Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Nova’s “senior” moment

November 28, 2011

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).


Nova in Moderation

November 27, 2011

Nova’s up her old tricks again, instead of engaging in debate she’s heavily moderating her forum, continually ignoring requests for evidence and ignoring arguments that she finds too difficult to answer.


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.


There’s been no warming since 2001, er no, better make that 2010

September 14, 2011

Joanna Nova’s handbook says:

The world has not warmed since 2001.

… and …

Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001.

Nova uses cherry picking (selecting a small subset of data instead of looking at the whole picture) in order to fool her readers into thinking that warming has stopped.

When you look at all the data, it’s clear the planet is warming.

This is the graph Nova has in her handbook.

Nova cites GISS and UAH as sources for the data and you can view that data for between 2001 and 2009 at WoodForTrees. Yes, no trickery in the handbook, it’s flat. So too are other parts of the temperature record as natural short term fluctuations overwhelm the long term trend. Over lengthier periods, the fluctuation flips and the warming resumes.

A couple of years later, this is what the graph look like. The warming resumes (see WoodForTrees).

Nova’s handbook is in need of an update, do you think she’s likely to do this any time soon, or will she wait for the next “levelling off” to occur?

Good science doesn’t just cherry pick one small section; it looks a the larger picture as shown in the first graph. Nova doesn’t practice good science, she hopes you don’t notice.

Where’s that warming?

July 14, 2011

Nova’s needs to cherry pick a new start year. Her handbook says:

Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001.

Cherry picking short periods will always show surface temperatures dominated by short term variability caused by natural cycles such as ENSO. Surface temperatures are a 2-dimensional insight into the movement of heat in a 3-dimensional world. As to Nova’s non-scientific cherry picked claim, even that depends on the temperature record observed: Source

The take-home message for studying climate is to look at the longer term trend. (more…)

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”