Archive for the ‘Ocean Acidification’ Category

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 .


Coral Picking

October 5, 2012

This time Nova goes Coral picking, selecting one species of coral and ignoring the rest of the ecosystem.

Insensitive to the recent news that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has lost 50% of its coral (not from global warming but other stresses), Nova would like you to believe that our oceans will be safe from the threat of Ocean Acidification because one species of cold water coral shows signs of Acclimation.


Short vs Long – Nova’s confused again

January 13, 2012

Children understand that even though we have day followed by night etc., this is NOT the same as having permanent day or permanent night. A short term and large fluctuation in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet does NOT mean we could live in conditions that were permanently dark or permanently light. This analogy is the fundamental flaw behind Nova’s latest post on Ocean Acidification.


Nova on Acid

October 5, 2011

Joanne Nova relies on another website call CO2Science for some of her “science”. In her latest effort Nova uses CO2Science to portray ocean acidification as something almost to embrace instead of a dangerous environmental problem that parallels global warming.

Sadly Nova and CO2Science try to deceive you with conducting poor science and a strange kind of analysis in which they document a number of scientific papers and count the number of species affected by higher levels of acidification. They classify the data by the “Type of Organism” (Bivalves, Bryozoans, Corals, Crustacean, Echinoderms, Echinoderms, Fish, Gastropods, Macroalgae, Netamodes, Phytoplankton, Seagrass), and also by “life characteristics” (Calcification, Metabolism, Growth, Fertility, Survival).

Sounds like a good approach, but there are numerous and very obvious problems with their analysis – let’s look closer.


Carbon Tax – Nova misleads – Perhaps you won’t notice.

July 11, 2011

One of Nova’s politically motivated tactics is to try and scare the public into thinking they are wasting money on battling carbon emissions by presenting only short term effects. Her gullible reader are all too ready to complain about the carbon tax to even notice.

Instantly it’s obvious to the experienced climate scientist that Nova is not concerned about the long term effects of climate change because she cites 2020 as the year by which we should judge the carbon tax plan.

As any climate scientist will tell you, even shutting off ALL emissions will still leave CO2 levels at high levels for many decades, thus the planet will still continue to warm. Any short term look at temperature difference expected from changes in emissions is fundamentally flawed. It’s not the short term consequences we’re concerned about, it’s the long term warming. I suspect Nova knows this, but is hoping you are dumb enough not to notice.

Given that Nova cites the Garnaut 2011 report so much, it seems strange she doesn’t take heed of how this was explicitly stated in the introduction:

The costs of reducing emissions will come straightaway. The benefits of reducing damage from climate change will come later—many of them to later generations of Australians. In fact there will be more and more benefits for later and later generations.

Let’s examine her “alarmist” post “Gillard’s tax on “carbon pollution”: the facts”