Courtillot on the solar UV climate connection

This image was generated by NASA via http://su...

Image via Wikipedia

From the HockeySchtick

Video: Geophysicist explains how the Sun controls climate, not CO2

Dr. Vincent Courtillot is a professor of geophysics at the University Paris-Diderot and Chair of paleomagnetism and geodynamics of the Institut Universitaire de France. In the recent lecture below he explains how solar cycles control the climate by influence on cloud formation (the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al) and via influence on ocean oscillations and length of day. Dr. Courtillot notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions).

He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.

h/t to TheTempestSpark

About these ads

145 thoughts on “Courtillot on the solar UV climate connection

  1. There are probably more things that change the climate than just the sun, but at least this a much better explanation than just co2 alone.

  2. This video should be required viewing for EVERY Western government official – not only because it debunks the IPCC 4th Assessment and all who sail in her – but because of his absolute clarity and logic.

  3. To be fair, he doesn’t say ‘the Sun controls climate, not CO2′, he alludes to the sun being a factor requiring more research.

    The feeling I get from that video is the climate science is too incomplete to confirm either political bias.

  4. No reasonable person could watch this lecture and still believe that we know enough about the climate, and man’s influence on it, to take any sort of remedial action now in the hope that it would necessarily help and not hurt the future of mankind.

  5. It is no surprise that the GCM’s fix most factors in place. The number of variables that are known to exist is astonishing. The warmists adherence to CO2 means that the Milankovitch cycles have to be CO2 based and that forces them to only pay attention to TSI.

    I am baffled each time someone ignores the change in hemispheric energy by stating that the TSI changes very little. Some people just don’t want to understand. I am still not convinced on the solar, but it is interesting and it is not a simple relationship either. One day hopefully it will be figured out, but it will be long after AGW is buried.

  6. As far as climate goes, the sun is a leading indicator; carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator. It’s as simple as that, folks.

  7. It’s worse than they think. Aside from large UV variation is GCR (galactic cosmic rays) variation (Svensmark). The sun’s magnetic field, which varies in both predictable ways (11 year solar cycle and 200 year cycle) throttles the GCR flux but the flux also varies with where in the sun is positioned within the galaxy (very predictable) and what GCR generating events in the vicinity (primarily supernovae) are happening. The sun doesn’t orbit the galactic center at the same rate the spiral arms revolve so it periodically traverses a spiral arm. When inside a spiral arm, with far higher stellar density, there is an increased likelyhood of supernovae in the vicinity. The sun also wanders up and down through the galactic plane which also serves to position it in regions with more or less stellar density. Right now it’s in a lower density region of the galaxy and will remain in a low density region for millions of years to come but that only means the average number of supernovae will be fewer but it only takes one event in the vicinity to radically change GCR flux and supernovae are not at all predictable – we don’t one has occured for as many years as it takes for the wavefront to arrive which can be hundreds or thousands of years after the actual event.

  8. If solar uv is so important to global climate, would it be possible to have a graph on the solar reference page showing uv output? One plotted alongside global temperature would be nice, if you could just knock that out in your lunch break.

  9. That. Was. Awesome. I loved his very quick speaking approach, yet he always took time to be clear for us dunderheads, to maximize his audience impact. The fastest 32 minutes of video I’ve ever seen on the internet. I appreciate his commitment to science, [paraphrased] “I may be wrong, but at least my conclusions are based on real observational data, and not numerical models.”

    “If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science.”

    “We have 100% real problems. Why spend resources on the 90%?”

    A+

  10. This is going to go down as one of the defining presentations of this century. How much more sense does this make as opposed to the very vague and speculative case for warming by CO2? Not that this is totally new, but instead rejected by the powers that be in the climate science dictatorship because it has serious inplications for their pet theories.
    The evidence fits, the concept makes sense and would explain so much about the past as well.
    I hope we will see this incorporated in the climate models in the near future.

  11. I got some interesting results from Marion Island
    Latitude -46.88333
    Longitude 37.86667
    Altitude 22
    This is quite a bit south of South Africa
    So far I looked only at all the temperature data.
    I collected all average mean-, maximum-and minimum- temperatures for all months of the year from 1976 and plotted these against time. A linear regression was then performed. The slope of these formulae i.e. the figure before the “x” in each of the reported formulae, is also the rate of incline or decline (if negative) by which the temperature has increased or decreased over the last 35 years in degrees C/year.

    Taking the average over each of the 12 slopes for each of the months of the year, I find that from 1976 to 2010
    1) the rate of change of the mean temperature was 0.00 degrees C per annum: in other words: flat
    2) the maximum temperature has increased at a rate of 0.05 degrees C per annum
    3) the minimum temperature has decreased at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per annum

    Again these results indicate that heat content has stayed the same even though max. temps. have been rising.

    If warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, it is the minimum temperatures that should rise as heat would be trapped due to the green house effect. You would then expect the minimum temperatures to rise at a rate as fast as – or even faster than – the mean- and maximum temperatures. What I find is exactly the opposite: minimum temperatures in Marion Island have actually declined by 0.02 degrees C per annum whereas the means have stayed the same and the maximum temperatures have increased. The theory of warming caused by an increase in green house gases is therefore again proved invalid by the evidence presented from the measured results here, at Marion Island.

  12. I came across this (via Jo Nova’s site) a couple of days ago. I think it is possibly the clearest and most compelling presentation on climate change I’ve seen; better even than the always excellent Dick Lindzen. Despite being French and speaking very quickly in English, he held my attention throughout his crisp and precise 32 minutes. To my mind, it’s a first rate overview of current scientific uncertainty with, as you say, an especially interesting summary of solar (cosmic ray) influence. I urge everyone to watch it.

    Two quotations:

    1. “Uncertainties have been enormously underestimated.”
    2.”There are such things as regional climates, but there is no such thing as world climate.”

    His remark that younger scientists who choose to work on science that is not in line with AGW theory is chilling.

  13. Apologies – my last paragraph should have read: His remark that younger scientists who choose to work on science that is not in line with AGW theory would not get jobs/funding is chilling

  14. I am also convinced changing solar activity is the primary driver of the global climate.

    Why warmers almost totally discount solar activity, is incredible. The impact of solar activity is all around us, from night to do, and from season to season.

    I suppose the political attraction to CO2 warming is just too overwhelming to many.

  15. The video is exceptional. This scientist is properly skeptical while putting forward data that can be verified and theories that depend on real, experimental data. Furthermore, he is unusually well spoken — straight-forward scientific language (accurate human communication). A joy to listen to. I hope everyone who visits WUWT will give him focused listening time. Thanks, Anthony, and deep gratitude to Dr. Vincent Courtillot

  16. I am also convinced changing solar activity is the primary driver of the global climate.

    Why warmers almost totally discount solar activity, is incredible. The impact of solar activity is all around us, from night to day, and from season to season.

    I suppose the political attraction to CO2 warming is just too overwhelming to many.

  17. A good summary but I’m not convinced that length of day or cosmic ray quantities are responsible for the observed effects.

    Variations in the surface spread of the polar air masses due to solar induced variations in the polar vortex resulting in latitudinal jetstream shifts and changes in global albedo and cloudiness as the length of the air mass boundaries changes around the globe seems to be a simpler and more obvious mechanism to my mind at least.

  18. Well, what can one possibly say? With my engineer’s hat on, blimey! It was a wonderful talk, well balanced, argued, demostrated, (& falsifiable!). Shaviv’s talk would be interesting if available. With my eco-carbophobialist hat on, “How dare this upstart heretic shill of big oil/BP/Exon/Mobile et al speak such foul lies & deceit against our true god, Greenism, have him incarerated, flogged, hung until half dead, castrated, disemboweled, his eyeless, toothless face whipped, then burn him at the stake like all vile heretics”. Sarc off!!! Interesting that he mentioned being attacked for his views & his struggles to get published, & nice to hear somebody in the European scientific establishment speak out with what can only be descirbed as common sense! Mr Watts, Dr Courtillot mentioned “Fred” early on, was that Fred S. Singer by any chance?

  19. This is another very good article along the same lines but details further how the Sun is the controlling factor for temperature on Earth.

    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect.pdf

    The Radiative Equilibrium Temperature of the Earth with the Sun.
    We‟ll now get into some physics and discover that we can quite accurately predict the
    radiative temperature of the Earth given just a small spattering of the laws of physics

  20. It is no surprise to me that he and his colleagues have run into the brick wall of pal review, as have so many others whose findings are not in line with the AGW crowd. His remark about his co-workers, i.e.no students because that would have a bad effect on their careers is saddening. One would wish someone of his calibre would be able to teach many a generation of young minds.

    The applause for his statement about too many models and not enough observations illustrates one of the great frustrations most of us have with the model- but not reality-based AGW papers.

    Personally, I fond the clarity and logic of his thoughts and presentation very refreshing, showing the great tradition of French physicists.

  21. Well worth the watch. Key point: his ‘in-your-face’ flouting of the AGW elitist club. In other words, “I’m going to do science, because your ad hominem means nothing to me nor my future.” Very telling.

    Back to Phil Jones’ hiding the data from general consumption….how convenient. (sarc) Dr. Courtillot has done a great service by standing up and calmly (with no fear) dashing the warmist ship onto the reef of reality.

    Models be damned.

  22. Courtillot gives a brilliant 30 min back to basics/data presentation of major correlations with solar cycles that are ignored and not explained by the IPCC models.

    Enormous underestimation of uncertainties.
    Temperature variations different between Eu and US.
    Ocean oscillation correlates with solar cycles.
    Earth Length of Day – thus winds – vary with solar cycles.
    10% variation in UV; > 10% variation in EUV
    Variation in atmospheric charging, currents, clouds

    Highly recommend.

    PS Moderator – Courtillot refers to an associated presentation by Nir Shaviv
    Please post Shaviv’s presentation.

  23. Why does UV make sense? Ionization of water. It’s the essentially the same cloud formation mechanism as Svensmark albeit with action directly from the Sun.

    http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch23/radiation.php

    To save you the trouble of looking up the numbers:
    1216 kJ/mol to ionize water
    1 mole = 6.022E23
    h = 6.63E-34 Js
    c = 2.99e8 m/s
    λ = hc/E
    = ~ 100 nm
    freq = 3E15 /s

    Verification refs:

    http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/3313/3392670/blb2109.html

    http://www.btinternet.com/~martin.chaplin/data.html

  24. I have given and received hundreds of lectures in my time as an engineer, Army officer and educationalist, but never have I seen or heard a clearer, more convincing, focused and balanced performance as this by Professor Vincent Courtillot. Well done Sir.

  25. Always the sun.

    How can a trace natural gas cause so many problems that the alarmists keep proposing?

    It can’t. It never has for billions of years, so why now?

    This is quite a good video.

  26. “The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.”

    Lief Svalgaard does the same BTW.

  27. Ok…so after reading this I wondered if anyone had tried to link “climate change” with supernova activity since there would be a spike in cosmic rays on Earth if one occurred close by. Maybe this has been discussed here before and I missed it…my apologies if so.

    With a quick search I found this:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/blame-it-on-the-supernova-535746.html

    and this

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20041101/supernova.html

    So even on supernovas they cant agree on what would happen…one says cooling, one says warming..

    Putting my own deductive hat on, I found that the last two supernovas in our glaxay occurred around 1860 and 1680. http://theultimaterenaissance.com/2008/05/18/the-last-supernova-discovered/
    Both of these time periods are associated with lows in the temperature record. Anyone know if this has been explored more indepth?

  28. Ziiex Zeburz says:

    “The French…”

    Ahem…he’s German (at least German speaking). You need to find a different river. Sorry.

    Ed

  29. The current TLT temperature drop will soon have to be explained.

    With the SOI still at an unprecendented high, a natural forcing needs to be addressed:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

    Dr Spencer claims that a 1% change in cloud cover can account for the 1980-1998 warming. It appears to me that if the current negative NAO and positive SOI are tied to the low solar peak the forcing is likely external.

  30. Dr. Courtillot has one big problem common to all ‘sun devotees’. Between 1940-1960 there was unprecedented high solar activity ( presumably high UV too) and the global temperatures turned down (no global warming but global cooling !), one might say a case s . d’s law. If you have hypothesis, let alone theory, then you need to explain that global temperature downturn.
    The CO2 proponents have dismally failed.
    Only credible explanations is in the oceans’ currents, and it is perfectly simple explanation, if one cares to understand how and where ocean circulation and currents are subject to well known physical processes, and how they interact with climate.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

  31. Please keep this wonderful video on top, for a while. It is very important to witness a scientist speaking as a true scientist. For many warmists, this may be their first time, in their brainwashed existence, they actually hear, what good science, sounds like. GK

  32. Stephen Wilde says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:30 am

    I think adding your explanation to his to describe more fully how the solar/cosmic ray effects manifest in the weather patterns takes us another step closer to the truth. There are far too many variables for one simple explanation to cover the entire thing.

  33. Prof. Fred Singer presents the Report “Nature, not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change'(NIPCC) at CFACT’s International Climate Eco-Summit (I.C.E.) at the Center for Political Studies, Copenhagen, Denmark. December 11, 2009. The whole talk lasts for 45 minutes

    Fred Singer presents the NIPCC Report (5 parts) by GlobalStewardship

    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CCD06BE4C566F77C&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_710789

  34. OK. Maybe that was too easy. WHEN does the UV change and how? Does it correlate with any weather phenomena? Is there any evidence like cosmic ray and cloud formation (really good)?

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solarcycle-sorce.html

    “SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did….”

    Which suggests that any UV effect is not the same as the Svensmark hypothesis, acting in the lower atmosphere to influence cloud formation.

    Well, have fun in the sandbox, kids. It’s time to go back into my dungeon and earn some money.

  35. Mr Watts, Dr Courtillot mentioned “Fred” early on, was that Fred S. Singer by any chance?

    Probably; he mentioned him by last name at 1:14.

    The snippet I liked best was the part at 18:25 where he said that his critics use the chestnut that correlation is not (necessarily) causation as an excuse to dismiss (“forget it”) the possibility that correlation MIGHT be meaningful (indicate causation).

    He misspoke at 7:20 when he said, “1886”; he meant “1986.”

    He also misspoke at 8:35 when he said, “monotonous behavior”; he meant “monotonic …”

    He could have used better terminology at 10:35 when he said, “separated by fairly fast changes”; a better last pair of words would have been “… sharp reversals.”

    He also misspoke at about 14:00 when he said “If you cut the data before the optimum,” when he meant “… after the optimum.”

    He also misspoke at 28:15 when he said, “they twitter a parameter.” He meant “… tweak ….”

  36. Magnificent!
    A few specific notes….

    1. Coming from a background in electronics, his way of thinking clarified several things that I hadn’t caught before. Trees are adaptive HP filters! Perhaps the statistical folks have said this in some other way, but it wasn’t a way that I could understand. And the part about ionospheric currents being modulated by cosmic rays makes great sense; corresponds to the Armagh ‘storminess’ index.

    2. “We have to work with senior people who are near retirement”. This is a huge problem in many areas of life, not just science. Tenure and careerism are so strong that you can only get truth from retired people who are no longer hoping for employment or consultant gigs.

    3. As with most video presentations, the camera operator has the journalistic tendency to focus on the speaker’s face, not on the graphs. This is frustrating!

  37. As a casual observation I have always been amazed that people could imply that a 0.1% change in TSI has little effect on climate, but a 0.01% change in earth’s atmospheric content be the sole cause of all climate change.

    (0.01% = 100 ppm, which is the approximate increase in CO2)

  38. Ed Fix says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Ziiex Zeburz says:

    “The French…”

    Ahem…he’s German (at least German speaking). You need to find a different river. Sorry.

    Ed

    Who is german ?
    Professor Dr. Vincent E. Courtillot (born 6 March 1948) is a French geophysicist.

  39. An excellent presentation I think. And I decided that early on in the video — long before I found out that Courtillot was going to confirm point after point that I have worked out for myself. The only problem is that I have developed a certain amount of suspicion over the years of people that tell me what I want to hear.

    One question though, does anyone have an explanation for the different temperature patterns in North America and Europe? Both regions are in the Northern hemisphere and not too different in latitude. It’s all well and good to chortle that the IPCC et al models don’t account for that. But something must. No?

  40. Note asides about the difficulty of getting students to help and of getting published. Dr. Courtillot and his colleagues are real scientists doing important work, but because they don’t toe the CAGW line students are afraid to work with them. This situation will only change when the IPCC ‘consensus’ is discredited and disconnected from funding—but until then students have to be encouraged to stand up and risk their future careers—which may look like foresight a few years hence, or so one might hope.

    /Mr Lynn

  41. He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.

    Can someone explain the logic?

    CO2 level 1981 – 340.51 ppm
    level 2011 – 391.76 ppm Table data source: Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/ESRL
    Difference 51.25 ppm in 30 years

    Therefore it is a change of = 1.71 ppm/year or 0.00017 percent per year

    So they can clearly dismiss 0.1% but 0.00017% is all important???

  42. jackstraw says on April 5, 2011 at 9:22 am

    As a casual observation I have always been amazed that people could imply that a 0.1% change in TSI has little effect on climate, but a 0.01% change in earth’s atmospheric content be the sole cause of all climate change.

    (0.01% = 100 ppm, which is the approximate increase in CO2)

    A problem with that argument is that while the CO2 increase is 0.01% increase when looked at from the point of view of the whole atmosphere, it is a 40% increase when looked at from the point of view of CO2 by itself. (That is, you are not going to convince the die hard creationist AGW crowd.)

    Of course, looking at it from the point of view of CO2 itself assumes that CO2 is the controlling factor, and no one has demonstrated, to my satisfaction that CO2 is the controlling factor.

  43. Courtillo’s lecture was brilliant. Shaviv was less inspiring but was nevertheless extremely informative. Shaviv’s most important output for me was that climate sensitivity comes out at 1 if you include solar influences. This makes so much more sense than the high sensitivities required by the GCMs. I have never understood how the world could ever have recovered from its frequent periods of hot and cold if the climate had strong positive feedback. Such an unstable system model did not look right.
    In both lectures the correlations are so clear. Surely noone can seriously doubt them any more can they?

  44. [I can't watch the video just now - will do so later - but can at least comment on what Anthony writes about it...]

    Dr. Courtillot notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations…

    This has been clear since day one. This point just needs to be put in these terms, over and over and over, until the modelers are shamed into responding.

    …and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions)

    Also true since day one. In “the early years” (pre-CA/WUWT) this was used and abused by the warmers, who would most of the time be able to point out something going on in either N.A. or Europe – but not nearly so often both.

    SamG April 5, 2011 at 6:50 am

    The feeling I get from that video is the climate science is too incomplete…

    That is the very heart and soul of skepticism, IMHO.

    Jeff W April 5, 2011 at 6:56 am:

    No reasonable person could watch this lecture and still believe that we know enough about the climate, and man’s influence on it, to take any sort of remedial action now in the hope that it would necessarily help and not hurt the future of mankind.

    An important point, Jeff. Now if we think about how microscopic of an effect the Kyoto Protocol was going to have – even given trillions of dollars proposed to be spent on it – can we really think that at this stage of industrialization/civilization/science that we humans are even capable of affecting the climate?

  45. We keep on seeing references to CO2 levels in the atmosphere … 390 ppm
    and so on. May I ask what might be a silly question …

    How are these figures derived? Or, put another way, where in the world is
    the measure (or these measures) taken? Or are the quoted figures yet more
    ‘means’ to be fiddled with ?

    After all, for the hue and cry to make any sense, it seems to me that CO2
    levels in the atmosphere above/adjacent to “rogue nations” belching out
    vast amounts of “carbon pollution” (sic), would of necessity be higher than
    CO2 levels in the vicinity of areas where this ‘pollution’ is minimal.

    Compare for example an industrial coal-burning area in China, and the
    relatively pristine air around and above my home town of Wellington, NZ.
    Surely it is not being suggested that the CO2 levels in these cases are the
    same? For the reason that claims about CO2 ‘pollution’ being caused by
    man’s activities would then make no sense.

    OK, let us suppose they are different: if so, then how are these figures
    derived that purport to show GLOBAL CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere,
    down to such detail as quoted in an earler post:

    > CO2 level 1981 – 340.51 ppm
    > level 2011 – 391.76 ppm

    ?
    Search me. Doubtless there is a simple explanation, and I would be
    grateful if someone could provide it for me. Thanks in advance.

  46. Having listened to the Shaviv’s presentation too, I noticed no comparison graphs of solar cycles SC18 and SC19, 1945-1970 the highest ever solar activity, with then contemporary temperature downturn. Only hypothesis correctly predicting 1948 to 1982 cooling is one based on the North Atlantic’s currents:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

    Time for scientists to wake up, either from the excessive CO2 or sunshine induced snooze, to the bitterly cold waters of the sub-polar Atlantic.
    Suggested reading the web-pages of:
    Alfred Wegener Institute http://www.awi.de/en/
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution http://www.whoi.edu/

  47. RockyRoad says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:00 am
    As far as climate goes, the sun is a leading indicator; carbon dioxide is a trailing indicator. It’s as simple as that, folks.

    Historically, that is exactly the picture Nature itself paints.
    As goes the Sun, so goes the Climate.
    I look upon it as a matter of how it works, and by what components, not as a question of does it really exist.
    Look how long an arduous path the workings of the motion of the Planets had to take in order to finally get it right.

  48. The diagram at 23:17 shows total solar energy at the top of the atmosphere to be 342 w/m2. Shouldn’t that be more like 1342 w/m2?
    He then uses this number to make a few points about how changes in cloud cover will change the input by a few percent. A few percent of 1342 is much larger than the same percent of 342.
    I can see forgetting the one when you’re preparing the slide, but he should have caught it during the talk.

  49. DD More says:
    April 5, 2011 at 9:57 am
    He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet.

    Can someone explain the logic?

    Certainly: CO2 is being acted upon by the Climate. For the reverse to be true, the caboose would have to pull the engine. But Climate does not drive itself to long-term changes. That takes exterior processes, such as orbital elements, GCR’s and Solar changes.
    The 10% change in Solar UV as well as a shrunken outer atmosphere are significant findings. Elevated GCR levels add on top of those changes.

  50. Henry@Rex

    Although CO2 is heavier than air, it also diffuses in it. But it does take some time to mix in with the air. Compare it a little bit with mixing sugar in water. If you stir it enough, (wind- pressure differences) it all mixes up and you find the CO2 diffuses and divides up equally in the air.
    There is a relatively easy method to determine CO2 in the air and you can do it anywhere. However, for some reason, it seems Manoa Loa (in Hawaii) is taken as the
    reference point for the CO2 content of the air on earth, presumeably because they have the longest record of measurements, going back to the fifties. Contrary to what is the general opinion, I believe more carbon dixode is better, as it stimulates growth and and has no influnence on temperature whatsoever, as also pointed out by me in an earlier post here.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

    I hope this helps. Ask more if it is not clear.

  51. vukcevic says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:42 am
    “Having listened to the Shaviv’s presentation too, I noticed no comparison graphs of solar cycles SC18 and SC19, 1945-1970 the highest ever solar activity, with then contemporary temperature downturn.”

    _____________________________________________________________

    The global cooling which occurred between 1945 and 1975 (negative PDO) was about 0.2C – half the level of WARMING which occurred during the previous and subsequent PDO’s (1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 2000).

    If all other things were equal, wouldn’t one expect the level of cooling during the negative PDO to cancel out the level of warming during the positive PDO’s? In other words, I am proposing that the high level of solar activity DID cause the Earth to warm, but our complete and utter obsession with the Global Surface temperature record meant that this warming was effectively disguised since it took the form of reduced cooling.

    In climate science, NOTHING is ever straight-forward………..

  52. “”””” Dave Springer says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:00 am
    It’s worse than they think. Aside from large UV variation is GCR (galactic cosmic rays) variation (Svensmark). The sun’s magnetic field, which varies in both predictable ways (11 year solar cycle and 200 year cycle) “””””

    Dave the Solar Magnetic cycle is 22 years; not 11 years. I have seen reports that a 22 year cyclic global Temperature signal exists; but that an 11 year one does not. This would be consistent with the idea that since the earth magnetic field does not flip like the sun’s (every 11 years) that the combined solar/terrestrial magnetic field should have a 22 year cyclic variation; which could lead to a Temperature shift, via the Svensmark effect.

    To me the information that there is a quite large Solar Spectral Irradiance shift, is very interesting.

    It would be nice to see some actual data on solar spectral irradiance cycling. (the UV effect)

  53. Ed Fix says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:27 am

    French. Last automn he give a presentation , Ministre Allegro? to the academie de scientifique in Paris. He and the Ministre were defending themselves against the academy’s proposition that AGW was real and significant. Sadly they did not convince le conseil and the academy came down in favour of AGW.

  54. “”””” Ole says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:52 am
    The diagram at 23:17 shows total solar energy at the top of the atmosphere to be 342 w/m2. Shouldn’t that be more like 1342 w/m2? “””””

    Ole, 342 is 1/4 of 1368 which was a reasonable value for the Total Solar Irradiance up till recently. NASA now claims the best value is 1362 W/m^2.

    For some reason; apparently due to the totally unprecedented and remarkable fact that 4pi.R^2 is exactly four times pi. R^2, so we should now use 340.5 instead of 342.

    This is somehow related to the fact that the TSI of 1362 Watts per metre squared gets intercepted by an aperture of total area pi.R^2, and is then spread non-uniformly over an earth surface area of slightly more than 2pi.R^2; but that area is only illuminated on average for 12 out of the 24 hours in a day.

    Evidently the idea that the earth rotates, is a bit difficult for some people to grasp, since nobody ever feels like they are rotating; so to compensate for the rotation effect; they divide everything by four.

  55. jack morrow says:
    April 5, 2011 at 6:29 am
    There are probably more things that change the climate than just the sun, but at least this a much better explanation than just co2 alone.

    ____
    Who is saying that CO2 ALONE changes the climate? Please be specifc and site references…

  56. Stephen recommended (“wow!”) a recent article. here’s more on it, and a better URL:

    “How Scientific Is Climate Science? What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in plain English.”

    By DOUGLAS J. KEENAN
    WSJ, April 4, 2011:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html

    [This URL dodges the paywall]

    Comments at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

  57. “How are these figures derived? Or, put another way, where in the world is
    the measure (or these measures) taken?”

    A reasonable question. They are measured “continuously” (As I recall, that means hourly) by a CO2 observatory at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. The observations are cross checked against periodic, but much less frequent measurements made at a number of other stations ranging from the Arctic to the Antarctic. The stations all show similar trends although levels are slightly lower as one moves away from the equator.

    Why are they measuring CO2 on a volcano? Presumably because CO2 contamination from volcanic activity is easier to detect, quantify and correct for than CO2 from industrial, residential or biological sources that might affect readings at some less isolated location.

  58. rbateman said at 10:59 am
    Certainly: CO2 is being acted upon by the Climate. ….
    rbateman, you know better than that. Let’s not confuse the faithful. :)
    For something to be “acted upon” it first has to exsit. A baseball players action/performance at the plate can NOT be “acted upon” by his batting average and “climate” – like a batting average – is nothing more than a statistic that “exsits” only on paper – – or in a computer.
    Now, back to the game….

  59. I’m happy to say that I had the pleasure of attending that conference and watching his presentation live. It’s well worth the time watching.

  60. R. Gates says:

    “Who is saying that CO2 ALONE changes the climate? Please be specifc and site [sic] references…”

    References: “Carbon,” “carbon footprint,” “carbon credits,” etc. The entire global warming scare is based on the demonization of a harmless trace gas.

  61. R. Gates says on April 5, 2011 at 11:39 am

    jack morrow says:
    April 5, 2011 at 6:29 am
    There are probably more things that change the climate than just the sun, but at least this a much better explanation than just co2 alone.

    ____
    “Who is saying that CO2 ALONE changes the climate? Please be specifc and site references…”

    Who says that a 40% increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution will cause climate change that we cannot live with?

    Please be specific about the alleged mechanisms and cite references.

  62. Anything is possible says:
    …………………
    What matters for the northern hemisphere’s climate are the excursions of the jet-stream; I think these are directly affected by the high latitude currents in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. This is borne out by correlations as shown in:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

    World-wide SST due to the oceans thermal capacity and volume is a bit less volatile than the land ST.

  63. Most interesting CERN lecture on the subject

    [video src="http://mediaarchive.cern.ch/MediaArchive/Video/Public/Conferences/2009/52576/52576-0753-kbps-480x360-25-fps-audio-64-kbps-44-kHz-stereo.flv" /]

  64. AJB & Ed Scott
    Thanks for the links to Shaviv’s presentation.
    Can you point to the other presentations. e.g. Bob Carter & Henrik Svensmark. (I clicked on that next but my German is a bit rusty.)

  65. Rex says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:39 am

    We keep on seeing references to CO2 levels in the atmosphere … 390 ppm
    and so on. May I ask what might be a silly question …

    How are these figures derived? Or, put another way, where in the world is
    the measure (or these measures) taken? Or are the quoted figures yet more
    ‘means’ to be fiddled with ?

    The answer you want is in my guide to WUWT, see

    2010 Jun 4: Under the Volcano, Over the Volcano

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/

    Willis Eschenbach’s description of how CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa are made and the steps they take to exclude measurements with recent CO2 releases from local volcanic and anthropogenic sources.

  66. Don K says:
    April 5, 2011 at 9:36 am
    One question though, does anyone have an explanation for the different temperature patterns in North America and Europe? Both regions are in the Northern hemisphere and not too different in latitude…
    _______
    I would like to point out the simplest and most obvious explanation that is overlooked by most people in this debate.

    *Climate is a regional phenomenon.*

    There is no such thing as a “Global” climate, global is an artificial construct. See Dr. Bob Carters video above for a very thorough treatment of this concept. This is self evident in that climates are described by zones or types and regions and biomes.

  67. vukcevic says:
    April 5, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    I broadly concur, but what we have to ask ourselves is what drives the changes in the jetstream and high latitude currents that you have highlighted.

    The fundamental laws of physics tell us that the Earth’s ocean-atmosphere system is compelled to try and equalize temperatures over the entire planet. Every time there is a radiative imbalance, the system will react, and try to correct it. This is the entire reason the Earth has weather and hence climate. Of course, the whole thing is so chaotic and complex that it can never hope to succeed, but it is going to try come what may.

    Given this, it is my belief that incoming radiation from the Sun ultimately drives EVERYTHING. Even if the overall quantity of radiation changes very little over the course of time, incoming radiation at local and regional levels, affected by clouds in the short-term and Milankovich Cycles over very long-terms , can vary enormously. And it is these which drive climate change.

    A Nobel Prize awaits the scientist(s) who figure(s) all this out and, unlike some of those meted out in the past, it will be thoroughly well-merited.

  68. R Gates says
    You never cease to amaze . I think the comments after your post answers your question sufficiently for me.

  69. Don’t let the warmers see this video – they’ll start saying we have to control the sun. Imagine large scale UV filters. I’m starting to work on my theory and costly solutions tomorrow.

  70. I’ve just read Stephen Wilde’s article (see link in post @ 1:10pm), and have to say he could well be onto something. I commend it to the house, as they say.

    Climate science always seems to make a lot more sense when CO2 is left out of the conversation. Funny how that works.

  71. There is a solution to the sun problem, just fit light meters on peoples homes and tax them according to the amount of sunlight received.
    That’ll fix it.

  72. @R. Gates

    “Who is saying that CO2 ALONE changes the climate? Please be specifc and site references…”

    Oh my, you really don’t know do you?

    Even though you’ve made reference to them yourself.

    IPCC says CO2 drives the climate and the cause is the humans emissions of CO2. They actually decided as much in 1988, if you care to read their history.

    And if you haven’t found the IPCC site yet or read all their material and information . . . 0_O

  73. Stephen Wilde says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:30 am
    A good summary but I’m not convinced that length of day or cosmic ray quantities are responsible for the observed effects.

    **********************

    Variation in length of day is almost certainly a “knock-on” effect of underlying causes. Length-of-day variations have an almost perfect correlation with the “Z” component of the atmospheric angular momentum — that is the vector component of AAM about the earth’s poles. That is, when the LOD is longer (the earth is rotating more slowly), the Z-component of AAM is higher (i.e. more west-to-east winds). Which is to say that the angular momentum of the earth and atmosphere combined is well conserved, but can be exchanged somewhat between the two components.

    We really only have good measurements of global AAM in the satellite era, but we have accurate LOD measurements for far longer. And the LOD measurements correlate very well with global temperature indices over these times. But the discussions I have seen (no time to find them now) only consider LOD a proxy for AAM vaules.

    Now, of course, correlation does not imply causation, and getting at directions of causality and fundamental root causes in something like this tends to be enormously difficult. But I don’t see fundamental incompatibilities between Courtillot’s ideas and yours.

  74. Anything is possible says:
    ………..
    a. Occasionally I refer to ‘global temperature (it doesn’t exist), since that is current ‘in thing’, however all my graphs (except for one) are referenced to CETs as the longest and the most reliable temperature record available.
    b. Here I am going to consider a specific case of the summer’s versus winter’s CETs for ~ 300 years (1700-1990) period.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm

    What do we see?
    – Summer temperatures are relatively constant within range of + – 0. 5 degree C. No temperature rise!
    – Winter temperatures vary a bit more – 0.5 to +1 degree C, but with a gradient of ~ ¼ degree per century, but again the winters around 1725 were just as warm as those of 1990.
    What do I conclude?
    Summer temperature is mainly controlled by amount of sunshine, with a bit of a stretch one might find some correlation to the solar activity, but ~300 year result is nill.
    Winters depend on the wind direction, south-westerly warm, any of the north directions cold, and these are directly controlled by the jet stream.
    Spring and autumn are a bit in between two. From this graph

    I can see that most of warming happened from 1680-1725 with a second bit 1985- 2010. CETs show that all assumptions about both CO2 and solar activity as driving factors appear to be misplaced.

  75. An excellent scientifically based appraisal and unbiased presentation!
    You know, it is increasingly looking likely that there will be a time when ‘it’s the sun, stupid’ will indeed be proven – it is, after all – the most logical, the most probable and most convincing reason for the majority of climate variability, no matter what the alarmists say..
    Yes, there MAY be some minor anthropogenic influence (+ and – ve) but determining it quantitatively and looking at it in relation to the chaotic system that forms our climate, is somewhat fanciful daydreaming, no matter how many ‘models’ you want to make.
    Personally, I do feel the debate is over – in terms of CO2 being the smoking gun. Realistically, it’s barely a pea shooter compared to the howitzer that is the sun!

    I sometimes wonder if it wouldn’t be better just to leave the warmists to argue amongst themselves – after all, any reasonable, even semi-scientifically knowledgeable person must, by now, be well aware that the warmist peddlings are largely false and extremely exaggerated?

    When will the day come, when skeptic sites (on AGW) simply put up a final post:
    ‘Listen guys, its not CO2 – the debate is over – this site is now closed’ ?
    Oh what a day that WILL be……

  76. May I add this to the post above: Jet stream is formed in higher latitudes, where winter insolation is low (at the most only few hours a day), so it is unlikely that it is controlled by solar output. Polar vortex is actually result of the low insolation factor.
    However, the North Atlantic Ocean’s currents (subpolar gyre) with great conflict between the warm waters of the North Atlantic drift current and the cold East Greenland currents. This is place where warm waters surface, releasing accumulated thermal energy into air 24h a day, and in my view the primary cause of jet stream deviations.

    There is a similar location in the Antarctica, controlling the southern polar vortex.

  77. Courtillot’s presentation is WELL worth the half-hour invested. If nothing else, it demonstrates the immense difference between a conscientious scientist confronting the unknowns in the field of his expertise by looking critically at the best-available data and a grandstanding one making sweeping pronouncements outside his field of expertise by relying uncritically on a preliminary sample of highly flawed data. What a refreshing change!

  78. Anthony,

    Thanks for giving Dr. Vincent Courtillot’s presentation exposure.

    When I first read it several weeks ago I found it opened many doors the lead the discussion away from the AGW-by-CO2 echo chamber and toward more fruitful discourse.

    John

  79. Bloke down the pub says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:04 am

    If solar uv is so important to global climate, would it be possible to have a graph on the solar reference page showing uv output? One plotted alongside global temperature would be nice, if you could just knock that out in your lunch break.

    I keep a fairly regular update of the recorded EUV values here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/128

    Dr. Courtillot does a fine job of demounting the TSI bogey. Beware of those that continue to use TSI as proof of the non existence of solar forcing.

  80. Hang on… I am in before the Leif? Dr Svalgard must have something to say about this I would have thought.

    I must say Dr Courtillot is an excellent speaker.

  81. “”””” Ole says:
    April 5, 2011 at 12:27 pm
    Thanks George, I knew there had to be something I was forgetting. “”””

    Ole, I do hope my rather obvious Kiwi flippant tone was recognized as such by you. That aspect was not aimed at you; but at those who believe Kevin Trenberth’s cartoon model of the earth energy budget permits simply averaging the TSI over the whole earth surface so that we get 342 W/m^2 even at the South Pole, in the dead of the Antarctic winter night.

    The TSI comes in every tropical morning at 1362 W/m^2; less what the atmosphere absorbs or scatters, to give maybe 1000 W/m^2 at the surface. In any case it is four times what Trenberth claims, and since the energy-Temperature relationship, is highly non-linear, you can’t simply divide the power by four because of the relationshsip between sphere surface area and circle surface area.

    And since the bulk of that incoming TSI- AM-1 insolation goes immediately into the deep ocean, even at 3/4 of the speed of light, it gets deep very damn quickly, and it isn’t going to all come back out before tomorrow morning when the sun gives a repeat performance. And that part that does hit the ground; say in the parkign lot at the University of Arizona, outside their climate science center; at 1000 W/m^2 (projected area) it is going to heat the ground a darn side more than does the 250 W/m^2 average that Trenberth insists it is.

    But anyhow; there’s your factor of four; and I figured you knew that anyway; but it slipped your mind.

  82. Bulldust says:
    April 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm
    Hang on… I am in before the Leif? Dr Svalgard must have something to say about this I would have thought.
    This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments. Perhaps a note on EUV: as you can see here (slide 13)
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/2008ScienceMeeting/doc/Session1/S1_03_Kopp.pdf the energy in the EUV band [and other UV bands] is very tiny; many orders of magnitude less than what shines down on our heads each day. So a larger solar cycle variation of EUV does not make any significant difference in the energy budget.

  83. He’s a scientist, so matter what his cause, he can’t help but slip in a call for more research funding at the end.

    I’m not accusing him of any ill will, but I’ve heard so many people defend scientists as being above the fray when it comes for pushing personal beliefs and not doing things in order to attract funding.

  84. Leif Svalgaard says, “This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments.”

    Patently untrue.

    Do you understand this seminal work?

    Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day. Geophysical Research Letters 37, L15307. doi:10.1029/2010GL043185.

  85. Oops apologies for the missing “a” in Svalgaard … I was debating that in my head when I hit send. I shall have to browse that link after lunch.

  86. Roger Knights says:
    April 5, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Stephen recommended (“wow!”) a recent article. here’s more on it, and a better URL:

    “How Scientific Is Climate Science? What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in plain English.”

    By DOUGLAS J. KEENAN
    WSJ, April 4, 2011:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html

    [This URL dodges the paywall]

    Actually, it doesn’t. Same stub intro, no links to the content.

  87. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    On the other hand, Leif, what Courtillot and Geoff are saying fits the observations more closely than does the total output (TSI) which tells little.
    If you wanted to know who was the richest man in the room, the total wealth of all concerned would be the furthest data point from the answer.

  88. sky says:
    April 5, 2011 at 3:51 pm
    Courtillot’s presentation is WELL worth the half-hour invested. If nothing else, it demonstrates the immense difference between a conscientious scientist confronting the unknowns in the field of his expertise by looking critically at the best-available data and a grandstanding one making sweeping pronouncements outside his field of expertise by relying uncritically on a preliminary sample of highly flawed data. What a refreshing change!

    =======================

    Strongly agreed, sky! Your remarks repeated here for effect.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  89. vukcevic, after reading your comments, I suggest that you re-read Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010).

    Stephen Wilde, your ideas are not so incompatible with those of Courtillot, but Courtillot appears to be missing a few ingredients, such as the following:

    Schwing, F.B.; Jiang, J.; & Mendelssohn, R. (2003). Coherency of multi-scale abrupt changes between the NAO, NPI, and PDO. Geophysical Research Letters 30(7), 1406. doi:10.1029/2002GL016535.

    Leroux, M. (1993). The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes. Global and Planetary Change 7, 69-93.

    http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf


    Caution (based on misconceptions appearing in this thread):
    1) Circulation (not just clouds).
    2) Cosmic rays are confounded with other solar variables.
    3) LOD is not driver but driven (& therefore a very useful record).
    4) “Ocean explains everything” fans should think about how atmospheric circulation & clouds affect insolation (NOT to be confused with irradiance).
    5) Courtillot’s temperature curves are not where the money is; rather, see Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010).

  90. Re: Anything is possible says:
    April 5, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    Yes, interannual terrestrial coherence is with solar ROC (rate of change) [which is NOT to be confused with 11 year cycles].

  91. Paul Vaughan says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:38 pm
    Do you understand this seminal work?
    Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day.

    If I had been the referee, I would have rejected the paper.

    rbateman says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:53 pm
    On the other hand, Leif, what Courtillot and Geoff are saying fits the observations more closely
    Actually, no. To bolster your claim, list what observations, compute a ‘goodness’ fit and compare to what it is supposed to fit better.

  92. Vukcevic,

    Sun’s influence doesn’t preclude ocean currents’ influence, and vice versa. Also, they very well may be interconnected.

    The well-known correlation between “warmings” observed on Earth and on Mars (and even as far as on Pluto) proves that Sun plays a crucial role — to anybody, that is, who doesn’t shut his eyes and close his ears, mumbling “I am the world’s foremost Solar scientist…”

    There are many factors at play; we may not know some important ones yet.

  93. Brian H says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Roger Knights says:
    April 5, 2011 at 11:43 am

    Stephen recommended (“wow!”) a recent article. here’s more on it, and a better URL:

    “How Scientific Is Climate Science? What is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in plain English.”

    By DOUGLAS J. KEENAN
    WSJ, April 4, 2011:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html

    [This URL dodges the paywall]

    Actually, it doesn’t. Same stub intro, no links to the content.

    OK, this should work:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopBucket&rct=j&q=wsj%20%22How%20Scientific%20Is%20Climate%20Science%3F%22&ei=MgycTZrjH5DWtQObzJGKBA&usg=AFQjCNEy9PtgYrXrTcjilWK2SDhqB-adaA&sig2=GLrCZHVwU17wjbk6vR7qtg&cad=rja

  94. Alexander Feht says: April 5, 2011 at 11:49 pm
    …………………
    Let’s make it clear, I only look at CETs. Solar cycle influence is not excluded, sometimes is very obvious, particularly in the summer months, but then makes no or very little difference in the winters when insolation is low, and winters are the ones that defined rising trend.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETsw.htm

    So solar cycle is noticeable but it long term (beyond cycle max-cycle min period) I think it is not significant factor.
    Set of data (NAP) I am using

    is only one I know that accurately picks out some of the main points:
    distinct down-up-down 1650-1750 period
    flat-lines next 100 years
    accurately tracks 1900-2010 including contentious 1950-1985 period and possible forthcoming downturn.
    One major exception is 1880-1900 where it goes in the opposite direction. It is not a predictor, since there is no way of knowing or extrapolating the movement further ahead. It also should not be assumed that it accurately reflects any short period of years, but since it is totally solar or climate independent set of data, considering its trend it has to be an important if not a major forcing factor.
    Further more AMO, ENSO and PDO, the major climatic indicators, have no obvious solar component, but they fairly accurately reflect the rate of change (first derivative) in the sets of data (solar independent) either related to the N. Atlantic and N. Pacific, where the jet stream (I think) is directly affected by the oceans’ currents events .

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

  95. Paul Vaughan says:
    ……….
    Paul
    Thanks for the link. Air mass movement is a complex factor, difficult to ascertain where and when it is a cause or a consequence of other factors.

  96. This presentation by Dr Courtillot is very, very impressive; to me his scientific integrity shines through and is wonderfully illuminated by his ability to communicate sucinctly and with a measure of wit. It’s a pity that the actual video was the standard low-grade lecture-theatre production; the presentation deserved at least two cameras and professional editing to show the graphics and the professor to best advantage.
    Much of the presentation chimed with me and I was fascinated by the Professor’s concept that local and regional climates exist and have vast differences, e.g. the climates of North America and Europe, as I have been frustrated by those who promote global trends as a reflection of reality when they are nothing more than abstract constructs which are irrelevant to the huge majority of us who live in one region and never shift much from there.
    The professor’s low opinion of climate science as it is currently practiced by the promotors of CAGW due to excess CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere was also sucinctly expressed.

  97. Yes Jo Nova flagged that video up on the 30th March though. They were originally uploaded in early February 2011, and about 2 months after the original meeting at the beginning of December 2010. So eventually it is reported here four months after the event. It is this delay in reporting these conferences, and making video available which is detrimental to the cause. News is only News, when it is New. The new media ought to have an advantage over mainstream media in that regard, but sadly this appears to happen only rarely. Perhaps because the new media is in the main, run by amateur or part-time webmasters.

    It is probably important for viewers of the Vincent Courtillot presentation to see also the Nir Shaviv presentation, as they are complimentary. Bob Carter is always interesting in his own right. This is why viewers can see all three of these presentations on one page at The Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science.

    Click the name “Axel” above and then find these videos on Video Wall #10, click the Quick Page Menu button when at the website. Hoards more similar videos to see.

    I thank You !

  98. Alexander K says: April 6, 2011 at 1:56 am
    …………………
    It’s a pity that the actual video was the standard low-grade lecture-theatre production; the presentation deserved at least two cameras and professional editing to show the graphics and the professor to best advantage.

    I disagree very strongly. I think it was well shot and edited and clearly used at least two cameras. The sound was good, the pictures were sharp and well lit and the original graphic images were cut in at the appropriate points. Please post a link to something better done than this – I’d like to see it!

  99. This is a great presentation from a guy who wants to start with the data.

    Yes, he wants to start with the data. Hooray.

    The standout point for me is that there is such a difference in the temperature record between the two major continents in the northern hemisphere.
    If you go to the trouble to compare the progress of temperature in the habitable latitudes of the northern and the southern hemispheres (equator to latitude 60°) you find a similar contradiction. The southern hemisphere warmed strongly between 1948 and 1973 while the northern hemisphere cooled. Since that time the northern hemisphere has warmed while the southern has not experienced an El Nino peak any warmer than that in 1973 and 1988.
    The global mean is a statistic that disguises the forces at work. If one wishes to understand what is going on, attention must be given to the forces that drive this difference between the hemispheres, and also the minima and maxima rather than the mean, another point well made in Courtillot’s presentation, and the much greater variation in temperature experienced in January (when global cloud cover peaks) rather than June (when global cloud cover is at its annual minimum).
    The source of change lies in Antarctica and its push pull relationship with the Arctic in the northern winter. It is directly related to the marked warming of the southern stratosphere between 1948 and 1976, the churning of ozone into the southern troposphere at latitude 60-70° south in a near annular ring of extremely low but highly variable surface pressure and the associated change in cloud cover as ozone is carried equator-wards by the counter westerlies. In the Antarctic the troposphere and the stratosphere are part of a permanently coupled circulation brought about by the fact that temperature declines between the surface and the mid stratosphere. This facilitates convection. The coupling of the circulation brings ozone into the troposphere, a factor unrecognized in climate science. The presence of ozone causes the air to warm, as ozone absorbs long wave radiation from the Earth. The warming of the air is the direct cause of the startlingly low atmospheric pressure at latitude 60-70° south.
    The amount of ozone in the upper stratosphere changes on daily and weekly time scales according to the waxing and waning of what is called the ‘night jet’ if you are in the northern hemisphere but more descriptively, the ‘day and night jet’ in the southern.
    But we know that the science is really the last thing on the minds of those who wish to push the green political agenda.

  100. Norris, when the limited cameras follow the face almost exclusively, as in a quick interview for TV, the graphics are not given due prominence and the balance of presentation tends to be lacking.. Sorry, but having some experience shooting similar stuff in lecture theatres with insuficient gear makes me very aware of the production shortcomings of the stuff I watch. Pro TV and film studios cost a lot of money to equip and the results show the difference spending on equipment makes. Prof Courtillot is a remarkable presenter – the videotaping was OK, but not a top product, which the Prof deserved.
    The sceptical side of the debate hampers itself in this way – the medium is not the message, but it helps to have first-class production values.

  101. The warmists will be quick to point out that this guy does not support the meteorite mass extinction theory (he favors the super-volcano extinction theory). It is common practice in warmist circles to label any serious skeptic as a crank.

    If you would like to see a much more in-depth look at Courtillot’s work, you can find a complete version of the following paper and the corresponding comments and reply to comments on Science Direct, and it isn’t behind a paywall!!!

    “Are there connections between Earth’s magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328–339, 2007” by Bard, E., and Delaygue, M., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., in press, 2007

  102. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm
    I keep a fairly regular update of the recorded EUV values here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/128

    Dr. Courtillot does a fine job of demounting the TSI bogey. Beware of those that continue to use TSI as proof of the non existence of solar forcing.
    ~
    Thanks for the warning Geoff. Now who could that be?
    ~
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments..
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:07 pm
    Paul Vaughan says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:38 pm
    Do you understand this seminal work?
    Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day.

    If I had been the referee, I would have rejected the paper.
    ~
    Whoa.. slow down..your saying some points in the paper are not accurate? Your not saying the whole paper is false?
    Leif, you need to view the Video and listen closely to what..
    .. Dr. Courtillot is saying, ” notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions).
    He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet..”
    There is also GCR discussion.. so you need to put on your Interstellar Eyewear. Perhaps you should have a look at these two articles first to help clear out old bias.. and help gettin on those interstellar eyeballs.
    This first one should get you going. But if not there are two.

    Comparisons of the Interstellar Magnetic Field Directions obtained from the
    IBEX Ribbon and Interstellar Polarizations
    Priscilla C. Frisch, B-G Andersson, Andrei Berdyugin, Herbert O. Funsten, Mario Magalhaes

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.5118v1.pdf

    MICROSTRUCTURE OF THE HELIOSPHERIC TERMINATION SHOCK: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGETIC NEUTRAL ATOM OBSERVATIONS
    G. P. Zank1,2, J. Heerikhuisen1,2, N. V. Pogorelov1,2, R. Burrows1, and D. McComas3,4

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/708/2/1092/pdf/0004-637X_708_2_1092.pdf

    My thoughts are, that if you increase the various ENA (among other) coming into the system the amount of EUV and UV able to penetrate is LESS.. all too simple perhaps .. good day..

    Well hope that works for you Dr. S…..

  103. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm
    I keep a fairly regular update of the recorded EUV values here:

    http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/128

    Dr. Courtillot does a fine job of demounting the TSI bogey. Beware of those that continue to use TSI as proof of the non existence of solar forcing.
    ~
    Thanks for the warning Geoff. Now who could that be?
    ~
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm
    This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments..
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:07 pm
    Paul Vaughan says:
    April 5, 2011 at 8:38 pm
    Do you understand this seminal work?
    Le Mouël, J.-L.; Blanter, E.; Shnirman, M.; & Courtillot, V. (2010). Solar forcing of the semi-annual variation of length-of-day.

    If I had been the referee, I would have rejected the paper.
    ~
    Whoa.. slow down..your saying some points in the paper are not accurate? Your not saying the whole paper is false?
    Leif, you need to view the Video and listen closely to what..
    .. Dr. Courtillot is saying, ” notes that IPCC climate computer models do not correlate with observations and that temperature trends vary substantially between North America and Europe (which is contrary to IPCC computer model predictions).
    He also notes that while the total solar irradiance (TSI) only varies by about .1% over a solar cycle, the solar UV varies by about 10% and that secondary effects on cloud formation may vary up to 30% over solar cycles. The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet..”
    There is also GCR discussion.. so you need to put on your Interstellar Eyewear. Perhaps you should have a look at these two articles first to help clear out old bias.. and help gettin on those interstellar eyeballs.
    This first one should get you going. But if not there are two.

    Comparisons of the Interstellar Magnetic Field Directions obtained from the
    IBEX Ribbon and Interstellar Polarizations
    Priscilla C. Frisch, B-G Andersson, Andrei Berdyugin, Herbert O. Funsten, Mario Magalhaes

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.5118v1.pdf

    MICROSTRUCTURE OF THE HELIOSPHERIC TERMINATION SHOCK: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGETIC NEUTRAL ATOM OBSERVATIONS
    G. P. Zank1,2, J. Heerikhuisen1,2, N. V. Pogorelov1,2, R. Burrows1, and D. McComas3,4

    http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/708/2/1092/pdf/0004-637X_708_2_1092.pdf

    My thoughts are, that if you increase the various ENA (among other things that co mingle from interstellar space) coming into the system the amount of EUV and UV able to penetrate the system is LESS.. all too simple perhaps .. good day..

    Hope this works for you Doc..think this time you missed a good point Dr. Courtillot wwas trying to make. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water..heh

  104. ****
    vukcevic says:
    April 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    May I add this to the post above: Jet stream is formed in higher latitudes, where winter insolation is low (at the most only few hours a day), so it is unlikely that it is controlled by solar output. Polar vortex is actually result of the low insolation factor.
    ****

    The high-latitude jet-stream is formed by the difference between solar input (and the resulting ambient warmth) at lower and higher latitudes. That’s the driving force. Note the very powerful jet-stream (the roaring 60s) between the extremely cold south-pole & the relatively warm southern oceans.

  105. Carla says:
    April 6, 2011 at 5:35 am
    “If I had been the referee, I would have rejected the paper.”
    Whoa.. slow down..your saying some points in the paper are not accurate?

    There are several problems with the paper. Perhaps the simplest one is that they have ‘adjusted’ or monkeyed with the data to make the agreement look better than it actually is. This is a no-no. You can see that here: http://www.leif.org/research/Courtillot-GRL-Cosmic-Rays.png which compares their primary evidence (the GCRs) to their heavily smoothed and massaged LOD series. As an example, I have circled the maximum in ~1986. In the real GCR data that maximum is higher than the two surrounding ones [and we know why that must be so], but in the paper it has been made smaller [makes the fit better, I guess]. The GCR data is from Moscow which they said the used, but all stations show the same. As a referee I would have pointed that out and asked as a condition for acceptance that the graph be corrected.

    My thoughts are, that if you increase the various ENA (among other) coming into the system the amount of EUV and UV able to penetrate is LESS.. all too simple perhaps
    As you say, much too simple.

  106. Henry@erlhapp

    I’ve been looking at some data from Marion island.

    http://www.btinternet.com/~sa_sa/marion_island/marion_island.html

    it lies south of South Africa, in the South Indian Ocean
    Note that it has a lot of weather, which is why I wanted to study those particular data.
    In my opinion this is a good example of an average place on earth.
    My findings so far, over the past 35 years (for which I have data):

    Average mean temps. have stayed the same (0.00 degreeC/annum) – so heat content must have stayed the same.
    Max. temps. have been rising at a rate of 0.05 degrees C/annum, taken on average
    Min. temps have declined by 0.02 degrees C, per annum, taken on average..
    Average mean humidity has declined by 0.12% per annum
    Average precipitation (rain) has declined by 1.27 mm , taken on average.
    What do you (or anyone else here) make of these findings?

  107. Carla,

    “The IPCC computer models dismiss the role of the sun by only considering the small variations of the TSI and ignore the large changes in the most energetic and influential part of the solar spectrum – the ultraviolet..”

    No, UV is not the most energetic part of the solar spectrum, as Lief has pointed out. A quick look at the planck curve of the sun shows the curve peaking in the visible band at about 1 watts per sq centimetre angstrom The part that varies by 10% is the extreme UV, which has a wavelengh shorter than 1200 angstroms. Reading off the same planck curve shows an energy of only about 0.05 in the same units.

    The whole problem is that as you move along the spectrum to get higher percentage variations, the total energy gets smaller and smaller so that the total variation does not get any bigger at all.

  108. Leif Svalgaard says [regarding Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010)], “If I had been the referee, I would have rejected the paper.”

    UNACCEPTABLE.

  109. beng says:
    ………..
    Agree. I think, for the northern hemisphere’s and in particular the N. Europe’s climate change, it is important to ascertain why jet stream moves in the N-S direction and eventually breaks up. It is generally assumed it is stable over continental mass. As an exercise I wrote a short article on some aspects and possible causes of the JS breaking-up phenomenon.

    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/56/34/77/PDF/SSW.pdf

    (In the winter, little to no sunlight reaches Earth’s northern extremes. Deprived of energy, the stratosphere over the Arctic grows cold. Farther south, where the Sun is shining, the air is warmer and air pressure is higher in the stratosphere. The cold air mass creates a low pressure system in the stratosphere that sits over the Arctic throughout the winter. Air flows away from the high-pressure system towards the lo wpressure system. Because the Earth is turning,…etc)
    Since often I do not follow conventional approach to these matters, I may not be entirely correct (or not correct at all), but I am happy to hear anything new.

  110. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 5, 2011 at 7:54 pm

    This is well-trodden ground. Nothing new to add, just the same old, tired arguments.

    The main thrust of his message, and brilliantly delivered, BTW, is this “I have a theory. It is thus. My theory is falsifiable, and here is how. This is in stark contrast to popular alternative theories. Finally, politically-speaking, here’s ANOTHER reason why we can’t take the alternative theory seriously (ie, there exists 100% REAL problems we could focus our resources on)”

    Leif, you extoll scientific virtue. Courtillot extolls the same virtues. He even says “I might be wrong, but…” So, Leif, if you’re ready to falsify Courtillot’s theory, we’re all ears.

    I have to admit, while I was listening to the video, the thought went through my mind “OK, this jives with Leif’s claim that TSI is rather meaningless.” Then as it went on to the UV/cosmic ray stuff, I thought “ut oh, now Leif is going to have a problem, since Leif’s in the camp of ‘sun doesn’t make a difference’.”

    I anxiously await Leif’s argument that falsifies Courtillot’s theory. It might take a few years, though, which Courtillot admitted, lol.

  111. Bruckner8 says:
    April 6, 2011 at 9:49 am
    I anxiously await Leif’s argument that falsifies Courtillot’s theory. It might take a few years, though, which Courtillot admitted, lol.
    It is not clear what his theory is. I have come across two claims he makes: 1) the Earth’s magnetic field determines climate, and 2) cosmic rays determines climate. Now, it is of no use to discuss this if the influences are minor [because we are interested in the major drivers], so the issue is not if some subtle influence can be found by suitable massaging/filtering/torturing/misrepresentation etc of the [often dubious data and more dubious proxies], but whether such influence is large enough that is swamps anything else [otherwise we need no worry, e.g. if AGW is really larger than the solar influence, then who cares about the Sun]. The cosmic ray issue is clouded [no pun!] by the fact that the cosmic ray intensity is primarily controlled by the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field, and not by the Sun [ignoring galactic changes, supernovae, aliens, etc]: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg the little wiggles are solar related, the big swing is not. Anyway, what should matter is what the GCR intensity actually is in the troposphere where clouds are formed and not what causes the GCRs. We do not have good measurements of GCRs before the 1950s [the early measurements back to the 1930s have uncertain calibration], but there have been no long-term changes in GCRs since then [the solar cycle changes are only a few percent anyway], e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Cosmic%20Ray%20Count%20for%20Different%20Stations.png . Also, solar activity [and the solar wind and magnetic flux, etc] right now is on par with what it was in the 19th century [ http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf , Figure 10], yet the climate is claimed to be significantly warmer now, contrary to what we would expect from a cosmic ray variation. So, for me, there is precious little observational evidence for the GCR theory.

  112. Excellent presentation, very clear, highlighting the uncertainties of the CAGW hypothesis as well as touching the current scientific atmosphere in a few words.

    On the cosmic rays influence I did not understood for a certain time how this can possibly work – cosmic rays! – until I read an article on radiation about cloud chamber (Wilson chamber), and thought I understood the principle:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber

    If the cosmic rays are controlled by the sun and the earth magnetic field we might have 2 factors to influence these and more to influence the climate – which does not speak against the cosmic rays influence.

  113. Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 6, 2011 at 10:16 am
    The cosmic ray issue is clouded [no pun!] by the fact that the cosmic ray intensity is primarily controlled by the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field, and not by the Sun [ignoring galactic changes, supernovae, aliens, etc]: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg the little wiggles are solar related, the big swing is not.
    ~
    So glad you did that .. Dr. S. (yer da man on dipole answers).. had a question on the polarization data for our local interstellar magnetic field neighborhood. Interesting how they can see different rotations within the spiral arms that polarization data. Ooops was referring to:
    Comparisons of the Interstellar Magnetic Field Directions obtained from the
    IBEX Ribbon and Interstellar Polarizations
    Priscilla C. Frisch, B-G Andersson, Andrei Berdyugin, Herbert O. Funsten, Mario Magalhaes

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.5118v1.pdf

    Just wandering if anyone sees an interstellar magnetic equator running through the solar, front yard. They have found an anamalous kwinky dink with the polarization data comparison with IBEX data. But the whole mess is still.. Fraut wit dragons of boundaries we are not so sure of. Voyager to crossing of TS ..solar wind does a 90 if my recall serves me this minute.. maybe some clipping of a second field or something. With so many boundaries being considered maybe anyone of them any day now or maybe it was back in 2000.

  114. Carla says:
    April 6, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    Just wandering if anyone sees an interstellar magnetic equator running through the solar front yard.
    Don’t worry, there is no such thing close to the sun. The solar wind is very efficient is pushing everything magnetic out of the system.

  115. Dr. Courtillot talks about the larger variation in UV and EUV over the cycle. He also mentions the reduced height of the Thermosphere and how that might affect cloud cover. These are all real world observations and cannot be dismissed because EUV makes up a small part of the spectrum. There are other observations in the atmospheric oscillations that also fall into place with low EUV.

    As NASA points out, low EUV = low Thermosphere.

  116. Geoff Sharp says:
    April 6, 2011 at 3:40 pm
    Dr. Courtillot talks about the larger variation in UV and EUV over the cycle. [...]
    As NASA points out, low EUV = low Thermosphere.

    EUV [and FUV] have about a millionth of the energy of the rest of the solar radiation and are absorbed at or above 100 km: see Figure 1 of http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL037825.pdf and have no or vanishing small effect on the climate in the million times denser troposphere. Simple as that.

  117. Believe me when I say that Courtillot is even more eloquent in French. Each time he appeared on TV, the belief into AGW took a dive. We still are not under 50% of believers, but it is coming.

    One other interesting thing about Courtillot is that he is a dangerous opponent during political fights/debates: Last year, he managed to fend off a huge “trial in heresy” by his “scientific” opponents (the AGW community and the media) that also involved ministers and the academy of sciences.

    In that way he is much more efficient that his illustrious predecessor, Claude Allègre who was both a top-knotch scientist and minister of research a few years ago.
    Allègre likes to fight for the sake of fighting and is often dismissed for that reason.
    Courtillot has always managed to stay measured in his accusations and his arguments.
    At the end of a debate with him, there is blood on the ground but not his… and it was a fair fight everybody enjoyed.
    In a word: class!

  118. Leif, thank you for answering my post, with scientific argument. I don’t understand it all, and I’m sure you’re used to that, but I appreciate your diligence with educating the public.

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    April 6, 2011 at 10:16 am

    It is not clear what his theory is.

    I got: Cosmic Rays affect cloud density, which affect climate, and thus cannot be discounted.

    But then you move to discount them (along with GCM) with:
    The cosmic ray issue is clouded [no pun!] by the fact that the cosmic ray intensity is primarily controlled by the intensity of the Earth’s magnetic field, and not by the Sun [ignoring galactic changes, supernovae, aliens, etc]: http://www.leif.org/research/CosmicRays-GeoDipole.jpg the little wiggles are solar related, the big swing is not.

    It’s a fancy graph, and I’m not going to pretend to understand it. All I could hope for at this point is that Courtillot would respond in a way that both of you would understand and agree!

    But I have instincts, and they tell me that cosmic rays (could come from anywhere, not just the sun), bombarding the magnetic Earth, HAVE to have some kind of interaction with the atmosphere, which changes cloud cover, which changes the climate. What I’m not clear on, is how OFTEN the change can occur; i.e., to change the climate so distinctly that a change qualifies as a change! But if we measure CONSISTENT GCR, then we could expect a corresponding change in “local temperatures” (Courtillot was quick to dismiss the idea of Global Temps…I love that!)

  119. R. de Haan says: April 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm
    @vukcevic says: April 5, 2011 at 8:43 am

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PDO-ENSO-AMO.htm

    Vukcevic, may I ask what is the PDO driver in your graph
    y=0.0214x -41.287?

    Yes, but I am going to disappoint you. PDO driver and the N. Atlantic Precursor (http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm) are based on assembly of real data (no proxies) and are closely related. I think that both indices could be of a fundamental importance to understanding of natural climate change, but they have no predictability value. Shouldn’t particularly be concerned about trend line y=0.0214x -41.287, it may turn down at any time, for which there is an example in the Pacific area ( http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SOI.htm )
    I suppose I am not being very helpful, but even if someone in charge of a research department ask for more info, they would get a bit further only if they offered some help with research, not financial, but data verification, methodology of interpretation and presentation. In meantime I am doing a bit of writing, occasionally pop-up here with the graphs, just in case someone out there sees some value in it.
    My thanks go to WUWT for hospitality and tolerance.

  120. While Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010) present one profoundly enlightening (real data based) seminal observation (putting aside the raft of accompanying speculation), I see no evidence in the paper that the authors have yet realized why (via integration across harmonics) their chosen extent (windowing parameter) detects the neutron count rate pattern (which is confounded with other variables).

  121. Bruckner8 says:
    April 6, 2011 at 11:05 pm
    But I have instincts, and they tell me that cosmic rays (could come from anywhere, not just the sun), bombarding the magnetic Earth, HAVE to have some kind of interaction with the atmosphere, which changes cloud cover, which changes the climate.
    The question is not IF, but HOW MUCH. Instincts that are not quantified don’t do much.

    What I’m not clear on, is how OFTEN the change can occur; i.e., to change the climate so distinctly that a change qualifies as a change!
    Cosmic rays come from the Galaxy [very few from the Sun] and a counter on the surface of the Earth will count [many] thousands every hour. The Sun’s solar wind prevents a few percent of the cosmic rays from reaching the Earth, all the time. The percentage that reach the Earth varies a little bit with the solar cycle.

Comments are closed.