date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:20:02 +0000 (GMT) from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate to: ... and what do you think about all this issues of the changes done between the "comments on" in press and now published at EPSL? Best, Jacopo ----Messaggio originale---- Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Data: 14.12.2007 10.37 A: Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate Jacopo, I'm not suggesting fraud, just that Bard/Delaygue weren't able to reproduce what Courtillot et al claimed to have done. Courtillot et al may be considered high profile scientists, but this is in a non-climate field. The issue here is that they are not fully aware of all the literature in the climate field. They are very selective of the papers they cite and the journal EPSL isn't considered mainstream in the climate field. They tend to publish in what I would refer to as the non-climate literature. In this respect the editors have a harder time knowing they are getting access to the best climate reviewers. To get another (may be similar) view to mine, I'd contact Thomas Stocker in Bern. (stocker@climate.unibe.ch) Thomas like me was involved in the 2007 IPCC Report. These papers weren't considered for the IPCC as they were after the deadline of mid-summer 2007. I doubt they would have been referred to, as they are not in mainstream climate journals. The IPCC 2007 WG1 Report is the most authoritative document you can read on the subject. There is no dispute (see Ch 9) in the IPCC WG1 2007 that solar output changes explain some of the temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Why I was pointing out the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is that it shows natural forcing (the sun and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s. Lockwood/Frohlich realise this, but Courtillot et al don't seem to. As we have to invoke the positive effect of greenhouse gases and the negative effect of sulphate aerosols to explain recent warming, you can only ignore sulphate aerosols (as it is small) earlier in the 20th century. So the sun can't explain all the increase as greenhouse gases were going up then as well (albeit less so). When I say invoking above I mean giving best estimates of past forcing to climate model simulations of the 20th century. Cheers Phil At 08:48 14/12/2007, you wrote: >Dear Phil, >thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming to >fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this. >In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there have >might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer >strictly confidential). > >I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot and >co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www. copernicus. >org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an >example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as they >argue that the others are not getting the right point around climate >change. > >May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent you >are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I may >think of. > >I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there is >agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a pre >industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt shift >since the 80ies. > >Thank you again, >Jacopo > > > > >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >Data: 13.12.2007 18.29 >A: >Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate > > > Jacopo, > I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot paper > by Bard and Delaygue. I was asked by Edouard Bard to try and > locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their response >to > Bard/Delaygue. All this is at the end of the Bard/Delaygue > comment on p5/6. This name of this file is not the way I name > files here. It is also not on the CRU web site and a google >search > doesn't find it! > The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use >(Jones >et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007) > is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was >unable >to reproduce their > diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't make >much >difference, but > you wonder what other mistakes they have made. > > There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to explain >the > global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a solar >series > (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and >anthropogenic > sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) >. > I think if you want to refer to this subject at least refer to >a good paper > on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and well >argued paper. > The answers to all your questions will be in this paper. >Frohlich is > Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French >person > who doesn't understand the climate system! > > There are two problems/issues in the climate field > > 1. Journals publish papers by Courtillot et al (and probably >shouldn't). They give > some unscrupulous people an excuse to say there is disagreement >amongst > climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE are to >blame. > Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't >understand the > climate system. I don't try and publish on magnetism! People >think they can > publish in the climate field without knowing little about the >literature. There are > too many journals (and still growing) and all have difficulty >finding qualified > reviewers. > > 2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering solutions >to the > climate change issue. This gives the public and some politicians >a > belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't. The >only way to > slow the increase in temperature is to reduce emissions. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote: > >I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I >happen > >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with > >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary Science > >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought that > >the > >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there it >is > >offered > >another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this > >geomagnetic > >perspective on climate. > >I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would >very > >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in this > >subject and because you are widely quoted in the paper). > > > >Courtillot claims that up to 1980, on 10-100 scale, and 1000- >10000 > >scale climate change correlates well with changes in geomagnetic > >field of earth (no causality). Correct? > > > >What would be the driver of the change in geomagnetic field? > > > >It seems Courtillot does not neglect the anthropogenic rise since > >ca 1980. Correct? > > > >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation of > >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential drivers >of > >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you please > >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in this > >field)? > > > >Is it really "increasingly recognised"? > > > >How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays >could > >effect the climate change? > > > >On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all > >Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this direction. >He > >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he acceptes it >for > >the last few decades? > > > >What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims, >would > >these be proven to be correct? I mean with regards with IPCC > >projections and alike. > > > > > >Thank you and best regards (in case we may speak over the phone > >tomorrow). > >Jacopo Pasotti > >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there is a > >reply on the comment in the journal's website. > >- > >Jacopo Pasotti, MSc. > >Science Communicator > >Science Journalist > > > >Basel - Switzerland > >Mobile: +41.(0)787627785 > >Home: +41.(0)61.3611340 > >jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch > >www.scienceandnature.net > > > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------