In March 2015, Raw Story interviewed Senator Ted Cruz. (Eric W. Dolan, Watch: Ted Cruz Says he Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change Because he “Follows the Science,” Raw Story, March 24, 2015.)
The interviewer challenged the senator about his wish for millions of young voters to turn out. Yet, he’s against pot, gay marriage, and doesn’t believe global warming is man-made all of which the interviewer claims young people have a different view. The senator chose to refute the global warming claim.
The following rebuttal of the senator’s view on global warming is self-explanatory in highlighting the political problem global warming/climate change faces in America. After all, the senator is running for the presidency of the United States, and his views on global warming echo many other candidates.
It’s important to mention that Senator Cruz is the new chair of the Senate subcommittee on Space, Science and Competiveness. So, he oversees NASA in the 114th Congress. Thus, his views on global warming carry enormous weight in the halls of Congress and before the American people.
According to the senator: “I’m a big believer that we should follow the science and follow the evidence. If you look at global warming alarmists, they don’t like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrates that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years. Now, that’s a real problem for the global warming alarmists….” (This article looks at the “actual facts and the data.”)
Maybe Senator Cruz follows Lord Monckton, who claims global warming ceased over 18 years ago, based in part and maybe totally, on data from a private research company Remote Sensing Systems.
Lord Monckton: “The predictions on which the entire climate scare was based were extreme exaggerations.” (Climate Expert Lord Monckton: Global Warming Ceased Over 18 Years Ago, The New American, June 5, 2015, a bi-monthly published by American Opinion Publishing, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society)
At any rate, Senator Cruz should make public the detailed evidence, including sources and facts, supporting his position that global warming is not anthropogenic and “no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years.”
The Senator is Dead Wrong (but who knows what to think of Lord Monckton)
Here’s what NASA says: “Each year, four international science institutions compile temperature data from thousands of stations around the world and make independent judgments about whether the year was warmer or cooler than average… All show the last decade has been the warmest on record.” (Source: NASA, Global Climate Change- Vital Signs of the Planet)
Here’s what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) says: “The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2015 was the highest for June in the 136-year period of record, at 0.88°C (1.58°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F), surpassing the previous record set just one year ago by 0.12°C (0.22°F).”
So, the all-time record (ever since 1879) set for June 2015 surpassed the prior all-time record set in June 2014 and on and on it goes.
Additionally, and most significantly, it could be that the senator does not fully understand, or truly appreciate, the impact of latitudinal temperature variation because the global temperature average is only one-half the story.
The other half of the story is by far the biggest climate change dilemma, and it’s all about latitudinal temperature change. This is where very serious climate change/damage sets in, Arctic methane outbreaks and anomalous Arctic atmospheric jet stream behavior radically altering weather throughout the hemisphere.
For example, Arctic temps at high latitude are trouncing global temps, hands down. “Temperatures on average are increasing 1.22C per decade over sea ice in summer, heating up 8 times faster than the rate of Arctic warming over the past 100 years.” (Earth Observatory, NASA, Evidence of Arctic Warming)
This year the Arctic recorded hotter temperatures than Miami, temperatures as high as 37.1°C (98.78°F) were recorded on July 2, 2015. (Arctic News org)
The Arctic is rapidly losing its multi-year ice infrastructure: “I’ve been measuring the ice thickness go down by 50% over the last 30 years. In the summer for instance, you used to see very heavy pack ice so that a ship would have great difficulty getting through it. Today, it’s more like a blue planet. It’s almost an ice-free Arctic. That’s a big change.” (Peter Wadhams, professor of Ocean Physics and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge)
If not for global warming, Senator Cruz and Lord Monckton, then how and why is the Arctic melting so rapidly?
What is causing the Arctic to melt away so fast?
What causes ice to melt?
Worldwide glaciers are melting like ice cream cones in July (tons of scientific data stands behind this).
“The magnitude and Arctic-wide character of the long-term temperature increase is a major indicator of global warming… the Arctic is warming at more than twice the rate of lower latitudes… The spatial distribution of near-surface temperatures in autumn-early winter (October-December) during recent years (2009-2014) has been warmer than the final 20 years of the 20th Century (1981-2000) in all parts of the Arctic. These Arctic-wide positive (warm) anomalies are an indication that the early 21st Century temperature increase in the Arctic is due to global warming rather than natural regional variability (Overland 2009, Jeffries et al. 2013a).” (Source: Arctic Report Card: Update for 2014, NOAA)
Here’s some very recent data: “A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century.” (Science Publishes New NOAA Analysis: Data Show No Recent Slowdown in Global Warming, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, June 4, 2015)
Here’s more recent, fresh data: “Today, the Earth is warming about 20 times faster than it cooled during the past 1,800 years,” says Michael Evans, an associate professor at the University of Maryland’s Department of Geology and Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center. “This study truly highlights the profound effects we are having on our climate today.” (Source: Global Warming Erases Centuries of Ocean Cooling, CBS News August 18, 2015)
Finally, here’s a quote from The Modern Temperature Trend, the American Institute of Physics (February 2015): “The heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is the most comprehensive measure of changes in the temperature of the planet. For as new heat is added, far more goes into the oceans than into the thin atmosphere. Several independent analyses of hundreds of thousands of measurements show that the ocean heat content began a steady rise in the 1970s. That was just when greenhouse gas levels reached a level high enough to be important… the planet continues to warm up rapidly.”
What Goes Around Comes Around
According to Ocean Scientists for Informed Policy (“OSIP”), since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat trapped by GHGs has been stored in the oceans. As a result, humans only experience a sliver of the true warming costs of fossil fuels. But, beware as hidden danger lurks within the seas. What goes around comes around.
According to the legendary atmospheric scientist Carl-Gustav Rossby, heat can be temporarily isolated in the sea and after periods of time “again influence heat and water-vapour exchange with the atmosphere.” (Oceanscientists.org)
Here’s more from Senator Cruz
“Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the (1) flat-earthers… There are a whole lot of people making a whole lot of money. (2) Al Gore has made millions of dollars off of global warming. (3) And a lot of these scientists who are most vocal about it are receiving massive grants on this (4) theory that the data are not backing up…blah, blah, blah,” and he also talks about (5) massive energy bills for citizens crippling the economy, losing jobs, if the government changes energy policy beyond current fossil fuel subsidies.
The senator’s view dovetails with statements by several presidential contenders, altering energy policy will ruin the economy and destroy jobs, bringing on costly renewables.
It’s nearly impossible to tackle the senator’s statement straight faced, but in the interest of clarifying the record as much as possible:
The (1) flat-earther analogy is only valid if, in fact, there is no global warming of consequence. NASA as well as worldwide scientific organizations of highest stature insists anthropogenic global warming is very real and increasing, in fact accelerating, especially in the planet’s largest repository, the oceans.
And (2) so what if Al Gore made millions off of global warming?
Look at the billions upon billions upon billions made whilst causing global warming.
And, (3) all reputable scientists receive grants for projects. That’s how stuff happens.
And (4) is the data the scientists utilize incorrect? Well, the same agencies the senator monitors provide the data he criticizes.
And, (5) will the public suffer massive energy bills and will the economy be crippled, job losses, if the government favors new sources of energy, like renewables?
In a landmark report, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014, concludes “that biomass, hydropower, geothermal and onshore wind are all competitive with or cheaper than coal, oil and gas-fired power stations, even without financial support and despite falling oil prices. Solar photovoltaic (PV) is leading the cost decline, with solar PV module costs falling 75 per cent since the end of 2009 and the cost of electricity from utility-scale solar PV falling 50 per cent since 2010.” (Source: Renewable Power Costs Plummet: Many Sources Now Cheaper than Fossil Fuels Worldwide, Press Release, International Renewable Energy Agency, Jan. 17, 2015.
“The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there’s no going back,” Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewable, Bloomberg Business, April 14, 2015.
“The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York,” Ibid.
Thirty-nine million (39,000,000) Americans in California have no problem affording renewable energy. “Renewable energy, including hydro power and rooftop solar, now constitutes about a third of California’s electricity,” Ibid.
Furthermore, as for economic impact of renewables, according to the World Bank, California’s economy ranks 8th in the world, maintaining its ranking from 2014, whilst installing a lot of renewables. Meanwhile, impressively, California’s 2015 budget provides for debt pay downs of $1.9 billion while setting aside $3.5 billion for a Rainy Day Fund. Renewables are not crippling the economy in California.
But, drought caused by global warming could cripple the state. (Warming Temperatures Implicated in Recent California Droughts, Stanford Scientists Say, Stanford News, March 2, 2015)
The senator’s home state of Texas, which ranks 4th in America renewable energy, has added wind power hand-over-fist without complaints about wind energy destroying or crippling the state’s economy.
It appears most of the world, including his home state, is opposite Senator Cruz’s offbeat, oddball cost analysis quip about crippling the economy, losing jobs (who knows, maybe Lord Monckton agrees with him, certainly several presidential candidates do agree with him.)
Earnestly, people expect more from a Harvard graduate and U.S. Senator, more intensive, careful and accurate understanding of the facts behind the issues, especially one that affects the entire planet. After all, the nation’s science is now in the senator’s hands. The United States of America depends upon his substantiation for the best course.
Senator Cruz should make public detailed evidence, including facts and sources, supporting his position that global warming is not anthropogenic and “no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years.” How else can he claim it?
The global warming issue is way too impactful on the entire world community not to be 100% sure of sources and facts. After all, if the “global warming alarmists” are correct, then civilization is at risk of collapsing the planetary ecosystem, heading for extinction.
Come to think of it, maybe the senator should also pick up the phone and talk to NASA about global warming since their data thoroughly conflicts.
For sure, NASA will take the call.