Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Another congressional inquiry | Main | Nelson on the Spectator debate »


Lots of people are telling me to watch this - I haven't had a chance yet though. What do you reckon?

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    The proceeding presentation by Prof. Nir Shaviv on cosmic ray theory, though more technically advanced, is worth a look, especially if you compare the strength of his argument with the IPCC greenhouse theory.

Reader Comments (98)

Interesting presentation that carried at about 5:00 mins a very worrying statement:-

“We are a small group of 5 people, no special funding and no students because if I had a student on that subject he would not get a job in these days. I am not joking this is a serious problem.”

That somebody of this standing should make such an observation of the scientific establishment really is damning.

Apr 1, 2011 at 3:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterGreen Sand

Good to see that Professor Courtillot gets a much wider audience - he deserves it!

It was an outstanding exemple of clear, precise, rational thought and expression - something The Team and most of the climate scientists should really learn from, seeing that they are masters at obfuscation as well as of the fine art of dazzling with bullsh*t.

It came as no surprise that he and his team also have to battle against the hurdle of Pal Review.

I'm beginning to think that our pal reviewers may perhaps simply be too thick to understand proper science when it is presented to them - thus the rejections.

Apr 1, 2011 at 4:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

French Academy report here - Conclusions on p13:

GWPF coverage at the time:

Apr 1, 2011 at 4:23 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

It reminds me why I loved reading sciences at one of the best universities in the world. It was the quality of the lectures, from men and women of Prof Dr Courtillot's standing and intelligence. I miss that level of learning. Thank you, Bishop, for presenting this to us.

Apr 1, 2011 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard

What I thought was truly telling in this terrific presentation was his acknowledgement that he cannot get students to do this work (and that he cannot in good conscience let them study these areas)... that it has to be done by a relatively small group of senior scientists who don't care as much about future publications or grants. Even then, with senior, established scientists with outstanding reputations, who have consistently done solid scientific work, getting the papers published is extremely difficult solely because it runs counter to the "belief" in the community.

I know that folks that read this site understand this issue. Unfortunately, I don't think most lay people really get the impact of this reality. How can science expect to proceed when there is active disincentive for new students to study areas that run counter to the dogma?


Apr 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterBDAABAT

I can't think of any 'evidence' of unprecedented/CO2/warming not challenged. Unprecedented -fail, CO2 as driver-fail, warming-fail. Dr. Courtillot is in for a rough ride from the flagellates but has a body of observational evidence with him, knows his subject and looks to be a tough cookie.

Apr 1, 2011 at 4:33 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Guys..........I do believe western gov's have jumped on the CAGW thing for the energy dependence problem, and jam today taxing. Its not peak oil, its the logistics of where/how in a post 9/11 world. Its no coincidence that the noisiest alarmists about CO2 are the europeans, who kinda ran out of cheap home produced oil & coal a decade or so ago...d'yer think? We in europe are having to compete with countries who have a cheap and reliable supply, it makes good business sense to make the energy supply that our competitors use persona no gratis ('scuse spelling...).
Of course now we find ourselves likely swimming in shale gas/oil......all this will be dropped apart from some glib wordyness. Expect the EEC to find CO2 is 'not a problem after all' within the next couple of years once fracking technology starts up full time on european shores.
Glad I've not sunk my pensions into renewables...its about to die a death.

So I think Frosty is right in a roundabout way.

Excellent presentation, I think, but I'm not scientist so can't say from my own knowledge if its BS or true. I don't think we really know what drives climate, but I think we know enough now to say its not CO2, or certainly not CO2 at these levels.

Apr 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM | Unregistered Commentermikef2

The critique of Courtillot's 2007 paper Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate? on RC is interesting.

It does shred Courtillot et al. (2007), but ironically in doing so reveals how much faith the consensus has in the attribution of anthropogenic aerosols as the cause of the cooling between 1940 - 1970, something for which there is no good empirical evidence.

Please have a good look at the section entitled '...and now for the really ugly part'. It helps evaluate Courtillot's presentation objectively.

Real Climate link.

The detailed criticism of Courtillot et al. (2007) is based on a response to that paper by Bard & Delaygue (2007). Pdf here:

The link to the Courtillot paper in the RC article is broken. You can get a full pdf here:

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, my impression is that when RealClimate claims to have "debunked" a paper, some caution is needed. Remember, the RealClimate line is that the Hockey Stick lives, and Steve McIntyre has been debunked. I'd certainly say - as in my first post here - that it is not obvious that Courtillot is right, but it seems far from obvious that he is completely wrong. And, most importantly, in a properly run system, he'd be allowed to do his research without being (metaphorically) threatened with the ducking stool.

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterj

BBD - for info: guest post on aerosols by Steve Fitzpatrick at tAV:

I don't think he has posted the follow ups yet - worth keeping an eye out for IMO.

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:13 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

@ vivevans

I'm beginning to think that our pal reviewers may perhaps simply be too thick to understand proper science when it is presented to them - thus the rejections.

I think so. To get into UEA to read Climate Science you only need 3 Bs at A Level. About 55% of A Levels are passed at B or better and we can be fairly sure that most people with better than BBB go elsewhere than UEA, so the likelihood is that the people who do it are closer to the bottom of that 55% range than the top. Put simply, this is a science pursued by the bottom half of the class. They are simply mediocre. They do Climate Science because they are too thick to do real science.

Climate scientists = thickoes.

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka


Oh, I approach RC with a very long handled spoon. Always have. And thanks for the link, BTW ;-)

Bard & Delaygue's response to Courtillot et al. (2007) (which is what Pierrehumbert bases his RC article on) is fairly persuasive. I urge another look. In the interests of scientific objectivity and all that...

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Courtillot can't be right because he comes up with the wrong answer.

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterArthur Dent

not banned yet

Thanks for the link.

What I was pointing to was the absence of evidence for the consensus claim (used to tune GCM hindcasts, so it matters) that anthropogenic sulphate aerosols were the dominant cause of the post-war cooling.

Problems with this include, but are not limited to:

- Says who? No empirical evidence

- Cooling should mainly have affected NH (industrialisation) but was global

- Not enough industrial activity to account for required degree of stratospheric reflection by anthropogenic sulphate aerosols

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Great lecture. Beddington et. al. should be questioning why a scientist of this standing had such bleak things to say about students with careers ahead of them being unable to undertake such research.

Apr 1, 2011 at 5:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterVarco

An excellent lecture. It is also well worth watching the earlier presentation about solar influences at the same Berlin conference in December 2010, by Prof Shaviv

Apr 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterNic Lewis

BBD you equate peak oil to conspiracy theory. Q.E.D.

please watch this:

Apr 1, 2011 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Before we go any further, Frosty, you need to provide examples or a retraction and apology.

Apr 1, 2011 at 6:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

@ Nic Lewis, Apr 1, 2011 at 6:01 PM:

Thanks for that link - much appreciated!

Apr 1, 2011 at 6:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

A great lecture, thanks for posting.

The science has plenty of ideas to mull, but what troubles me is his comment about how only five senior staff at the end of their careers were working on this issue and he would not want to have a student associated because of damaging their job opportunities. What have we come to when the actions of a group of scientists curb investigation into one of the more important science questions before us.

Apr 1, 2011 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered Commenternvw

BBD I'm not searching back through comments to provide examples, you know what you said to me over the last few days/weeks, and now you know my opinion of it. I'm not wasting my time on your faux outrage either.

Apr 1, 2011 at 8:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Very refreshing! I think Prof. Courtillot has managed to bring some creativity and joy to the world. It reminds me of what science used to be like; inquisitive, with no agenda apart from searching for a better understanding.

Apr 1, 2011 at 10:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

Apr 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM | BBD
"Peak oil scaremongering is, to my mind, qualitatively identical to climate scaremongering."

I've not seen any particular scaremongering in this thread. I don't think that it is that controversila to say that the peak extraction conventional oil (pumping the liquid stuff out of the ground), ignoring actual/potential non-conventional methods to extract/make liquid fuel, has been reached. There is only a finite amount in the ground (+ some potential(small) extra if you think abiotic generation replenishes the reservoirs constantly.)

As I've said before I agree with what Frosty said in that the political enthusiasm for AGW is a front for concerns about future energy resources.

Apr 1, 2011 at 10:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob B

Rob B

As I've said before I agree with what Frosty said in that the political enthusiasm for AGW is a front for concerns about future energy resources.

And your evidence is?

Me, I think the moon is made of green cheese.

Apr 1, 2011 at 10:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD April 1 5.00. To continue the balance Courtillott et al responded to the critique of Bard and Delaygue

Apr 2, 2011 at 2:42 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

Just want to add my voice to the others, I watched the Courtillot presentation twice and felt immediately uplifted.

It's an excellent lecture and since Bish put it up the vid has been spread far and wide. Thankyou.

Apr 2, 2011 at 7:51 AM | Unregistered Commenterel gordo

"Rob B

As I've said before I agree with what Frosty said in that the political enthusiasm for AGW is a front for concerns about future energy resources."

You have to ask yourself who has these concerns? and why they're able to weild power over the politicians? Moreover if they are concerned why are they waging war on nuclear power which appears to be the only viable hope for the future.

I'd stick to the religious theme if I were you, like when eugenics spread through the "intelligentsia" like a rash and nnot one single scientist spoke out against it. A conspiracy is much too complicated, involves too many people, which in itself would result in leaks and revelations as they would be bound to approach someone they thought agreed with them who didn't and the gaff would be blown.

Sorry for butting in.

Apr 2, 2011 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Geronimo: "nuclear power which appears to be the only viable hope for the future."

Oil production has been on a peak plateau for over a decade. In inflation adjusted terms the global economy has been riding this same plateau. This is effectively the end of global "growth" as we know it. The global "credit card" is effectively maxed out already as we try to 'kick the can down the road'. How are we to finance a massive rollout of nuclear energy? How will this ease the energy gap we are facing now, when it is assumed it will take at least 10 yrs for the first to come on line, and more like 30yrs to replace our old energy infrastructure completely?

Oil production drove the growth curve up and maintained a level through the peak plateau, it seems clear to me that finance will drive the downslope of this curve.

How many nuclear power stations would Britain need to replace oil at a conservative 3% or more likely 6% depletion?

The crux when economies start to crumble appears to be when oil is somewhere between $70 and $100 per brl, yet the oil industry needs prices over $100 per brl for deeper/more difficult prospects to remain commercially viable.

As I've said before, I don't have the answers to these problems, but I do recognise the seriousness of the issue.

Apr 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

These issues are presented by Nicole Foss aka Stoneleigh in her presentation - A Century of Challenges - Peak Oil & Economic Crisis - in much more detail than I can muster.

Apr 2, 2011 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty


BBD April 1 5.00. To continue the balance Courtillott et al responded to the critique of Bard and Delaygue

Thank you for this. I'm quoting you to bring the link forward to the end of thread again. (I wish there was a kind of 'shopping basket' where we could put the important stuff so that it didn't fade away upthread.)

Apr 2, 2011 at 2:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD


"Its no coincidence that the noisiest alarmists about CO2 are the europeans"

Except, perhaps, the French, who have nailed their colours to nuclear! Surely it's not conspiratorial to suggest that our excursions into Iraq and Libya have at least some connection with their chief exports?

Apr 2, 2011 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

This is a useful analysis, it's certainly not an energy panacea by any stretch.


Apr 2, 2011 at 6:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Energy companies, including French nuclear specialist EDF, have lobbied hard to fix the level of fees they might be forced to bear for disposal.

The Government insisted on Tuesday that the cap would be enough to cover three times the current estimated cost of waste disposal, plus a little extra as a risk premium.

It also insisted that it has managed to spread the risk of getting rid of nuclear waste "without subsidy" from the taxpayer. However, it also admits that the future cost of disposing of waste in decades to come is very uncertain.

Most of the Department of Energy and Climate Change's annual budget goes on disposing of old nuclear waste and decommissioning costs.

Chris Huhne, the Energy Secretary, warned earlier this year of a £4bn gap in funding for Britain's nuclear "legacy".

Seems it's uncertain weather nuclear is even cost effective without a high "carbon price" and even if it is the taxpayer will be lumped with ongoing unlimited cleanup costs because the industry lobbied for a cap on the costs, and got it.

The more I look the worse the situation seems IMO.

Apr 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

Any suggestions then Frosty?

Or is doom your preferred position?

Apr 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Frosty - you might be interested in this just published report:

"30 March 2011
Groundbreaking study into the impact of wind and solar generation on electricity markets in North-West Europe
The creation of an offshore 'super grid' and a major upgrade of energy interconnections are not the silver bullet solutions to Europe's energy needs, an independent study published by Pöyry has found. The report has found that the introduction of improved connectivity would only partially alleviate the volatility of increased renewable energy generation.

In the North European Wind and Solar Intermittency Study (NEWSIS) Pöyry conducted detailed market analysis of the future impact wind and solar energy on the electricity markets across Northern Europe as it heads towards the 2020 decarbonisation targets and beyond.

The study also concluded that weather is going to play a major role in determining how much electricity is generated and supplied to home and businesses throughout Europe, with electricity prices much lower when it is very windy, but unfortunately higher when it is still.

A public extract from the main study is available to download below."

Apr 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet


2/ the stuff is largely found in the territory of crappy backward kleptocracies, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Scotland.

Well, as a Scot, [snip] I hope if my post is deleted then so will yours be.....

Apr 2, 2011 at 9:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterCraig B

Agree that this is a must watch. Courtillot makes his case very clearly, starting out with the statement that there has been a break in the balance between the three pillars of scientific progress, namely observation, theory and numerical modeling and that in his opinion:

“There has been much too much emphasis on the numerical side and absolutely not enough on the observational side, and observation is the key thing that should be supported in the coming decade.”

(He got a round of applause for that observation).

He then expresses surprise that there are only three groups recording global temperatures (GISS, NCDC, Hadley). As a sideline he mentions that he once asked Phil Jones for data and was refused (later came out in Climategate).

Courtillot then systematically shows that the concept of a global temperature is flawed and how regional temperature records over the 20th century (Europe/North America) show totally different patterns, which show no correlation with each other or with CO2. He points out that there have been multi-decadal swings in the global record and no warming over the past 12 years. He then points out that the 20th century warming is neither without precedent over the past 2000 years nor rising faster than earlier periods and that these periods (MWP, LIA Roman Optimum, etc.) can be shown to correlate well with changes in solar activity.

He switches to the hypothesis of a multi-decadal solar effect on our climate, showing an "M curve" of solar activity correlating closely with temperatures of stations in the Netherlands over the 20th century. A similar correlation is seen between pulsations in the Madden Julian oscillation in the N. Pacific ocean and solar activity. He mentions a correlation between cosmic rays and the Earth’s rotation, related to the impact on winds. The cosmic ray/cloud mechanism (Svensmark et al.) is mentioned, as is the CLOUD experiment in progress at CERN and observed cyclical changes in the vertical electrical field as another possible mechanism. He makes the point that a 10% change in cloud cover would represent over twice the change in forcing as a doubling of CO2, and that there was an observed 2% change in cloud cover from 1980 to today, which correlates well with observed changes in cosmic rays.

Courtillot then discusses problems with the climate models. One of the most serious is that they are not falsifiable but, in order to be scientific they must be so. He points out that when one points out that there is something wrong with the model results, they simply “twitter a parameter” and it’s OK without addressing the key problem. He points out that there is an enormous underestimation of uncertainty and lack of acknowledgement of what we do not know in climate science today, that he is against frightening people and that a temperature increase of 2C would be no problem, although he does not believe that this will occur.

Finally, he concludes that there most likely has been some 20th century global warming with regional irregularity, but that we do not know the cause for this today. We need another 5-10 years of data (instead of just modeling) to see whether the IPCC models can be discarded or not. More observations are required.

I may have missed something, but that seems to be the essence of his presentation. He mentions a preceding presentation by Nir Shaviv, particularly with regard to the solar influence on climate.


Apr 3, 2011 at 12:01 AM | Unregistered Commentermanacker

Thanks for the opportunity to comment. It's a great video. I'd recommend it to anybody intersted in climate science.

There is so much packed in to the 30 mins that I have now looked at it twice (or maybe I'm a bit slow).

He makes many very interesting points; and all the way is quietly humorous, humble and recognises limitations in our understanding. He strikes me as a man of high integrity.

I liked his reminder about the order of observation, physical understanding, and then numerics. It reminded me of the time when computers were new (in the late 70s early 80s (when I was a young graduate engineer) of the desire to make everything into a spreadsheet model. [I think there's something about playing with toys, or maybe a feeling of creativity]. But now, as an older engineer (approaching 60) I so very clearly see the importance of observation ruling the model, rather than the model creating a reality of its own.

Does anybody know if there been an update on progress with CLOUD; the project that Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirby etc have been working on?

Apr 3, 2011 at 3:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterRobin

BBD As I have said, I don't have answers, only more questions.

Doom is not my preferred option, but neither is trusting subsidy sucking industries at face value. This includes the "green" subsidy suckers equally. My preferred option would be for the government to acknowledge the problems so energy issues can be approached honestly with an emphasis on finding a real solution based on net energy return. I despair that some of our best minds are tied up in climate nonsense when they could all be tuned into finding the best energy solution. Clearly "Business as usual" is not going to work.

The recent greenpeace energy report touting wind and wave energy as a solution is as corrupt as the nuclear industry proposal as a solution IMO.

I started looking at energy around 2000 when I was daytrading, I thought I could debunk peak oil in 5 minutes. I spent the best part of 4 years researching the oil industry and every alternative I could find, the more I tried the more dire the future energy situation looked. We liquidated all our assets in 2004 to buy a smallholding as it seemed the best way to provide for our family in an uncertain energy future. I am more convinced we did the right thing now than I was at the time.

You can take the piss, call me a conspiracy theorist, a survivalist or whatever, but I guarantee we'll be warm with full bellies and increasing quality of life, while others who believe the government will look after them shiver and go hungry when the lights go out.

Apr 3, 2011 at 9:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

The most chilling item was his reference to being unable to use a student "because he would thereafter never get a job". No wonder mild sceptics under say 50 are so cautious.

Apr 3, 2011 at 12:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterTFNJ


I guarantee we'll be warm with full bellies and increasing quality of life, while others who believe the government will look after them shiver and go hungry when the lights go out.

I've got you all wrong. You are a hopeless optimist ;-)

The smell of woodsmoke carries a long way.

Sooner, not later, the desperate and starving will find you on your smallholding, and they will take whatever you have.

Even if you are armed, remember that it is impossible to farm with people shooting at you.

Apr 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

We've had a long time to think about that BBD. There will be far easier targets than our little community.

When the opportunist bear attacks, you don't need to be the quickest out the way, just faster than the slowest campers ;^)

Apr 3, 2011 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrosty

"Thank you for this. I'm quoting you to bring the link forward to the end of thread again. (I wish there was a kind of 'shopping basket' where we could put the important stuff so that it didn't fade away upthread.)" --BBD

Thx, BBD. This is an excellent post and deserves the followup. Perhaps His Excellency could add the link to Courtillot's reply to the top of the thread?

Regarding conspiracy theories, it may be relevant that the ancient Romans could diagnose alcoholism, as well as certain forms of mental illness, but not paranoia. Chances were, in Rome, someone WAS out to get you. O tempora, o mores!

Apr 4, 2011 at 2:54 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Some insight from France :

Courtillot and team ( Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris and University Paris 7) is in a sort of street fight with a formidable coalition of CEA (atomic energy research) - CNRS (equivalent to Nerc) - Ecole Normale Superieure and Ecole Polytechnique - University Paris 6 which use the CEA's modeling and computing power and manage one of the French GCM (the second one beeing managed by French Met Office)

This coalition and the French Met together represent 3/4 of French contributors to IPCC's WG1 !

Each time Courtillot's team publish a paper, they face harsh criticism from the coalition ; some times with some good reasons : I saw some valid statistical points made by coalition members !

Courtillot is today the nr one skeptical scientist in France

Apr 6, 2011 at 9:46 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel

Very interesting. This is the first time I have come across an authoritative and well argued case against the consensus view on climate change. I agree with Prof. Courtillot that there is a major problem with how the scientific community develops strong consensus views and this then in practice prevents it from undertaking proper observations and analysis in areas that would challenge the popular consensus (this is a problem in many areas).

Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with his final remarks on this topic. IF we have concerns or significant uncertainty about whether human activity is causing dangerous weather effects (as we do), then we should act precautionarily. We should not take risks with our ecosystem, it is too important. Yes, there are many other serious global issues that need addressing, but the best solutions address several concerns at once. Eg. micro-generation of renewable energy will reduce greenhouse gase emissions, fossil fuel energy-based geo-politics and pollution etc. So, even if he is right, I personally would argue we should continue to reduce emissions and pollution as much as we can. I would much rather we got our energy from the wind than from digging up and burning fossil fuels. There are many better ways that we can manage our societies.

Apr 7, 2011 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterGF

I was initially very impressed with this presentation (see my comments above). However, having watched it a second time and mulled it over, my opinion is changing. I see that everyone posting here is full of admiration for Courtillot and no one has presented any serious criticism. Courtillot has certainly provided a compelling explanation of how solar activity controls the earth's weather. However, there seem to be some serious problems with his case against AGW, and I am surprised that no one else has identified these. And his case for 'solar activity as driver' does not seem as solid as it first appeared.

1. The most worrying problem is how Courtillot compares the regional temperature data with the IPCC global warming curve and, as they do not correlate, he presents this as a shocking finding that shows up the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. Well, this does not fit my understanding of the AGW theory at all. Did he really expect, if the AGW theory is correct, that the regional temperature trends would all look the same and match the global average tends?? Because that is actually not the assumption behind the AGW theory at all. Regional weather has been and will continue to be dominated by the natural regional climate factors. The AGW theory was never that a simple warming trend would replace the various and complex natural regional patterns. The theory was only that, while the natural patterns would continue to dominate, the global warming would modulate the regional weather to a small and gradually increasing degree (or more if and when any tipping points are reached).

There has been a big problem of people - researchers and press - attributing all new weather patterns to climate change. But this was always a dangerous mistake, and we were all occassionally being warned against this. So, to my understanding, it is totally normal and expected that the regional data does not match either the IPCC global curve or each other, even if the AGW theory is true. Courtillot should really have known this.

2. Courtillot assumes that his excellent explanation for how solar activity controls the climate is at the same time an argument against AGW. However, the two are not exactly the same thing and should have been considered separately, not conflated as much as they were. It is excellent if Courtillot can now explain the weather patterns with his solar acitivity theories, but having an explanation for this does not change the question of whether there is warming going on. AGW theory does not assume that the natural cycles would somehow disappear and be replaced with a simple warming trend but rather, as I said, that the natural cycles would continue but be modulated to a small an increasing degree (tipping point effects aside). So, if AGW is true, we would still expect the same frequency of peaks and troughs, as we have seen. So, Courtillot was wrong to present this as a key argument against AGW.

I would suggest that the only reasonable approach for investigating if AGW is occurring, or not, is simply looking whether there is any evidence of any unexpected warming variance from the natural cycles, whilst IGNORING the correlations in peaks and troughs with the solar activity.

3. Finally, I am concerned at what appears to be an inconsistency in Courtillot's use of regional data. At the outset, he explains how regional temeprature data varies from region to region and does not match the IPCC global warming trend, a view that I argue is generally agreed by all sides anyway. But he then goes onto use a good correlation between Dutch temperature data with his solar data patterns as strong evidence in favour of his theory of solar activity. Did I misunderstand something here? How can a type of data that he agrees varies in its pattern from region to region be used to show a correlation and causal connection with the single M pattern of solar activity? Why focus on the correlation with the Dutch data? Why not also show what would be an inevitable mis-match with the mostly stable 100-year European-wide temperature data that he showed earlier (did he have two very different graphs of EU temperature?) or the US data? Was Courtoillot being selective (or lucky) in what he chose to correlate? Have I mis-remembered this? There seems to be something wrong here.

Apr 8, 2011 at 4:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterGF

tiffany --One may fall in love with many people during the lifetime.-silver rado ceramic

Sep 20, 2011 at 8:30 AM | Unregistered Commentertiffany1

It would be very hard to watch Courtillot's presentation and not accept that the CAGW case is far from proven. Essential viewing for all policymakers.

Dec 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterMichael Cunningham

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>