But the science is settled, isn't it?

"Poorly studied"

Our ignorant, spin-laden Australian government, via its climate mouthpiece Greg Combet, continues to push the line, “the science on climate is settled”, because they don’t wish to engage with the possibility that it isn’t. They have all their eggs in the IPCC basket, despite the fact that most of those eggs are cracked, rotten and leaking through the bottom, and they aren’t interested in anything else. They simply want to move on, pander to their redistributive instincts and impose an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax which, even if the science were settled, wouldn’t make an iota of difference to the climate, but would “spread the wealth around”, as someone once said.

So it’s ironic when a story breaks that shows so clearly that the science is not settled. Something as fundamental as the effect of the sun on climate during solar cycles is still uncertain, let alone complex feedbacks, clouds, precipitation etc, etc. As the New Scientist (gasp) reports:

IF NEW satellite data can be trusted, changes in solar activity warmed the Earth when they should have cooled it.

Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London studied satellite measurements of solar radiation between 2004 and 2007, when overall solar activity was in decline. The sun puts out less energy when its activity is low, but different types of radiation vary to different degrees. Until now, this had been poorly studied. [“Poorly studied”, notice. Because, thanks to massive government and big green investment, all the research has been directed towards finding the tenuous link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate instead.]

Haigh’s measurements showed that visible radiation increased between 2004 and 2007, when it was expected to decrease, and ultraviolet radiation dropped four times as much as predicted.

Haigh then plugged her data into an atmospheric model to calculate how the patterns affected energy filtering through the atmosphere. Previous studies have shown that Earth is normally cooler during solar minima.Yet the model suggested that more solar energy reached the planet’s surface during the period, warming it by about 0.05 °C (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09426).

The effect is slight, but it could call into question our understanding of the sun’s subtle effects on climate.

But don’t forget, this is New Scientist, so…

Or could it? Stefan Brönnimann of the University of Bern in Switzerland says Haigh’s study shows the importance of looking at radiation changes in detail but cautions that her the results could be a one-off. He points out that the sun’s most recent cycle is known to have been atypical.

Whatever. But to continue to repeat ad nauseam that the science is settled is nonsensical. Take note, Julia and Greg.

Read it here.

Comments

  1. NZ is about to have a ‘the settled science is unsettled again’ moment as NIWA said some rather extraordinary things in court:

    “NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”. ”

    Link

    This implies that New Zealand’s new ETS has been based on data so questionable that their own agency now disowns its own work.

    Mr Combet might like to note how settled the science is behind NZ’s own ETS. Nothing like having the High Court amble its way through your reasoning to ruin your whole day.

  2. The Loaded Dog says:

    “New Scientist” is appropriately named. These “new” scientists have abandoned the scientific or investigative process and only look for evidence to support a preconceived hypothesis.

    Bring back the “old” scientists please.

  3. “They have all their eggs in the IPCC basket, despite the fact that most of those eggs are cracked, rotten and leaking through the bottom..”
    Love the analogy, Simon.

    Back to Combet and the “settled” science, – I wonder if he felt a little unsettled with the formerly Alarmist Royal Society issuing a “perhaps the science is not settled” report.

  4. “So it’s ironic when a story breaks that shows so clearly that the science is not settled”

    Here’s another noteworthy story indicating, I suspect, a growing trend in the community of climate scientists to spit the toxic claw of alarmist manipulation.

    University geologists in Texas analysed records since 1850. They published their findings in the October issue of Annals of the Association of American Geographers.
    http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/10/05/texas-am-study-shows-climate-change-may-not-show-up-for-many-decades/
    They conclude
    “….it will take a long time before a statistically significant difference can be seen between possible human impacts and those caused by natural climate variability …
    (so)
    “Do we charge ahead with international agreements and policies, or do we do nothing? Do we save money for our grandchildren’s future or do we try to save the climate, not knowing if our efforts will have any effect?”

    To any rational mind, it’s a no-brainer.

  5. Combet’s clutch of clueless climate clowns should have their noses rubbed in this letter of resignation from a distinguished physicist expressing unbridled disgust at the corruption of his profession by AGW.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_scientist_resigns_how_global_warming_corrupted_science/

%d bloggers like this: