Guest post by David Archibald
Successful prediction of levels of solar activity suggests that prediction of other phenomena driven by solar activity might also be successful, and useful. Sea level rise is a concern of some people. President Obama said in June 2008 that his nomination in the Democratic primaries was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”.
The above graph shows the satellite data from the University of Colorado from late 1992. A change of trend is evident in 2004. Prior to that, sea level was rising at 4.2 mm/annum, and after 2004 at 1.5 mm/annum. 2003 was the recent peak in solar activity in terms of flares, F10.7 flux and proton flux. It is likely that the lower rate of rise post 2004 is due to lower subsequent solar activity.
The CSIRO compiled tide gauge data from 1870. The graph above shows that data with the subsequent satellite data plotted together.
The modern retreat of glaciers began in 1860. Initially sea level rose at 1.0 mm/annum. After 1930, it almost doubled to 1.9 mm/annum. This is a well-defined uptrend, now 80 years long.
Our prediction of a 2° C decline in temperature for the mid-latitudes over Solar Cycles 24 and 25 suggests that sea level will stop rising, and should start falling at some point prior to 2032.
The graph above combines the satellite data with the prior ten years of tide gauge data and shows the bounds of the long term rise at 1.9 mm/annum post 1030. Sea level could remain flat for another ten years before that trend in sea level rise is broken.
I think the correct Latin phrase is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. And its a fallacy.
Willis
Very nice article
When I posted this very same information (minus your very intriguing solar reference) on another site a few weeks ago I got skewered by Tamino who had not even read my material (which had been censored by the site owner anyway.)
Sea levels are continuing to rise very gently at a similar trend to previous times in the last century.
Sea levels globally remain generally lower today than they were during the MWP and Roman optimum a fact curiously omitted from Chapter 5 of AR4
tonyb
is “post 1030.” in the last paragraph a typo?
Thanks
JK
Even the Topex/Jason combined graph hints at the “breakpoint” in 20034 but also shows a steep decline in global sea levels through 2010. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
But how can global sea levels fall by what looks like 10-15mm over a year in 2010? Looks impossible to me. So how accurate are these measurements?
Here is Cancun’s controversial paper
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SL.pdf
please download it if interested, I will take it down in a day or two.
I’m afraid your 2004 inflection point doesn’t even register on the larger scale graph from 1860 to 2020. I’m also sceptical of your un-substantiated claim that “It is likely that the lower rate of rise post 2004 is due to lower subsequent solar activity”. By what mechanism, backed up by empirical data, is this supposed to work?
I’m just interested, not vested.
It is an inriguing correlation, but what possible mechanism could tie solar changes to sudden sea level rate changes?
Interesting graph of C20th tide gauges David, thanks.
Your first graph and mine disagree though. Did you use NoIB and no seasonal adjustment with the Colorado data?
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/sea-level-rise-levelling-off/
New GRACE results suggest that the global sea level rise is just 1mm/year, but dunno in which time scale. When looking for such relations, I take oceanic oscillations over the solar cycle any time.
Are we sure that this is a change of trend and not say a change of satellite or something similar?
latest measurements of the GRACE-Satellite, that will appear in the Journal of Geophysical Research Letters show a sea level rise of about 1mm/a.
tokyoboy posted a Japan tide gauge chart a while ago that showed a lumpy sin curve for sea level, with a peak around 1950 –
http://i53.tinypic.com/6p9ef6.jpg
The steadily increasing satellite level fits into the upswing at the recent end. The sense one gets is that the satellite data may be a misleading glimpse of a larger whole, and that sea level might turn downward again within 10 or twenty years.
The latest s.l. chart from C.U. shows a spike the beginning of 2010, but a steep drop since then. We might have turned the corner already, much as we might have turned the corner into the next ice age in 1998.
Or not. 🙂 It’s like tracking the darn stock market.
Reduced solar input to the oceans as the effect of more equatorward jets (or at least ‘loopier’ jets) plus increased cloud quantities and albedo (Earthshine Project) began to bite from the late 90s ?
However I think the beginning of the trend reversal for the whole climate system was earlier, probably in the mid 90s when the cooling trend in the stratosphere appears to have ceased. I noticed the jet stream shifting around 2000 but I expect the system took another 4 years to come down from an earlier net warming peak and only around 2003 / 2004 did the entire system turn net negative and that seems to have coincided with the cessation of the increasing trend in ocean heat content too. Note that the system includes oceans not just troposphere so recent troposphere warmth is a temporary and irrelevant issue.
So as I pointed out elsewhere we have a whole raft of trend reversals for many different phenomena starting from the sun becoming less active after the peak of cycle 23, then the cessation of stratospheric cooling, then the equatorward shift of the jets, then increased cloudiness and albedo, then ocean heat content stops rising, then ENSO turns more negative than expected as the solar input to the oceans falls with a very strong upcoming La Nina, then eventually as oceanic warmth dissipates we see the cooling of the mid latitudes as a precursor to more generalised cooling.
The change in the rate of sea level rise at just the right time is another piece in the jigsaw.
So, the sun it is and we need to work out how it happens.There cannot be such a clear sequence of changes subsequent to a distinct change of solar behaviour without a direct causative element. For that see here:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6645
“How The Sun Could Control Earth’s Temperature”
The reliance on the effect of solar protons may not be the full story but it is certainly some sort of solar related mechanism affecting the polar vortices from above. I now favour the general downward flux of all the reaction products from solar impacts combined on the upper atmosphere operating via the chemical characteristics of ozone.
It looks like the net solar effect on the higher levels of the atmosphere is of the opposite sign and is overall more powerful than the generally recognised solar effects on the lower levels.
If that were not so then the specific combination of observed phenomena that we have experienced over the past 15 years since the mid 90s could never have happened in such an ordered manner.
Sea levels are probably the most difficult measurement to get right due to the multitude of variations due to external factors. Tidal gauges only give relative level changes, which include the land movement, so are not the most reliable proxy. Satellites are better but there are different answers between the two systems out there as WUWT reported a few days ago and I will not repeat only to say that the European system of two satellites measuring gravity changes will become more accurate as time goes on because corrections will become more accurate. My guess is that with the Argo system showing a cooling ocean there will be a reverse in the expansion expected so sea levels will level out or even reverse if the cooling continues.
Another problem, which I have not seen in any explanation of sea level changes, is that the tectonic system is increasing continental crust by an estimated 1 cubic Km per annum and as this is lighter than oceanic crust must displace some water so raising sea levels.
I notice , in Australia at least, that the Greens are in a panic. First, some members of the ruling Labor party are talking about nuclear; second, there is hardly any reporting of Cancun and ; third, the fact that is wet and cool, not dry and hot, has them raising the sea rise alarm again. People are more concerned by rising electricity costs and the Greens want to make it dearer and rising water bills because the AGW crowd convinced Labor state governments that it wasn’t going to rain anymore so they built expensive desal plants rather than dams. Lots of dumb people down here.
I’m glad there has been a post on this topic. Looking at the sea level graph on the reference page it looks as if the number of data points brlow the trend line has increased in the last few years. If this trend continues ill probably be able to walk to France by the end of the century.
I am not convinced about the accuracy of readings with this level of granulairty from satellites. I’ve used extremely accurate measuring devices in the past in my engineering days to consider these 1.5mm measurements are accurate is false IMO.
“Lawrie Ayres says:
December 1, 2010 at 2:29 am”
Sadly, you are right. The real main issue here in Aus, unlike most other countries in my experience at least, is that Aus really hasn’t “suffered” in comparison, and most Aussies have no clue where there money goes and, therefore, get rorted, they just pay up. Maybe it’s a British thing in me, I compain!
Cost of everything…just about outstrips most other countries.
“Lawrie Ayres says:
December 1, 2010 at 2:29 am”
Additional. The “Greens” are not in panic IMO. What is going on is well placed politicing. Gay marriage is a hot topic here is Aus. Thatcher used this “distraction” great effect during the Faulklands War. I fully expect Ms Gillard WILL get her “price on carbon”…but there are some Aussies who are noticing the cold, in Aus. Forget England!
There is no basis for the solar activity to be the cause and effect here. The current warming period is the probable cause of the sea level changes. That the Earth is always fluctuating around the long-term average (which is trending down) could have some solar component, but it might not.
I agree that the current warming period will peak in the next 20-30 years, but I suspect that the drop in temperature will be caused by changes in the ocean currents. I also think that people will wish that CO2 made a difference 100 years from now as it is going to get cold when that change happens.
John Kehr
Stephen Wilde says:
December 1, 2010 at 2:12 am (Edit)
Reduced solar input to the oceans as the effect of more equatorward jets (or at least ‘loopier’ jets) plus increased cloud quantities and albedo (Earthshine Project) began to bite from the late 90s ?
Of relevance to this is the correlation between solar activity and specific humidity near the tropopause:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png
Something must lie at the root of the albedo changes which coincide with solar activity and I think this is a piece of the puzzle.
Satellite temperature is a proxy, to which they input falsified reference temperatures. This can only last so long and is now being exposed.
Sea level was subject to many debates until satellite measurement came along, It show negligible sea level rise
Ocean temps ( how much must you heat the atmosphere to raise the temperature of the sea one degree) are now accurately measured with an active buoy system. They hide the results.
So it seems on all fronts, they have lost especially when you add in the increase in Antarctic Sea ice and the non melt down of the Arctic.
It would be sad to see them urging cuts in CO2 if it were not so sad and potentially disastrous for all.
My 12.41
I was of course testing the mods to see if they had noticed my deliberate mistake 🙂
I should have said nice article David, not Willis. I remain to be convinced on the solar correlation but as climate science know nothing like as much as it thinks it does it may be possible.
Tonyb
jim karlock says:
December 1, 2010 at 12:42 am
Typo – should be 1930.
John Peter says:
December 1, 2010 at 12:52 am
So how accurate are these measurements?
I look at how disciplined the rise was and I get the impression that there is some basic physical process driving it and that the measurements are accurate.
An Engineer says:
December 1, 2010 at 1:05 am
I have been thinking about that two. The mechanism may rely upon the fact that the ocean is very stratified and that there is very little vertical mixing. The penetration of sunlight in the open, tropical ocean is about 100 metres. If there is less cloud, there is more sunlight penetrating to that depth. Once it absorbs heat, it is difficult for it to cool down as it is still colder than the overlying column, and thus won’t convect.
Rational Debate says:
December 1, 2010 at 1:09 am
One of my reasons for plotting this up was Bob Tisdale’s work on ENSO, which does not show an apparent correlation between solar cycles and temperature. Looking at this sea level data, the post-1930 rise started about 15 years after the end of the Little Ice Age. There is a correlation with Solar Cycle 19. I think that is why we happen to inhabit such a benign planet – there are so many forces at play smoothing things out.
tallbloke says:
December 1, 2010 at 1:09 am
Yes. One thing that I find interesting about this data is that there are upper and lower bounds which are parallel. This is a disciplined process – it is not just flopping about.
What looks to be another large unipolar region is emerging in the north. This type of activity is much lower than other forms of solar activity and has even displayed negative trends in solar output (F10.7 & EUV).
The ratio of unipolar groups is very high for SC24….all good for a reduction in sea level rise.
tallbloke says:
December 1, 2010 at 3:43 am
What really happened in December 2004 it was the big earthquake and tsunami. Remember?