date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:20:02 +0000 (GMT)
from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" <jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch>
subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
to:  <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

... and what do you think about all this issues of the changes done 
between the "comments on" in press and now published at EPSL?
Best, 
Jacopo



----Messaggio originale----
Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
Data: 14.12.2007 10.37
A: <jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch>
Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate


  Jacopo,
     I'm not suggesting fraud, just that Bard/Delaygue weren't 
able 
to reproduce
  what Courtillot et al claimed to have done.

   Courtillot et al may be considered high profile scientists, but 
this is
  in a non-climate field. The issue here is that they are not fully 
aware of
  all the literature in the climate field. They are very selective 
of 
the papers
  they cite and the journal EPSL isn't considered mainstream in 
the
  climate field. They tend to publish in what I would refer to as 
the 
non-climate
  literature. In this respect the editors have a harder time 
knowing they are
  getting access to the best climate reviewers.

     To get another (may be similar) view to mine, I'd contact 
Thomas
  Stocker in Bern. (stocker@climate.unibe.ch)

    Thomas like me was involved in the 2007 IPCC Report.

  These papers weren't considered for the IPCC as they were after 
the
  deadline of mid-summer 2007. I doubt they would have been 
referred to,
  as they are not in mainstream climate journals.

  The IPCC 2007 WG1 Report is the most authoritative document you
  can read on the subject.  There is no dispute (see Ch 9) in the 
IPCC
  WG1 2007 that solar output changes explain some of the 
temperature
  increase in the first half of the 20th century. Why I was 
pointing out
  the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is that it shows natural forcing (the 
sun
  and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s.
  Lockwood/Frohlich realise this, but Courtillot et al don't seem 
to.

     As we have to invoke the positive effect of greenhouse gases 
and the
negative effect of sulphate aerosols to explain recent warming, you 
can
  only ignore sulphate aerosols (as it is small) earlier in the 
20th century.
  So the sun can't explain all the increase as greenhouse gases 
were going
  up then as well (albeit less so).

   When I say invoking above I mean giving best estimates of past 
forcing to
  climate model simulations of the 20th century.

  Cheers
  Phil


At 08:48 14/12/2007, you wrote:
>Dear Phil,
>thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming 
to
>fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this.
>In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there have
>might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer
>strictly confidential).
>
>I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot 
and
>co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www.
copernicus.
>org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an
>example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as they
>argue that the others are not getting the right point around 
climate
>change.
>
>May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent 
you
>are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I may
>think of.
>
>I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there 
is
>agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a 
pre
>industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt 
shift
>since the 80ies.
>
>Thank you again,
>Jacopo
>
>
>
>
>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>Data: 13.12.2007 18.29
>A: <jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch>
>Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
>
>
>   Jacopo,
>      I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot 
paper
>   by Bard and Delaygue.  I was asked by Edouard Bard to try and
>   locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their 
response
>to
>   Bard/Delaygue. All this is at the end of the Bard/Delaygue
>   comment on p5/6. This name of this file is not the way I name
>   files here. It is also not on the CRU web site and a google
>search
>   doesn't find it!
>     The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use
>(Jones
>et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007)
>   is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was
>unable
>to reproduce their
>   diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't make
>much
>difference, but
>   you wonder what other mistakes they have made.
>
>     There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to 
explain
>the
>   global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a 
solar
>series
>   (preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and
>anthropogenic
>   sources (greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols)
>.
>     I think if you want to refer to this subject at least refer 
to
>a good paper
>   on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and 
well
>argued paper.
>   The answers to all your questions will be in this paper.
>Frohlich is
>   Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French
>person
>   who doesn't understand the climate system!
>
>      There are two problems/issues in the climate field
>
>   1. Journals publish papers by Courtillot et al (and probably
>shouldn't). They give
>   some unscrupulous people an excuse to say there is 
disagreement
>amongst
>   climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE are 
to
>blame.
>   Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't
>understand the
>   climate system. I don't try and publish on magnetism! People
>think they can
>   publish in the climate field without knowing little about the
>literature. There are
>   too many journals (and still growing) and all have difficulty
>finding qualified
>   reviewers.
>
>   2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering 
solutions
>to the
>   climate change issue. This gives the public and some 
politicians
>a
>   belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't. The
>only way to
>   slow the increase in temperature is to reduce emissions.
>
>   Cheers
>   Phil
>
>
>At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote:
> >I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I
>happen
> >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with
> >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary Science
> >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought 
that
> >the
> >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there it
>is
> >offered
> >another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this
> >geomagnetic
> >perspective on climate.
> >I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would
>very
> >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in this
> >subject and because you are widely quoted in the paper).
> >
> >Courtillot claims that up to 1980, on 10-100 scale, and 1000-
>10000
> >scale climate change correlates well with changes in 
geomagnetic
> >field of earth (no causality). Correct?
> >
> >What would be the driver of the change in geomagnetic field?
> >
> >It seems Courtillot does not neglect the anthropogenic rise 
since
> >ca 1980. Correct?
> >
> >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation 
of
> >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential 
drivers
>of
> >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you 
please
> >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in 
this
> >field)?
> >
> >Is it really "increasingly recognised"?
> >
> >How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays
>could
> >effect the climate change?
> >
> >On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all
> >Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this 
direction.
>He
> >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he acceptes 
it
>for
> >the last few decades?
> >
> >What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims,
>would
> >these be proven to be correct? I mean with regards with IPCC
> >projections and alike.
> >
> >
> >Thank you and best regards (in case we may speak over the phone
> >tomorrow).
> >Jacopo Pasotti
> >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there is 
a
> >reply on the comment in the journal's website.
> >-
> >Jacopo Pasotti, MSc.
> >Science Communicator
> >Science Journalist
> >
> >Basel - Switzerland
> >Mobile: +41.(0)787627785
> >Home: +41.(0)61.3611340
> >jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch
> >www.scienceandnature.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>Prof. Phil Jones
>Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
>School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
>University of East Anglia
>Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>NR4 7TJ
>UK
>

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@uea.ac.uk
NR4 7TJ
UK 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                 




