Posts Tagged ‘Joanne Nova’

Nova’s Dryspot

December 7, 2012

Recent research by Fasullo and Trenberth (covered here by SkS) showed that climate models that do a better job at reproducing observations of humidity, are also forecasting a higher sensitivity (greater warming).

Models that better simulate humidity near the infamous hotspot that Nova harps on about, suggest that the warming will be at the higher end of current estimates.

Joanne Nova wants nothing more than to discredit the models, and finds opportunity in John Christy’s blog post. Yeah it’s not peer-reviewed science, of course, but let’s take a look anyway at Christy’s folly.



December 2, 2012

Modellergic – The reaction experienced by climate denialists whenever they encounter science containing the word ‘model’.

Nova rejects almost any science if it involves a “climate model”; a computer application performing billions of calculations in order to simulate how the planet responds to various scenarios such as increased greenhouse gases. Her “strawman argument” is that the models don’t get everything 100% correct, therefore they can’t ever be trusted. That’s an expectation that no climate scientist shares and even the great Deep Thought never stood a chance.

So are computer models good for anything?


Nova’s all at sea

November 18, 2012

In another attempt to baffle her readers, Nova attempts to show how sea levels aren’t rising, much, at least in Australia, or well some parts of Australia, and only if you ignore the last 10 years.

Are we really supposed to be relaxed about Global Sea Level Rise, because four locations of Australasia, show “weak deceleration”? Well you can if you’re willing to ignore a few things:

  • Sea level rise is not even; other places are experiencing greater than average rises.
  • Globally, the planet is showing accelerating sea level rise.
  • Greenland wasn’t melting during the past in the way it is today.
  • Sea Level Rise has been at the upper end of forecasts.

What does Global Sea Level Rise look like …


Watts Up With That?

October 31, 2012

The quality of temperature data is often brought into question by Joanne Nova. Earlier this year Nova jumped on the “BLOCKBUSTER” bandwagon after a fellow climate “skeptic” Watts believe he’d found evidence that errors in the thermometer record supposedly exaggerated the warming by a factor of two.

As it turned out Watts’ unpublished paper had a number of problems …


Look Who’s Fraudulent Now!

October 26, 2012

Nova is at pains to try and prove the MWP was warmer than today (perhaps she still doesn’t realise it’s an argument for high sensitivity) and in doing so invokes a number of “science” pieces. Previously we’ve found Co2Science’s  “method” was flawed and, that Huang’s boreholes didn’t contain 20th century data.

This time we examine a third piece of Nova’s “evidence”, Loehle.


6,000 boreholes – Nova’s 100 years too short

October 18, 2012

Simply put, Nova thinks the data in the HP97 graph she uses dates to 2000, when in fact it only goes to 1900; it doesn’t include the last 100 years of warming. And although the original authors have explained this, and Nova is fully aware, she chooses to ignore any science which disagrees with her own agenda and political motives.

That’s no exception in Nova’s look at the Medieval Warm Period, although she takes it ups it a notch. Not only does she incorrectly use Huang & Pollack 97 (HP97), she goes on to ignore very clear statements by the authors which explain why Nova (and others) misinterpret their HP97 results.

Lewandowsky – we’ve more data for you!


psssst … Ignore the Arctic … look over here!!! Antarctic sea ice again!

October 12, 2012

Yet again Nova attempts to distract away from record loss of Artic sea ice, which currently has been at a record low for several months, and instead focus on the Antarctic sea ice which set a record high, if you ignore extent and focus on area, and even then only by a tiny margin and only for a day or two before disappearing back down into the average.

This time around, when researchers, those that studying the Antarctic climate, suggest a possible cause for the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice is related to the wind, Nova jumps up and down furiously. First she claims the research is wrong, that Borenstein is just pretending, then she claims the IPCC and others were wrong because this new theory would contradict them. Which is it Nova?

In Nova’s haste to prove everything wrong, a few clumsy mistakes are made along with one classic (see “Could sea ice increase, and ice shelves melt .” detailed below).


Arctic vs Antarctic Ice

September 20, 2012

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 website. Nova should read more and write less – but that might interfere with her scare campaign.

Perhaps Nova prefers video?

Shoddy, inaccurate, unreliable. Nova’s analysis of BOM temperatures

March 16, 2012

Once again flip-flopping between “it’s warming” and “it’s not warming” Nova reposts the “analysis” of another blogger in an attempt to discredit temperature records.

We already know from multiple lines of evidence that the planet is warming, so Nova’s post is yet another “Merchant of Doubt” attempt.

Where did they go wrong this time?


Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can – really?

March 8, 2012

On the list of debunked myths that “skeptics” like to promote in an attempt to downplay the significant role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is the old “More CO2 has little effect” card; Nova’s no exception with her “Carbon dioxide is already absorbing almost all it can” post. This has been debunked many times over. Interestingly in the early 1900’s it was a valid skeptical argument, but it was rebutted and ever since climate scientists knew better.

That doesn’t stop political bloggers from dragging out old myths. Nova goes on to confuse the issue even further.