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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, it doesn’t. Same stub intro, no links to the content.
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.
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
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).
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].
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.
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.
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
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
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.gif
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
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.
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.
I’ve watched all the videos, read all the comments and Googled (probably shouldn’t have actually used Google of course! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/an-open-letter-to-google/) but I can’t find text transcripts of any of the talks. I’d really like to have all that information to read at leisure. Can anyone help?
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 !
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!
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.
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.
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
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…..
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
****
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.
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.
Henry@erl happ
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?