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.
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
Amazing. Another control mechanism for UV reaching earth is the ozone hole which apparently is larger than normal this spring up in the Arctic. They blame the Montreal Protocol controlled molecules as well as the cold stratosphere.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Record+depletion+ozone+recorded+over+Arctic/4560190/story.html
John M Reynolds
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???
jackstraw says on April 5, 2011 at 9:22 am
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.
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?
[I can’t watch the video just now – will do so later – but can at least comment on what Anthony writes about it…]
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.
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
That is the very heart and soul of skepticism, IMHO.
Jeff W April 5, 2011 at 6:56 am:
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?
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.
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/
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.
A man after my own heart . . . . truly.
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.
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.
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.
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………..
“”””” 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)
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.
“”””” 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.
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…
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
“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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.