page on 2014/12/04 criticizing the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) which had reported that the Spring of 2014 was the hottest on record.
Does Jo Nova understand science?Anyone with any knowledge of science would be aware that several sets of measurements of a complex system, using entirely different methods of data collection, will come up with slightly different results. One would certainly expect satellite temperature data to differ somewhat to data collected using thermometers on the Earth's surface.
Does Jo Nova understand her own graphs?What does Jo Nova's graph show us? That, according to satellite data, this last Spring might have been the forth hottest in the last 35 years rather than the hottest. Even using Ms Nova's graph, seven of the hottest springs in the last 35 years have occurred in the last nine years.
This graph, and the three others that Ms Nova gave for the other seasons,
shows a warming trend; a trend that became especially strong in the last
twenty years and yet Ms Nova claims "there hasn't been much climate
change in the last 15 years".
I added a mathematically calculated trend line to Ms Nova's graph; the result is shown on the right. Not only does the trend line show that the temperatures recorded by the satellite are rising, but it shows that the rate of rise is itself increasing.
The trend line was a 'power' curve generated by Open Office spreadsheet.
Ms Nova's qualifications in climate scienceIt is worth noting that Ms Nova has no formal qualifications in climate science and has not published anything in peer-reviewed journals, yet claims to know the facts on climate science better than most qualified and published climate scientists; see DeSmogBlog.
The most reliable data are the actual temperature measurements recorded by organisations such as the Bureau of Meteorology. Satellite data is also very valuable, but as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, satellites do not measure temperatures directly. The data that they record has to be interpreted to obtain temperatures. And, of course, while satellite data goes back to around 1980, Bureau of Meteorology temperature records go back well over a century further.
Temperatures interpreted from indirect observations, such as the satellite data that were used in Ms Nova's graphs, are called proxies.
There are a number of other ways of implying past temperature: they include tree-ring data and oxygen isotope data from ice cores. These can tell us about the temperatures much further into the past than direct temperature recordings.
A graph of temperatures from the last 1000 years interpreted from proxies is given in Wikipedia.
First up, despite the endless repetition in the media that the science is settled and the evidence is overwhelming, the latest CSIRO survey shows 53% of the Australian population don't agree that "humans are causing climate change". When the ABC gives 50% of its climate budget and time to skeptical arguments we will know it is fulfilling its charter. Right now, the ABC serves less than half the population. Secondly, even with 47% of the population agreeing that humans are "largely" causing climate change, many of these people still don't think climate change will be that bad.This is not a scientific point of view. Ms Nova, questions of science are not decided by popular opinion. Any well informed layman realises that, many non-scientists in the ABC realise that, certainly someone who claims to be a science writer should realise that.
The science is settled, climate change is real and it is a hugely serious threat.
"Most surveys and polls show 50% of the population are skeptical. A real newspaper that was leading and shaping the public debate would find the most informed views from both sides and put them forward..."No Ms Nova, a responsible investigative journalist would look at the most credible information; he/she would look at the science! And a real science writer would be referring to the science journals Jo, not claiming that we can decide on the reality of ACC by looking at popular opinion.
In July 2016 Ms Nova wrote a piece titled "Wind power sucks money and electricity in South Australia". The first inaccuracy was in the first sentence. Ms Nova wrote:
"On a good day South Australia has more than 40% renewable energy..."The facts are rather different, SA averages around 40% renewable energy; on a good day it gets up to 90% or even higher. The graph below shows that at 9:25am on 18th August over 80% of SA's power was coming from our wind farms and another 9% from solar PV. Later in the day it got up to 93% renewable energy. The previous few days and the following few days showed similar amounts of renewable power in SA.
I didn't bother checking any other of Ms Nova's claims in this piece. I have little doubt that the quality of her work was consistent.
Ms Nova put herself at something of a disadvantage in December 2018 when she gloated about hail damaging solar PV panels in Sydney hail storms. She couldn't say that hail damage is going to get worse in the future without admitting that anthropogenic climate change is a fact.
I have written about solar panels and hail damage on another page on this site.
It's not Nova; an 'Analysis of "science" performed by Joanne Nova', debunking 'as many of her science-related articles as possible';
Rational Wiki Joanne Nova, a quote:
Joanne "Jo" Nova (real name Joanne Codling) is an Australian writer, speaker, former TV host, anti-science presenter and a professional wingnut. She maintains a blog which regularly regurgitates debunked climate denial myths, making her the poor Aussie's Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt.
Skeptical Science also debunked Ms Nova's climate science denial;
Sourcewatch, Jo Nova;
More sloppy work from Jo Nova
A science writer?
Science or opinion?
Where do we look for the credible science?
Who is more credible, Jo Nova or Bureau of Meteorology?
Why accept that humanity is causing climate change?
Why do we need more than one way of measuring temperatures?