date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:58:39 +0000 (GMT)
from: "email@example.com" <jacopo.pasottiatXYZxyzewin.ch>
subject: AW: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
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.
Data: 19.12.2007 14.02
Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
Well, a responder (the original authors) to a comment on a
shouldn't be able to revise their response at the proof stage.
It is a difficult issue and I doubt journals have rules about
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!
At 12:20 19/12/2007, you wrote:
>... and what do you think about all this issues of the changes
>between the "comments on" in press and now published at EPSL?
>Data: 14.12.2007 10.37
>Oggetto: Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
> I'm not suggesting fraud, just that Bard/Delaygue weren't
> what Courtillot et al claimed to have done.
> Courtillot et al may be considered high profile scientists,
> in a non-climate field. The issue here is that they are not
> all the literature in the climate field. They are very
> they cite and the journal EPSL isn't considered mainstream in
> climate field. They tend to publish in what I would refer to
> 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
> Stocker in Bern. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> Thomas like me was involved in the 2007 IPCC Report.
> These papers weren't considered for the IPCC as they were
> deadline of mid-summer 2007. I doubt they would have been
> as they are not in mainstream climate journals.
> The IPCC 2007 WG1 Report is the most authoritative document
> can read on the subject. There is no dispute (see Ch 9) in
> WG1 2007 that solar output changes explain some of the
> increase in the first half of the 20th century. Why I was
> the Lockwood/Frohlich paper is that it shows natural forcing
> and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s.
> Lockwood/Frohlich realise this, but Courtillot et al don't
> As we have to invoke the positive effect of greenhouse
>negative effect of sulphate aerosols to explain recent warming,
> only ignore sulphate aerosols (as it is small) earlier in the
> So the sun can't explain all the increase as greenhouse gases
> up then as well (albeit less so).
> When I say invoking above I mean giving best estimates of
> climate model simulations of the 20th century.
>At 08:48 14/12/2007, you wrote:
> >Dear Phil,
> >thank you for your open and prompt answer. I am not just aiming
> >fuel non-sense debates, I wish you understand this.
> >In the first paragraph of your answer, are you arguing there
> >might be some fraud in Courtillot paper? (I'll keep your answer
> >strictly confidential).
> >I understand your points on peer reviewing. However, Courtillot
> >co. are considered high profile scientists (http://www.
> >org/EGU/awards/medallists/_2005/petrus_peregrinus.html , as an
> >example). And I, as a non specialist, get a bit confused as
> >argue that the others are not getting the right point around
> >May I ask you: does any of those in the two papers I have sent
> >are involved in the IPCC? This is the only reliable source I
> >think of.
> >I have read the Frohlich paper you have sent me. It seems there
> >agreement between Corutillot and Frohlich as they both notice a
> >industrial influence of sun forcing in climate, but an abrupt
> >since the 80ies.
> >Thank you again,
> >----Messaggio originale----
> >Da: p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> >Data: 13.12.2007 18.29
> >A: <jacopo.pasottiatXYZxyzewin.ch>
> >Oggetto: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
> > Jacopo,
> > I'd put far more faith in the comment on the Courtillot
> > by Bard and Delaygue. I was asked by Edouard Bard to try
> > locate the file Courtillot et al say they use in their
> > 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
> > 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
> >difference, but
> > you wonder what other mistakes they have made.
> > There is no need to invoke any geomagnetic indices to
> > global T record. It can be quite well approximated from a
> > (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
> >a good paper
> > on the subject. I am attaching one. This is far better and
> >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
> > 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
> > climate scientists about what is happening and how much WE
> > 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
> >literature. There are
> > too many journals (and still growing) and all have
> >finding qualified
> > reviewers.
> > 2. The media are constantly picking up geo-engineering
> >to the
> > climate change issue. This gives the public and some
> > belief that there is a fix around the corner. There isn't.
> >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
> > >to report to Science magazine, occasionally, I have read with
> > >interest a paper to be published on Earth and Planetary
> > >Letters about magnetic forcing on climate change. I thought
> > >the
> > >solar forcing of climate was quite debunked, but I see there
> > >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
> > >much like to hear you opinion (because of your profile in
> > >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
> > >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
> > >ca 1980. Correct?
> > >
> > >Courtillot suggests a potential cause could be in" modulation
> > >cosmic rays which are increasingly recognised as potential
> > >changes in cloud cover and albedo". Correct (or could you
> > >explain me better; considering that I am not a specialist in
> > >field)?
> > >
> > >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
> > >does not reject the CO2 hypothesis at all. Instead he
> > >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
> > >tomorrow).
> > >Jacopo Pasotti
> > >PS I include the paper and a comment on. But mind that there
> > >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
> > >email@example.com
> > >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.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk
> >NR4 7TJ
>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
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