JoNova's Proof

Harry TwinotterJuly 21, 2014 at 4:47 AM

I am still waiting to see JoNova's submission. She penned this article back in 2012 titled "Man Made Global Warming Disproved".

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/



Response:

JoNova starts out with a false argument right off the bat, "It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory."

The scientific method requires all theories to pass all tests, but a failure does not mean the science is invalid. It only means there is more work to be done. In fact, theories are built on previously validated theories. Proving the new theory needs more work does not necessarily prove the previous theories are in any way flawed. This is a false argument that I see used quite a bit. In fact, someone even made a submission based on this entire premise. The argument works this way:

A single experimental failure under the scientific method means the theory is false. Therefore, if I can find a single failure, the entire theory is invalid. 

The second does not follow from the first. A more correct statement is this:

Under the scientific method, a single experimental failure means the theory is not completely valid. Therefore, if I can find even a single experimental failure, under the scientific method you have to go back and do more work. 

JoNova then makes numerous statements that are all unsubstantiated (the heat is missing from the oceans; its missing from the upper troposphere; .....) and then goes into complaining about models. Her statements about models are both incorrect and irrelevant. I have covered this many times and did an in-depth discussion here. Contrarian claims about climate models are so false, and are false in so many ways, that it is a serious red flag anytime I hear someone make this claim. They are either lying or very misinformed.  Or, both.

Models are not climate science. They are a tool used in climate science. They are a mathematical representation of the real world and help us to understand what is going on. Other tools we use include thermometers, satellites, ice cores, mud cores, coral cores, buoys, and more. Claims that AGW is not real because models don't work are both false and false arguments. Again, read my posting on this subject.

Then, she goes into a series of false claims. Let's take a look. This list is from her webpage:

Observations show major flaws

1. The missing heat is not in the ocean ^{8 – 14}
2. Satellites show a warmer Earth is releasing extra energy to space ^{15 -17}
3. The models get core assumptions wrong – the hot spot is missing ^{22 – 26, 28 – 31}
4. Clouds cool the planet as it warms ^{38 – 56}
5. The models are wrong on a local, regional, or continental scale. ^{63- 64}
6. Eight different methods suggest a climate sensitivity of 0.4°C ⁶⁶
7. Has CO2 warmed the planet at all in the last 50 years? It’s harder to tell than you think. ⁷⁰
8. Even if we assume it’s warmed since 1979, and assume that it was all CO2, if so, feedbacks are zero — disaster averted. ⁷¹
9. 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?

Let me address each in turn.

1. Did I misread that statement? Did she say the oceans are not heating? Take a look at this page and this graphic from NOAA:

Source: NOAA

Questions?

2. This is a very curious statement. The statement is valid ONLY if the planet is warming, but the topic of  her post is that AGW is not real. She is trying to have it both ways. "Man made global warming is not real because the planet is warming." Not a logical argument. The fact is, the precise details of planetary heat flows has not been determined. However, we have good satellite data that maps the amount of heat leaving the planet. Does a hotter planet emit more heat than a cold one? Duh! Does a hot skillet on the stove emit more heat than a cold one? Of course it does. So what? Both the skillet and the planet continue to get hotter. Her statement only goes to confirm that global warming is going on while also confirming she doesn't understand it.

3. I've already addressed the issue of models above.

4. This is a false argument. Clouds cool during the day, but warm at night. The effect of clouds on global warming is one of the most complicated issues of climate science. If she really believes it as simple as that single statement she is dramatically demonstrating a lack of understanding of climate science.

5. Models again. A false argument again. Give it up.

6. Models again? Really? Remember what I said about red flags? This woman is really stuck in a false argument rut.

7. No, it isn't hard at all. At least, not when you go with science and not pseudoscience. Look at the graphic I showed above showing the ocean heat content.

8. The name of her post is "Man Made Global Warming Disproved" but then she states "Even if we assumed it's warmed since 1979, and assume it was all CO2...." Which is it JoNova? No man made warming or man made warming without 'disasters'? The two statements are contradictory!

9. Still more model false arguments. Models explain the warming in the past quite well. We understand the Medieval Warm Period and other warming periods, which is one of the reasons there is such a high level of confidence that today's warming is man made. And, no, the Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than today, although that is irrelevant. There are naturally occurring climate cycles. How do we know that? Because climate scientists have gone out there and done the hard work to identify them. Take a look:

Source: Wikipedia

By the way, did you notice how the peak at the right (today's temperature) is the highest point on the graph for more than 100,000 years? So, is this a naturally occurring cycle? No. The evidence shows we are actually in a naturally occurring cooling cycle. I have covered this before. What is interesting is she combined two false arguments into one. She really is obsessed with the models, isn't she. You would think someone that cares about them this much would have done a little homework and read someone other than the professional deniers. That is a clear-cut case of going out to find what you want.

So, the bulk of her 'proof' consisted of comments regarding models. By doing so, she demonstrated a total lack of understanding of models and of climate science. She really needs to go back to school.

Then, she goes into more false arguments about models. But, she does something interesting. She talks about the warming due to CO2 and states,

A multitude of observations are in rough agreement that any increase in global average temperature caused by a doubling of CO₂ is more likely to be about half a degree than the 3.3 degrees determined by the IPCC³.

Hold it! Her 'proof' that man made global warming is not real consists of a claim that it is real, just not as big as some scientists claim! Holy makes no sense, Batman! Does anyone really believe this? Does anyone else read this and go, "What the ....?" Please explain to me how the presence of man made global warming can possibly be proof that man made global warming isn't real?

But, she isn't finished. She gives her conclusion and states,

Every which way we measure it, the models predictions don’t match the observations.

Apparently, she still has not bothered to read anything about models except what she finds on denier blogs.

She finishes up with a quote from Richard Feynman. Its is amazing how many deniers quote Feynman without bothering to understand what he is saying.

The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.

Richard Feynman, according to The Meaning of it All, 1999 ­­­

Well, JoNova, you failed to show the exception to the rule for AGW, but you certainly proved that Feynman was correct in regards to you. The exception to your 'proof', proved by observatin, shows that your argument is wrong. JoNova did nothing to prove man made global warming is not real. I mean, her 'proof' is so bad that even if there really is no AGW, she would still be wrong. It is that bad.

And, this submission did not prove man made global warming is not real.