date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:48:41 +0000 (GMT)
from: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <jacopo.pasottiatXYZxyzewin.ch>
subject: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
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
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
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
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,
Data: 13.12.2007 18.29
Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
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
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
doesn't find it!
The global T record they (Courtillot et al) claim to use
et al. 1999/Brohan et al. 2007)
is not the same as the one we produce here. Edouard Bard was
to reproduce their
diagram with the correct series I sent him. This doesn't make
you wonder what other mistakes they have made.
There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to explain
global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a solar
(preferably a recent one by Lean), a volcano series and
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
The answers to all your questions will be in this paper.
Swiss, so better to report on a correct Swiss than a French
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
climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE are to
Courtillot et al may understand magnetism, but they don't
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
2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering solutions
climate change issue. This gives the public and some politicians
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.
At 12:46 13/12/2007, you wrote:
>I am a journalist, I live and work in Basel, Switzerland. I
>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
>solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there it
>another perspective. In fact, I was not aware about this
>perspective on climate.
>I am going to report about it on Science magazine and I would
>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-
>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
>changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you please
>explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in this
>Is it really "increasingly recognised"?
>How much changes in cloud cover and albedo due to cosmic rays
>effect the climate change?
>On which basis scientists reject this hpothesis? After all
>Courtillot just says we should investigate more in this direction.
>does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he acceptes it
>the last few decades?
>What are the scientific implications of Courtillot's claims,
>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
>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.
>Basel - Switzerland
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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk