Archive for the ‘Joanne Nova’ Category

The Warming is Obvious and so is Joanne’s Denial

May 10, 2014

Update 2: One more year down and still the warming continues.

heat_content2000m_03_2016

Ocean Heat Content Updated to March 2016

Update: One year down and they had to recalibrate the graph to fit in all the warming that Joanne says is not happening.

Ocean Heat Content Updated to March 2015

Ocean Heat Content Updated to March 2015

 

Some will have noticed that I have not been posting much lately; why? Well after 80 posts I figure if someone can’t understand how poor Joanne Nova’s “science” is by now, I doubt they ever will.

98% of publishing climate scientists tell us it’s happening, we’re to blame, and the impacts will be serious. Hundreds of scientists from dozens of countries agree that action on reducing emissions is imperative if we are to be serious about reducing the impacts from climate change. If someone wishes to ignore that advice and go with Joanne Nova, blogger and repeater of climate myths, then no amount of reasoning will change for their mind is not open to discussion. So instead of blogging I am now actively speaking out to friends and colleagues and that’s been a very positive experience.

The warming continues and the impacts are already felt clearly around the world. Ocean Heat Content, where 90% of heat is accumulating continues to climb. Here’s the latest update from a few days ago …

Ocean Heat content to 2000m

Ocean Heat Content to 2000m (source) (data)

 

Joanne Nova is in denial. She claims that the figures are not correct, but instead of proving this through scientific method, through the rigorous process of publishing her “evidence and method” in an established scientific journal, and have it peer-reviewed by experts in the field, Joanne instead relies on blogging. If you’re one of those people stupid enough to believe anything you read on an internet blog, then nothing I can say will change your mind.

Ice Sea Ice Sea – And Repeat

October 21, 2013

Models (and history) project that Nova will likely post about near record Antarctica sea ice for the next few decades at least.

Climate Scientists don’t expect Antarctic to behave the same way as the Arctic. Here’s the projection for Antarctic Sea Ice with observations well within the bounds of model projections.

Antarctic Sea Ice Projection

Antarctic Sea Ice Projection. Source

Not only do the models not expect Antarctic Maximum Sea Ice Extent to drop away for several decades, there is also other science that indicates other factors greatly influence sea ice creation – it’s not just about temperatures as Nova wants you to believe.

Nova Cherry Picks Again

Strangely (or not given that Nova’s intent is to confuse you rather than educate you) Nova chooses a few selected years to compare against. The full set shows the maximum, whilst being close to a record, is really only remarkable for its late melt.

Antarctic Observations

Antarctic Observations

Poles Apart

Joanne talks about the media only showing one side of the argument – Ironic that she only gives half the picture. If you compare the images of the Antarctic and the Arctic, it’s obvious that the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice does not make up for the dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic.

Sept. 2013. The Antarctic has increased slightly but does not make up for the massive loss in Arctic ice. That contrast in 2012 was even more stark.

Sept. 2013. The Antarctic has increased slightly but does not make up for the massive loss in Arctic ice. That contrast in 2012 was even more stark. Source

DeJa Vu

Yes, we’ve been here before …

https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/arctic-vs-antarctic-ice/
https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/antarctica-joanne-nova-scratches-the-surface/
https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/psssst-ignore-the-artic-look-over-here-antarctic-sea-ice-again/

See you same time next year!

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.

(more…)

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.

Sheesh.

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.

It’s Water!

October 8, 2013

Joanne Nova continues her path of contradiction. Having claimed that it’s cooling, not warming, warming but it’s natural, the oceans, subterranean ocean vents, now she is claiming that atmospheric water vapour is the culprit.

Great! We can relax and ignore the several thousand previous papers confirming that CO2 traps heats, Nova has found the evidence and it’s published in a well-established science journal … or not.

Oops. Nope. It’s “published” in the Washington Times alongside ads for “#1 WORST Thing To Do When Eating CARBS” and “Going… Going… Gone! iPads for Under $40”.

(more…)

97% of Climate Scientists Say We’re to Blame

October 6, 2013

There have been several studies that looks at the scientific consensus and what they, the experts, have to say on climate change. A consistent message continues to emerge, and it has strengthened over time.

  • In 2004, Naomi Oreskes found that in a survey of 928 abstracts, none rejected the consensus. 75% fell into the first explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate and gave no position.
  • In 2009, Doran & Zimmerman found that 97.4% of climate scientsts thought human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global temperatures.
  • In 2010, Anderegg et al. found >97% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support anthropogenic climate change as outlined by the IPCC.
  • Most recently Cook et al. expanded on the number of papers examined and found that familiar 97% climate scientists agreement as determined by examining the content of their abstracts, and also by directly contacting the authors and asking them to self-rate their own work.

Nova’s not happy so decided to repost Monckton’s misinformation.

(more…)

The Ground and Atmosphere are Different

September 19, 2013

The Ground and Atmosphere are Different.

This seems like a fairly obvious statement, but for Joanne Nova it appears difficult for her to grasp. Earlier this year Australia recorded it’s hottest Summer, this has now been followed by our warmest Winter and hottest consecutive 12 months. Nova is furious!

(more…)

Fingers In Ears

September 3, 2013

With her digits firmly planted in her ears Joanne Nova pretends that AGW is not happening. The science says otherwise. Perhaps Jo is too busy with Tony “It’s crap” Abbott’s political campaign to write about the science, or perhaps it’s just because these climate science papers don’t agree with her preconceived, politically motivated, scientifically-unsupported, blogger opinion? Here’s a small sample of recent peer-reviewed science Joanne wants to wish away.

update: Nova has commented on this list saying “I can rebut most just from their headlines.” … but of course she doesn’t go any further than that and instead yet another person gets “moderated” when the topic becomes too much for Nova. Joanne repetitively points to her “Evidence”, a page which we’ve covered in detail https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/nova-science/novas-evidence/ .

(more…)

Willie Soon, “I just don’t understand”

August 4, 2013

Joanne Nova blindly promotes Willies Soon’s criticism of Sea Level measurements. It’s strangely titled “Five or more failed experiments in measuring Global Sea Level: Willie Soon” – does Willie get confused by numbers greater than five?

Willie “I don’t understand” Soon introduces himself to the audience with “Many of you are as qualified as I am to speak on this issue of sea level”. For the record, Soon has ZERO publications on the topic of Sea Level Rise, so it’s quite possible that some of his audience are better qualified. His claims that all the science is wrong stems from his own lack of understanding; Anything Willie cannot understand must therefore be, in his opinion, “bad science” rather than an inability to understand on his behalf. Personally I don’t fully understand Einstein’s theory of relativity, but I won’t call that science “sick”, a term Willie uses to describe things he can’t explain.

Willie’s opinion on the topic of sea level rise does not coming from having performed science, does not originate from understanding the technology behind the measurements, doesn’t come from performing any kind of statistical analysis but instead comes from, and I quote, “Over Christmas I happen to ah, all the dots and everything fall into places”.

Willie makes many off-hand remarks about scientists chasing funding, ironic given his own history of funding from the fossil fuel industry. (more from Desmog), But let’s examine his claims in further detail … (more…)

Nova – not Hot, not Angry, not Surface Temps

June 29, 2013

Joanne Nova still seems bitter about the fact that Australia had its HOTTEST EVER SUMMER and has tried once again to discredit the temperature record after climate scientists found that humans are increasing the chances of such an event. Nova is repeating an earlier myth so her mistake also repeated (learning can be difficult for some climate denialists).

The UAH temperatures she plots in the graph are atmospheric temperatures, which is not going to be the same as surface temperatures (I am also dubious about how they restrict UAH temperatures to just Australia land). Surface temperatures, as measured by the BOM and reported to the public on a daily basis are NOT the same as the temperature of the atmosphere. This is demonstrated clearly in the graph below.

Over short timeframes, surface temps and atmospheric temps can have large differences.

Over short timeframes, surface temps and atmospheric temps can have large differences. (source)

Since 1979, all surface and atmospheric temperatures show very similar trends.

Since 1979, all surface and atmospheric temperatures show very similar trends. (source)