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 …
Archive for May, 2013
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.
700 meters – Plus or Minus a Few Months or Years
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 …
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.