A reader pointed me to another one of her postings and asked me to review it. You can see her posting here. You can save yourself a lot of trouble and simply go to her list of references at the end. The list includes John Christy, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Ross McKitrick. All of these individuals have two things in common - they are all climate science deniers and they have all been shown to be frauds. Oh, they have one other thing in common - they all accept money from the fossil fuel industry (Lindzen even lied about it for years). One thing they don't have in common is a science background. McKitrick is an economist with no science credentials. If you are not familiar with these individuals, I would suggest you do a little checking. They all have a sordid record. So, that is JoNova's source of information to refute climate science? No wonder her postings aren't scientifically valid. She is using scientifically invalid sources.
I am not going to refute her point-by-point simply because it isn't worth my time. It would be like refuting the 'Moon landings were faked' claims point-by-point. Since everything she (and the landing-hoaxers) say is false, it would take me all day to go through it all and I have other things going on. I'll limit myself to some highlights and invite you to see how many other failures you can find in her logic. It is kind of like a scientific scavenger hunt.
JoNova's ire in this posting is directed at a guide that is available online - A Scientific Guide to the "Skeptics Handbook". The title will show you right away why JoNova spent so much time on this posting. The Skeptics Handbook is her own little baby and she had to come to its defense. If she is going to do this for everyone that debunks her claims, she's going to be busy. One of her statements is (emphasis in original):
But they hide the minor amount of warming this evidence relates to. They don’t admit that there is no evidence for catastrophic warming.Really? No evidence for catastrophic warming? Well, I guess that depends on how you define 'catastrophic,' something she never does. I will agree with her the planet is not going to erupt in a fireball, if that is what she means. But, if you are one of the thousands of people that loses your life due to climate change, or one of the millions of people suffering from a decreased standard of living, you might have a different definition. Why doesn't she address that?
Now, I want to take some time here and point out the bait and switch tactic deniers like JoNova are using nowadays. They are saying there is no climate change because there is no 'catastrophic' climate change. In fact, any time you see someone referring to 'CAGW', be assured they are trying to pull a bait and switch on you. Make them define 'catastrophic' when they do this. I promise you, if they can respond at all, they will only be able to make extreme statements they can't back up.
JoNova, the argument is manmade emissions are causing climate change and you refute that by saying there 'is no evidence for catastrophic warming.' This is a false argument and you are making it because you can't support your claims with science. You can only do it with lies and deception. Don't feel lonely, though. That is the only way ANY denier can support their claim (refer to Christy, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer and McKitrick, among many others). I put my money where my mouth is in regards to this statement when I made the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge. No one even came close. You can see all of the submissions here.
Later, she states there are no positive feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere. Take a look here or here for an explanation of feedback mechanisms (positive and negative) and decide for yourself if there is no positive feedback. Then, she does another bait and switch by changing the topic to 'total feedback', saying the total feedback is negative. Again, she's wrong. Here is just one scientific paper discussing how the total feedback is positive and states,
A fully coupled carbon-climate simulation and several sensitivity runs were conducted for the period of 1860–2100 with prescribed IPCC-SRES-A1B emission scenario. Results indicate a positive feedback to global warming from the interactive carbon cycle, with an additional increase of 90 ppmv in the atmospheric CO2, and 0.6 degree additional warming, thus confirming recent results from the Hadley Centre and IPSL.
I picked this one because it came out BEFORE she wrote her guide or the posting I am referencing. In other words, this information was available to her that the total feedback is positive, and she just kept going on as if it didn't exist. A true denier.
Her next claim is one of the most fraudulent, and frequently repeated, claims by the denier community on the topic of increasing temperatures around the globe (emphasis in original).
Warm nights are more likely due to the urban heat island effect, which is compounded by putting thermometers next to exhaust vents — that was my point. We can’t trust these thermometers.Here is an excellent video on that topic showing JoNova's hero, Anthony Watts, is completely wrong on this topic, which means she is too. Too bad she didn't bother doing any homework before making her claim. The topic of urban heat island effect was submitted to the Skeptic Challenge and you can see my response here. Once again, JoNova's claims are based on nonscience.
Amazingly, she repeats the same claim I discussed in the first paragraph above:
I didn’t say the effect was saturated, I said “almost” and that there would be warming from CO2, but it was minor. The Wang paper merely tells us what we already knew, that the atmosphere has got a bit warmer, and surprise, it’s giving off more infra red. We’d be shocked if it wasn’t.Once again, she is claiming AGW isn't real because it's real. I'd be shocked if she would make sense.
She then continues in the same spirit, making claims that not only ignore the science, but have been debunked many times. I don't understand why someone will merely lay down and accept what people like this tell them without doing even the most modest amount of homework, but they do. That is how people like JoNova make a living. So did P. T. Barnum (although he did not actually make the statement famously attributed to him about suckers being born every minute).
In conclusion, JoNova didn't do anything that shows manmade climate change is not real. She didn't even produce anything scientifically valid and all her statements have been repeatedly debunked. If there is some specific line you would like me to address, let me know in the comment section and I will.
I find JoNova to be like all of the other professional deniers. She is a fraud.
Invite her to have her ass kicked in a debate.ReplyDelete
Oh I would SOOOOO want to see this.ReplyDelete
You didn't even have to mention Jo Nova is also into Conspiracy Theories.ReplyDelete
I would like to see Jo Nova engage on one of the many climate change discussion forums (such as this one) and allow herself to be questioned. It is tiresome when she (like Lord Monckton) has the bully pulpit, and avoids being questioned by someone who know the subject.
I would love to debate her, or just about anyone else on the denier side, in a public forum. One of the reasons I'm hard on them is because they only communicate in their own "bully pulpit", as Harry Twinotter said above, and can't be held accountable for what they say. If anyone has a suggestion of a means to get them out in the open, I would be glad to hear it.ReplyDelete
See my comment below.ReplyDelete
No one is saying that natural factors do not influence climate. But giving a graph that shows a correlation does not prove that AMO is the dominant influence on temperatures:ReplyDelete
Contrary to your statement, the AMO was warming up but was still in its negative phase during the 80s and 90s.
Insulating gases, are just like the insulation in your home, they bar heat transfer across the insulation. If we put a 1% insulating gas into the atmosphere, that insulating gas will behave like an insulator and bar the passage of 1% of the Sun's heat into the atmosphere, cooling the Earth by 1%. IT is IMPOSSIBLE to warm the Earth by blocking out the Sun's heat with insulating gases. Imagine a world in which humans put a 100% insulating gas into the atmosphere, what would it be like with NO heat fro the SUN? Would that be a runaway Greenhouse effect, or would the earth turn into a permanent ice age?ReplyDelete
Venus has a 95% CO2 atmosphere and 90atms of atmospheric pressure (90 times the Earth's pressure). If you remove the pressure heat from Venus atmosphere so that all the heat that remains is the Solar heat, the temperature on Venus is -444 degrees Fahrenheit!
The planet's 50km of CO2 blocks out the sun's heat like an insulator should.
Two Russian probes landed on Venus, the proof is undeniable. The CO2 insulation makes Venus very cold by absorbing the Sun's heat and radiating it back into space.
Monumental and massive misunderstanding of science. Your logic is absolutely fatal to your argument. What you have completely failed to address is the fact that sunlight comes in at one wavelength (visible light) and leaves at another (infrared radiation). Greenhouse gases do not absorb visible light (which is why it is visible). Sunlight comes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface (land, ice, ocean, vegetation), which heats the surface. The hot surface then reemits that energy, but at a different wavelength - longer infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases are efficient at absorbing IR radiation then reemitting it in a random direction. This slows the movement of IR radiation and prevent the planetary surface from cooling as rapidly as it was. In the meantime, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun continues to enter the atmosphere and heat the surface.ReplyDelete
And, your comments on Venus is remarkably ignorant. Please do some more homework.
I still am amazed at your Venus comments. Just what is 'pressure heat' supposed to be? If you are saying the mere presence of pressure creates heat, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. Read up on the laws of thermodynamics. The temperature on the surface of Venus is about 460 degrees Celsius (nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit) - hot enough to melt lead. (What reference do you have to suggest it is cold on the surface of Venus?)ReplyDelete
And, yes, this was confirmed by the Soviet (not Russian) probes that landed on Venus. There were actually ten landers, not two.
The reason it is so hot is because the limited amount of light that
reaches the surface and heats it up. It is then reemitted as IR
radiation, which is absorbed by the thick CO2 atmosphere, preventing the
heat from easily escaping while more energy in the form of sunlight
continues to come in.
I can prove it as false!ReplyDelete
I'm assuming when you say "it" you mean AGW. The challenge ended July 31, 2014, but you are welcome to send it to me via email (firstname.lastname@example.org) and I will post it as a guest submission. Take a few minutes to review the submissions to see if it has already been submitted:ReplyDelete