Archive for the ‘Climate Models’ Category

Nova misleads on Scafetta’s cycle of mistakes

October 12, 2013

Joanne Nova leaps at the chance to blame the sun for the recent warming. In the process she shoots her own foot on the Medieval Warm Period, then shoves it in her mouth on Climate Sensitivity. Oh, and the paper is just another example of curve fitting crap.


Jo Cuts & Pastes to Cause Doubt

October 9, 2013

Joanne Nova has been unable to produce research of her own since joining the circus, but that doesn’t stop her from cutting and pasting other peoples work, and then drawing her own conclusion. This time Nova hasn’t even bothered to credit the original authors or provide a link to their work.


Not much to report other than Nova claims the climate models don’t properly account for these things, but given that the authors themselves state that this is only affecting climate variability rather than long term trends, climate modellers could be forgiven for focussing on climate change rather than weather.

Jo confuses weather and climate once again.

Australia’s Evil Climate Scientists

September 30, 2013

Nova has uncovered first ever footage of Australia’s evil, plotting, lying, money-grabbing, corrupt climate scientists.

What keeps a climate scientist up at night? from The Climate Institute on Vimeo.

Joanne Nova Reads Science?

June 3, 2013

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.


Climate Sensitivity (the short of it)

May 23, 2013

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.


Hot Spot 2 – Tropospheric Warming Continues

February 11, 2013

Hotspot Found!

… by Nova. She just didn’t realise it.

Often you will hear Joanne Nova comment about the “missing hotspot” as if  this were evidence against global warming. It’s not. This has been addressed numerous times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

Here we examine each of her posts (tagged as Hot Spot) and explain why they are incorrect or misleading.


Oh, that Heatwave? It could be Aliens!

January 28, 2013

Nova repeats her strawman argument that the recent heatwave is not a sign of global warming.

Climate Scientists go to pains these days to explain that you cannot attribute one weather extreme on global warming, but you will see a higher number of heatwaves as the background climate becomes hotter.

In Australia, we are now breaking hot records three times more often than cold records. It’s simply more likely for heatwave, such as the January one to occur.

Nova doesn’t get math, so instead rambles out 8 “Nova reasons” why the recent heatwave is not because of global warming.


Nova’s Dryspot

December 7, 2012

Recent research by Fasullo and Trenberth (covered here by SkS) showed that climate models that do a better job at reproducing observations of humidity, are also forecasting a higher sensitivity (greater warming).

Models that better simulate humidity near the infamous hotspot that Nova harps on about, suggest that the warming will be at the higher end of current estimates.

Joanne Nova wants nothing more than to discredit the models, and finds opportunity in John Christy’s blog post. Yeah it’s not peer-reviewed science, of course, but let’s take a look anyway at Christy’s folly.



December 2, 2012

Modellergic – The reaction experienced by climate denialists whenever they encounter science containing the word ‘model’.

Nova rejects almost any science if it involves a “climate model”; a computer application performing billions of calculations in order to simulate how the planet responds to various scenarios such as increased greenhouse gases. Her “strawman argument” is that the models don’t get everything 100% correct, therefore they can’t ever be trusted. That’s an expectation that no climate scientist shares and even the great Deep Thought never stood a chance.

So are computer models good for anything?