Nova’s “senior” moment

Nova’s not new to contradicting her own views, but this one’s a classic.

Nova’s recent political rant blog post is the usual mix of information from various sources, and this time she wanted to include a recent climate sensitivity that suggests the extreme limits of climate sensitivity are very unlikely (you can read more about this study here).

I found quite amusing, because only 10 days earlier Nova was dismissing climate sensitivity studies based on ice core data because in her words …

Estimating climate sensitivity based on ice cores is problematic in any case, as Lindzen and others are now pointing out. We can’t calculate the climate sensitivity when the time-frame for equilibrum conditions is so much shorter than the data points. Lindzen and spencer are analyzing “months”. The ice core data is hundreds of years between CO2 points.

Now, based upon a study using ice core evidence Nova writes …

They concluded that current worst-case scenarios for global warming were exaggerated.

“Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out, and we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem,” the study’s lead author, Andreas Schmittner, an associate professor at Oregon State University, said.

The study found high-sensitivity models led to a “runaway effect” under which the Earth would have been covered in ice during the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower.

“Clearly that didn’t happen, and that’s why we are pretty confident that these high climate sensitivities can be ruled out,” he said.

Professor Schmittner said taking his results literally, the IPCC’s average or “expected” value of a 3C average temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 ought to be regarded as an upper limit.

Remarkably, despite Nova having declared Models and Climate Sensitivity Studies based upon ice core samples to be wrong, she now has no qualm about using this paper because it semi-supports her political viewpoint. I suspect she acted a little to quickly, because when I quizzed her about her turnaround, in the very same postshe now claims not to support the study . Nova hasn’t bothered to removed the study’s quotation from her post.

Makes you wonder if Nova really supports anything she writes or if Nova now is willing to saying anything to make money from political blogging.

Nova’s dubious actions are summed up beautifully in this video.

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: