Guest post by David Archibald
Anthony’s post of the Jason data reminded me that I had produced this graph:
It is derived from a post on Climate Audit of Holgate’s rate of change of sea level rise over the 20th century.
The saw tooth pattern reminded someone of the solar cycles and he overlaid it. I had the graph redrawn. The correlation is striking. The reason the Earth came out of the Little Ice Age is because we had a more active Sun, more active than at any time for the previous 8,000 years. Holgate determined that 70% of the sea level rise of the 20th century was due to thermal expansion of the oceans and the rest due to melting glaciers. Now that the Sun has become less active, that will work in reverse.
Craig Loehle’s recent paper derived that the oceans post 2003 lost one third of the heat they had gained from 1990 to 2003. Although the maximum amplitude of Solar Cycle 23 was in 2000, maximum activity was in 2003. While we are mentioning solar activity, the Oulu neutron count is still climbing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amazing.
The obvious interpretation is that the rate of sea level rise is driving the strength of the Solar Cycle.
And as we all know that man made emissions of CO2 are driving an acceleration of rises in sea level, it follows (of necessity)…
That therefore as man made emissions of CO2 increase, the sea level rise will accelerate, and the Solar cycle will strengthen over this century.
Such logic is irrefutable – I know this because I thought it.
I’m astounded that people have not realised before now that man made emissions of CO2 directly impact on the Sun.
This obviously implies that as we institute CAP & TRADE, we will be able to limit man made emissions of CO2, Shrink the Oceans and Cool the Sun.
Who would have guessed at our Power, and our Responsibility – We are not only custodians of the Earth, – but also the Sun.
This article is in good timing with the release of the March NOAA Solar Cycle Values.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html
10.7 CM radio flux now shows a downward trend along with SSN close to 0. The AP values showed a very small rise, but are still near historical lows.
It certainly does look more like a grand minimum as every blank day passes !
Quiet Sun -> Slowing Sea level Rise
REF: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/06/sea-level-graphs-from-uc-and-some-perspectives/
The Quiet Sun is of greater concern than man made emissions of CO2
Says it all.
That’s a fascinating correlation. Why hasn’t anyone ever noticed this obvious thing? To answer for myself, this is the first time I am seeing the annual sea level rise data.
Needless to say, the graph bears no relationship with the Jason graph…
Apart from the confusing terminology: ‘rate of change’. Just say ‘change’.
And solar activity did not peak in 2003. Geomagnetic activity did, and was also high in 1974 [big coronal holes = high solar wind speed].
I am dubious about this. mm changes before satellites seem a claim not defensible. In 1950 there is a complete miss.
After 1967 there are three cycles, and these interchange leading between sea level and sun. That is a problem for causation. One would need a lot more cycles to call it not fortuitous.
It is possible that there is about an 11 year ocean sub cycle that depends on the morphology of ocean and lands and by coincidence is similar to the sun cycle.
OK,
There seems to be some correlation here here between the rate of sea level change and solar activity, but there is a gap in information regarding the solar portion of the graphed information. What is the scale and what is being measured?
The concept that higher solar activity corresponds to higher ocean temperatures that corresponds to volumetric increases sounds plausible, but where’s the corresponding information regarding the temperature etc.?
Rate of change (sea level) in mm/yr versus solar cycle frequency/length humm… So the sea level is constantly rising and this is in sync with solar cycles. Without confounding earth factors PDO/ENSO, volcanoes ect., the correlation could be closer to 1. So we could deduce that SST rises and falls with solar activity (water expands/contracts) . The AGW’s will of course say sea level is constantly rising due to AGW and that this graph therefore is not relevant. The thing is that I have noticed sea levels rising anywhere since I was a child 1950’s (that is at the beach, at cities, resorts ect..) Has anyone here?
RE: previous: have NOT noticed…
Seems like when the curves correlate there is global heating (1960 – 2000) and when they don’t correlate there is cooling ( 1940s, 2000+?)
Just an eyeball theory.
Just a thought but, with higher sun activity it would seem as we have fewer clouds and get less rain.
Now there is less rain we have fewer ponds, and lower lake levels.
stay with me for the punch line……
less lake and pond water means less CO2 adsorption in these waters.
no ponds no CO2 eating algae. could explain the lagging co2 verses heat.
David Archibald? Anthony? Steve?
the lake levels here have not been this low from the 40s and some of the ponds are dry.
http://www.john-daly.com/
This is a mid-tide mark carved in a cliff face in Tasmania in 1841.
I have heard that recent testing places it as much as 8 inches above MT.
Does any know anything about it?
oh ya and would raise sea levels slightly
LS said:
“Apart from the confusing terminology: ‘rate of change’. Just say ‘change’.”
But these two are very different. “Change” implies deviation from normal.
Even though the rate of change seems to be periodic and matched to solar cycles, the actual level (or change) can be generally increasing or decreasing (if the rate is on average more positive or negative).
The correlation would be lost if you just look at the level, not the rate of change for sea level.
Calculus 1. Functions and their derivatives…
“The thing is that I have [not] noticed sea levels rising anywhere since I was a child 1950’s (that is at the beach, at cities, resorts ect..) Has anyone here?”
vg, same here. I built a jetty in 1963 and the king tides still come up to the same bolt-heads.
It’s a bit like that Roman landing site at the mouth of the River Stour in Kent around 40 AD. It’s now 2 miles inland.
The sea may not have gone down but it sure hasn’t risen much either!
Ozzie John (21:47:34) :
10.7 CM radio flux now shows a downward trend along with SSN close to 0. The AP values showed a very small rise, but are still near historical lows.
Sigh. The NOAA F10.7 flux is as observed at the Earth and is not what the Sun puts out. The rise/drop the last 12 months simply shows the variation of the distance to the Sun. The F10.7 radio flux has been rising since Nov-Dec of last year: http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-SORCE-2008-now.png [the pink curve].
From the data I have seen, and what has actually happened over the past 3 years, I would give D. Archibald 7/7 and the rest (won’t mention names), 1/7. I admire his ability to make cold dry statements which have turned out to be 100% correct (to date). I wonder if his prediction for a -.4C earth temp Satellite anomaly for 2009 will turn out to be correct LOL
Some hard core evidence for D Archibalds statements made quite some time ago and now corroborated to this date (check it yourselves)
1. Solar cycle length
2. Cosmic ray increase (quite striking indeed)
Hathaways predictions were completely off the scale
Can anyone suggest why rate of sea-level rise and the solar cycle are related? Me neither.
Surely no one believes thermal expansion of the oceans would so quickly respond to changes in solar activity. That’s a pretty big heat sink out there. I’d be more inclined to believe solar activity might have an effect on the instruments used to MEASURE sea level.
How quickly can the world-ocean respond to heating/cooling of the magnitude generated by a more/less active Sun?
Problems?
The first SC min. (1915?) is out of phase with the SLC =sea level change.
1935 has SC down, SLC rising.
1970 SLC peaks before SC
1980 SC and SLC peak simultaneously
late 80s SLC follows SC down, OK
1990 has a noticeable time lag of SLC peaking after SC peak
Conclusion: This idea needs more work.
Tim L.
Lakes and ponds are burying a very small amount of their total productivity with most algae either being consumed by animals or degraded by bacteria. Unlike oceans, which are an important sink for CO2, most lakes are strongly affected by dissolved organic carbon (DOC) that enters from the watershed. In the last 10-20 years, scientists have been surprised to learn how many lakes are “net heterotrophic” meaning that total respiration exceedes total photosynthesis. Extreme cases are brown stained lakes in lakes with acid soils, where humic matter from the surrounding forest may dominate total energy flow. In any case, many lakes are super saturated with CO2 and are releasing it to the atmosphere. This is especially at northern latitudes. Check Google Scholar under “balance of respiration and photosynthesis in lakes.” Also try “lakes and net heterotrophy.” Quite a few articles should be available as PDFs without subscription. If you only want articles that are free, include PDF in your search.
I agree with Anna. Half the time the Ocean level change is Leading the Solar Cycle change. Maybe, something else from the Sun?
vg (21:54:39) :
The thing is that I have not noticed sea levels rising anywhere since I was a child 1950’s (that is at the beach, at cities, resorts ect..) Has anyone here?
Well they are measuring in Millimeters so I think you would have to measure this on the shore of a nation that still uses Imperial measurment to see any increase. 😐
I suspect there is less here than meets the eye.
As Anna V and others have noted there are problems. The agreement didn’t work from roughly 1940-1955. Or before 1920.
And who can have faith in sea level measurements of this precision over a hundred years? Even if the data is accurate the sea level cycle seems longer than the solar cycles.
Moreover, nothing is shown after 2000. Yet that is the period where we have the very best measurements.
Even so, as I recall the sea level rise has now been small for three years and sunspots have also been low as Cycle 24 refuses to leave the starting gate. So maybe the graph would work after 2000 too.