC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 01:48 PM

37. You don't trust the IPCC as a source?

Is the "gold standard for independent scientific assessment" lost its luster?

Here is a link to the chapter where I found the graph:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 02:24 PM

38. Oh, I trust the IPCC

I don't trust every claim that is made about it. It is your responsibility to properly source your material, not mine to confirm it.

Now, here's the caption to that figure:
Box 9.2, Figure 1 |
(Top) Observed and simulated global mean surface temperature (GMST) trends in degrees Celsius per decade, over the periods 1998–2012 (a), 1984–1998 (b), and 1951–2012 (c). For the observations, 100 realizations of the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit gridded surface temperature data set 4 (HadCRUT4) ensemble are shown (red, hatched: Morice et al., 2012). The uncertainty displayed by the ensemble width is that of the statistical construction of the global average only, in contrast to the trend uncertainties quoted in Section 2.4.3, which include an estimate of internal climate variability. Here, by contrast, internal variability is characterized through the width of the model ensemble. For the models, all 114 available CMIP5 historical realizations are shown, extended after 2005 with the RCP4.5 scenario and through 2012 (grey, shaded: after Fyfe et al., 2010). (Bottom) Trends in effective radiative forcing (ERF, in W m–2 per decade) over the periods 1998–2011 (d), 1984–1998 (e), and 1951–2011 (f). The figure shows AR5 best-estimate ERF trends (red, hatched; Section 8.5.2, Figure 8.18) and CMIP5 ERF (grey, shaded: from Forster et al., 2013). Black lines are smoothed versions of the histograms. Each histogram is normalized so that its area sums up to one.
If you have a point, now would be an excellent time to make it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 06:25 PM

39. Practice what you preach

It is your responsibility to properly source your material

Shouldn't that apply to you as well as the rest of us? There is not a single link in this post of yours:

http://www.discussionist.com/101812032

So the table from post #32 shows all the temperature records, and tells us that the listed 1999-2015 trends are all within a few hundredths of a degree from each other. The graphs from post #34 tells us that the vast majority of the models in CIMP5 are running hotter than Hadcrut4 observations. Even if you want to compare the models to your favorite index, GISS, it doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. So the bottom line is that 95% of the climate models out there have been over-estimating how much warming there will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Transcendence (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 06:35 PM

40. "Shouldn't that apply to you as well as the rest of us? "

Of course! OTOH, I noted that that graph was prepared by me. The data used are readily available online. You may check my work here if you so choose. Let me know if you find any errors, allowing for the fact that the chart was compiled in May.


So the table from post #32 shows all the temperature records, and tells us that the listed 1999-2015 trends are all within a few hundredths of a degree from each other. The graphs from post #34 tells us that the vast majority of the models in CIMP5 are running hotter than Hadcrut4 observations. Even if you want to compare the models to your favorite index, GISS, it doesn't make enough of a difference to matter. So the bottom line is that 95% of the climate models out there have been over-estimating how much warming there will be.
Perhaps, but over a very short time period (14 years). That doesn't surprise me in the least. Climate models don't produce weather reports, the produce climate projections. If, after 30 years, they are still overestimating warming do get back to me.

OTOH, this is science, not religion. The models are neither perfect nor oracles. The projections produced are based on inputs about future levels of CO2, population, and a host of other variables. If one of those variables fail to verify, that tells us little about the accuracy of the model until that input is corrected. Overall, the models have done a pretty good-to-excellent job of tracking climate change. They'll continue to get better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #40)

Wed Jan 20, 2016, 07:01 PM

41. Even shorter

Perhaps, but over a very short time period (14 years). That doesn't surprise me in the least. Climate models don't produce weather reports, the produce climate projections. If, after 30 years, they are still overestimating warming do get back to me.

The models are actually doing even worse than that. The model runs were done in 2009, so anything before that is actually a hindcast, not a projection. The fact that so many models were off by so much a mere 6 years into their projection speaks volumes about their usefulness in guiding public policy.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_CMIP5_design.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Original post)

Mon Dec 21, 2015, 11:16 PM

19. I watched Cruz's supposed take down of the Serra Club President

He's a smart lawyer. Not much of climate scientist though. It was grandstanding to the extreme and Ted has it down. He's a jerk and dead wrong but he's smart enough to make it look the other way to uninformed observers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marmot84 (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 12:48 PM

20. Cruz is one of those extremely dangerous people...

...who is very, very smart and completely lacks scruples of any sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 18, 2016, 01:50 PM

25. Yep

That nails it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience