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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Robin said
“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.”
I completely agree and not all regional climates are headed in the same warming direction, as Verity Jones and I pointed out here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/04/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Tonyb
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
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.
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.
“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.
Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv Präsentation
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?
Ziiex Zeburz says:
“The French…”
Ahem…he’s German (at least German speaking). You need to find a different river. Sorry.
Ed
The current TLT temperature drop will soon have to be explained.
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
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.
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
David L. Hagen says April 5, 2011 at 8:02 am
Nir Shaviv’s presentation at the same venue:
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
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.
What a marvellous command of English Dr Courtillot has! Congratulations, Professor.
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
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.
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 ….”
Including the link is appropriate
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
Or not!
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!
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)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704615504576171863463697564.html
wow!
A Brilliant presentation. Just brilliant!
J.
Who is german ?
Professor Dr. Vincent E. Courtillot (born 6 March 1948) is a French geophysicist.
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?