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.
Sorry, that should read:
Average precipitation (rain) has declined by 1.27 mm per annum , taken on average.
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.
Sorry again. For more clarity:
total precipitation (rainfall) has declined by 1.27 mm per annum, taken on average.
Leif Svalgaard says [regarding Le Mouël, Blanter, Shnirman, & Courtillot (2010)], “If I had been the referee, I would have rejected the paper.”
UNACCEPTABLE.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
@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?
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!)
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.
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).
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.
All videos of french scientist Vincent Courtillot on my website :
http://vincentcourtillot.blogspot.com/
Nous sommes prêts.
Sapere aude.