If history tells us anything it says that Joanne Nova fails to learn. Her latest attempt to discredit the science is a simple repeat of her past mistakes, only use ocean data to 700 meters, not 2,000 meters, cherry pick your start date and fail to understand how thousands of measurements reduces uncertainty. Let’s examine once again. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘Climate’
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/ .
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.
Joanne Nova suggests newspapers are being biased by not covering the “almost new record” of Antarctic sea ice and instead seem to be more preoccupied with how the Arctic has lost 50% of its summer sea ice.
In her haste to claim wrongdoing she forgets a number of key facts.
- The current Antarctic sea ice anomaly is only 60% of the one recorded in 2007, so it’s not a record.
- Even if the increase continued for this year, and it became a new record, it is not part of a dramatic trend unlike the Arctic situation.
- The extra 7% of Antarctic sea ice area, does not offset the 50% loss of Artic ice. Globally the trend is downward.
- The Antarctic ice is thinner; having slightly more thinner ice is no substitute for the loss of thick multi-year Arctic ice.
- The Antarctic ice cannot be feasibly moved to the northern hemisphere so it’s no help to the polar animals that depend upon the ice.
- The causes for sea ice increase may well be explained by a number of factors.
- The Antarctic (not just sea ice) is continuing to lose mass.
- From a feedback mechanism point of view (less ice means more sun enters the water rather than being reflected) the increase in ice during winter does not have as much impact on the feedback as loos of ice during summer because it occurs at a time when there is less direct sunlight.
- The small increase in Antarctic sea ice is not sucking methane back in.
The difference in sea ice of the Artic vs Antarctic is explained well on the nsidc.org website. Nova should read more and write less – but that might interfere with her scare campaign.
Perhaps Nova prefers video?
The IPCC reports present science that shows the climate is warming and that amongst the numerous forces that affect climate, man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been a major contributor in recent times.
By contrast, Joanne Nova offers confusion. In her “merchant of doubt” role, she has no qualm about presenting contradicting theories. Her posts blame anything but CO2 for the warming.
On topics of warming, feedbacks & attribution, Nova flips back and forth. Sometimes Nova agrees that it is warming, other times she casts doubt on the thermometer record, occasionally declaring the warming has stopped. Most times Nova disputes the water vapor feedback mechanism, sometimes she unwittingly supports science that says it accounts for half of the observed warming.
On occasions when Nova does conceded that it’s warming, she flip the blame back and forth between the popular, already debunked myths of solar, natural cycles, oceans and cosmic rays. It’s difficult to have any confidence in Nova when she changes her mind on such a regular basis.
Nova’s “science” posts discussing whether or not it’s warming and the cause, are summarised below.
When faced with scientific questions that are beyond my knowledge, I think it better to seek the answer from people with years of knowledge on the subject. Mainstream peer-reviewed science is far more reliable than “web-blogger science” performed by some guy on the internet.
This time Joanne Nova, in search of answers to Venus’ climate has turned to a couple of bloggers and the self-contradicting Monckton.
In another befuddled post, Nova looks (I’m not sure this is the right word for what she does) at Sea Levels.
Nova’s science goes from bad to “oh shit I can’t believe she’s really that stupid!!”. Let’s take a quick look.
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).