In email 3673 of the Climategate II files Phil Jones says:
Re: AW: Re: geomagnetic field and climate
> 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.
> 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.
Palm -> Face
Where to start? I think for now I’ll leave aside the issues concerning peer review and barriers to cross discipliniary co-operation around climate science and discuss Phil Jones Woeful lack of understanding of how solar energy is stored in Earth’s climate system.
(the sun and volcanoes) should have caused a cooling since the 1960s
This is (deliberate?) ignorance in all it’s naked glory. Has it really not occurred to Phil Jones and the CRU team that although the peak amplitudes of the solar cycles declined after 1958 the cycles were still well above the long term average since records began?
If I start heating a pan of water at gas mark 6, does it start cooling down if I reduce the flame to gas mark 5?
The ocean has a very very big heat capacity. If Kevin trenberth believes the lack of warming of the last decade is due to the missing co2 heat being hidden in the ocean deep, why can’t Phil Jones consider the possibility that the ocean retains solar energy on multi-decadal timescales??
I refer Phil Jones Claus Frolich and Mike Lockwood to the post I made 18 months ago: