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.
Posts Tagged ‘Climate Sensitivity’
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.
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.
Joanne Nova claims that Global Warming has been disproved and lists 9 “Major Flaws” – or so she says.
- The missing heat is not in the ocean.
- Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space.
- The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing.
- Clouds cool the planet as it warms.
- The models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale.
- Eight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C.
- Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think.
- Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted.
- It was as warm or warmer 1000 years ago. Models can’t explain that. It wasn’t CO2. The models can’t predict past episodes of warming, so why would they predict future ones?
It’s the usual stuff from Nova, so lets take a quick look at why Nova is wrong on all nine points.
Climate sensitivity is defined as …
a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing.
Nova’s recent claim on this topic is the use of Sherwood Idso’s research from the 1980’s. Idso’s research was scientifically debunked because his calculation did not actually equate to that of climate sensitivity (see below). No climate scientist used Idso’s methods to determine climate sensitivity because, as we’ll examine, his mistakes were obvious, measuring the change in surface radiation rather than top of atmosphere, measuring the changes in one small location, then extrapolating that to the whole planet, measuring apparent changes in Mars and expecting the Earth to respond in a similar way, not allowing time for equilibrium to be reached.
The most obvious reason why Idso’s estimate of 0.4°C rise in temps for a doubling of CO2 is too low; the planet has warmed that much since he first published in 1984, whilst CO2 levels rose 15% from 350 to 390 ppm.
Nova’s not new to contradicting her own views, but this one’s a classic.
Nova’s recent political rant blog post is the usual mix of information from various sources, and this time she wanted to include a recent climate sensitivity that suggests the extreme limits of climate sensitivity are very unlikely (you can read more about this study here).