Joanne Nova seems to be a regular reader of Science Daily, and can Copy and Paste their entire article to create her own one.
Her recent post on CO2 and plants is a direct copy of Science Daily’s article.
Whilst the knowledge that observations are closing matching models, I suspect Nova wants you to ignore that message and instead jump to the conclusion that “More CO2 is good”.
Sadly, that isn’t the conclusion of the authors, they wanted to isolate the effect that CO2 is having.
Since our previous post Joanne Nova & David Evans have updated her graphs to include the last six months of data, however they still have more work to do in order to be less deceptive. Jo/David plot the data to 2,000 meters in an odd way by only plotting the 700m-2,000m amount rather than the 0-2,000m amount. They also claim to be ignorant (and I agree) of any model forecast for the ocean down to 2,000 meters. If only they had read just a few more sentences of the paper they cite …
I honestly don’t know how Nova can keep a straight face and produce the graphs she does. Once again Joanne Nova posts another example of deceptive graph making.
Not only does she ignore the ocean below 700m meters (because it shows warming), she also chops off the ends to make the graph appear flatter. Firstly, using the same source of information, NODC, let’s take a look at ocean warming from 0 to 2,000 meters.
Ocean Heat Content to 2,000 meters. This is the data that Nova doesn’t want to know about. Source: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov
The Argo flotilla began deployment in 2001. Nova’s first graph posted in 2011 shows data from the start of 2003. Since 2011 the long term warming trend has continued, so Nova now starts the graph midway through 2003 and ends the graph half a year early! That’s right; Nova chops 6 months off the end of the graph. Here’s the full picture …
Ocean Heat Content to 700m. Source: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov
A new study suggests short term warming will be less, but long-term warming to remain about the same.
Joanne Nova gets all excited about the prospect of less short term warming that she forgets that (in her opinion) models are 100% wrong. She also chooses to ignore the authors comments about long term temperature forecasts remaining unchanged.
Cherry picking the bits of a report she like is what Joanne Nova does best.
Rather than producing a scientifically supported theory, Joanne Nova raises more “Merchant of Doubt” material based upon a bunch of blogger posts at WUWT and Bob Tisdale (famous for producing Excel graphs supposedly proving everyone wrong, but he won’t/can’t publish because there’s a conspiracy to stop “real science”).
We’ve covered much of what she mentions before, but let’s cover a few new items.
Merchant of Doubt, Joanne Nova, pounces on the opportunity to raise doubt on whether or not CO2 is causing warming. Jo goes a little crazy with excitement and claims there is no “no man-made effect”; a little awkward given the authors state …
This does not rule out a warming by anthropogenic influences such as an increase of atmospheric CO2. Such secular effects could have been incorporated by the DFT, e.g., into the 250-yr cycle obtained from M6, and would then not show up as a discrepancy between SM6 and RM6.
The posts of Joanne Nova that have been rebutted are tracked here on this page, but thought it might be a good time to reflect. I believe I’ve covered all major pieces of science in Nova’s archives but if there’s anything else you like rebutted (of scientific nature) please reply and I’ll endeavour to explore her “science”. The posts I have so far covered are listed below …
Joanne Nova posts about a new paper (Frezzotti et al 2013)on Antarctica; her headline … Antarctica gaining Ice Mass – and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data. If all you did was read her headline, you might be tricked into thinking that global warming was not happening, a conclusion that is not shared by the paper’s authors.
Joanne Nova recently branched out of her comfort zone (spreading doubt) to try her hand at statistics claiming that surface temperature data since 2005 shows statistically significant cooling in 4 of 5 datasets.
Her words …
The cooling for the last eight years is statistically significant in 4 of the 5 major air temperature datasets.
Statistically significance is very rarely found on such short timeframes, so how did Nova manage to find it? Simple! She invented her own concept of statistically significance; “The easy one” as she put it.
Australia had its hottest day earlier this year and it also had its hottest summer ever on record. That seems to have peeved Joanne “it’s not warming” Nova so she has a new metric for measuring global warming temperature.
Instead of measuring the whole country, she focuses on just three cities, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Her recent post claims the record heatwave doesn’t really matter because populated cities didn’t, according to her own set of stats, set new records for the summer months.
