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 … Read the rest of this entry »

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)

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Argo Update – David Evans needs new Specs

May 29, 2013

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 …

Read the rest of this entry »

Argo We Go Again

May 24, 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.

OHC 2000m

Ocean Heat Content to 2,000 meters. This is the data that Nova doesn’t want to know about. Source: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov

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 …

OHC 700m

Ocean Heat Content to 700m. Source: ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Nova’s Ocean of Doubt

May 21, 2013

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Six Random Waves

May 1, 2013

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Science vs Joanne Nova

April 25, 2013

The posts of Joanne Nova that have been rebutted are tracked here on this page, but thought it might be a good time to reflect. I believe I’ve covered all major pieces of science in Nova’s archives but if there’s anything else you like rebutted (of scientific nature) please reply and I’ll endeavour to explore her “science”. The posts I have so far covered are listed below …

Read the rest of this entry »

Antarctica – Joanne Nova Scratches the Surface

April 17, 2013

Joanne Nova posts about a new paper (Frezzotti et al 2013)on Antarctica; her headline … Antarctica gaining Ice Mass – and is not extraordinary compared to 800 years of data. If all you did was read her headline, you might be tricked into thinking that global warming was not happening, a conclusion that is not shared by the paper’s authors.

Read the rest of this entry »