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 ‘Medieval Warm Period’
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.
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.
The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is defined the time as between AD 950 to 1250 where evidence shows that some parts of the planet were warmer than average.
Nova claims that her friends at the denialist, Exxon funded website CO2Science have demonstrated that the MWP was globally warmer in the past, without CO2.
- Firstly, SO WHAT? We know it was certainly warmer sometime in the past. What matters today is that we are causing it, at a very rapid rate and the science says we are going to heat up well beyond what the MWP might have been.
- Secondly, if were warmer n the MWP than today, then this is evidence for a high sensitivity value, something climate denialists don’t want.
- Thirdly, CO2Science don’t perform science, they draw their own conclusions from other peoples science. The Co2Science analysis is not peer-reviewed, contains some serious flaws and it would appear they deliberately aim to deceive their readers.