date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:58:39 +0000 (GMT) from: "jacopo.pasotti@bluewin.ch" subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate to: Dear Phil, I am getting many contrasting views about this story. I would like to be sure that my reporting is correct. I normally do not circulate manuscripts beforehand, but if you think that you can check it for me -and not circulate at this stage- I will be happy to send you some paragraph to see if they are correct or not. This, furthermore, should be done the soonest - otherwise the editors will hang me. Best, Jacopo ----Messaggio originale---- Da: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Data: 19.12.2007 14.02 A: Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate Jacopo, Well, a responder (the original authors) to a comment on a paper, shouldn't be able to revise their response at the proof stage. It is a difficult issue and I doubt journals have rules about it, but maybe they will come in the future. What I hadn't realised was that the editor of EPSL had spent a year's sabbatical at EPSL! Cheers Phil At 12:20 19/12/2007, you wrote: >... 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: >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: > >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 > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------