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.
Thanks George, I knew there had to be something I was forgetting.
Most interesting CERN lecture on the subject
http://mediaarchive.cern.ch/MediaArchive/Video/Public/Conferences/2009/52576/52576-0753-kbps-480×360-25-fps-audio-64-kbps-44-kHz-stereo.flv
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.)
Dr Bob Carter’s presentation at the same forum is also excellent.
I think this is a useful contribution to the debate;
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/irishweather/how-the-sun-could-control-earths-temperature.html
Rex says:
April 5, 2011 at 10:39 am
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.
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.
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.
R Gates says
You never cease to amaze . I think the comments after your post answers your question sufficiently for me.
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.
I’ve just read Stephen Wilde’s article (see link in post @ur momisugly 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.
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.
@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
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.
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
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1.gif
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.
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……
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.
http://www.tsc.upc.edu/rs/images/PRS/world-ocean-thermohaline-circulation.jpg
There is a similar location in the Antarctica, controlling the southern polar vortex.
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!
There’s a substantial separation in NH trends, US vs Europe? Anybody got more on that?
Having watched the video now. . . .quite excellent and thought-provoking.
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
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.
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.
“”””” 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.
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.