I love field work. I think any climate scientist that basically becomes a data jockey should be forced to go out and examine real world measurement systems and weather stations once a year so that they don’t lose touch with the source of the data they study. That’s why I’m pleased to see that scientists at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU ) did some good old fashioned field work to look at geologic residues of past climate.
What they found was intriguing. The arctic may have periodically been nearly ice free in recent geologic history, after the last ice age. It is clear from this that we don’t really know as much as some think they do about climatic and ice cycles of our planet.
Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.
BEACH RIDGE: The scientists believe that this beach ridge in North Greenland formed by wave activity about 6000-7000 years ago. This implies that there was more open sea in this region than there is today. (Click the picture for a larger image) Photo: Astrid Lyså, NGU
”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
Shore features
ICE COVER: Today, at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU
Together with her NGU colleague, Eiliv Larsen, she has worked on the north coast of Greenland with a group of scientists from the University of Copenhagen, mapping sea-level changes and studying a number of shore features. She has also collected samples of driftwood that originated from Siberia or Alaska and had these dated, and has collected shells and microfossils from shore sediments.
SETTLEMENT: Astrid Lyså in August 2007 in the ruined settlement left by the Independence I Culture in North Greenland. The first immigrants to these inhospitable regions succumbed to the elements nearly 4000 years ago, when the climate became colder again. (Click for a larger image) Photo: Eiliv Larsen, NGU
”The architecture of a sandy shore depends partly on whether wave activity or pack ice has influenced its formation. Beach ridges, which are generally distinct, very long, broad features running parallel to the shoreline, form when there is wave activity and occasional storms. This requires periodically open water,” Astrid Lyså tells me.
Pack-ice ridges which form when drift ice is pressed onto the seashore piling up shore sediments that lie in its path, have a completely different character. They are generally shorter, narrower and more irregular in shape.
Open sea
”The beach ridges which we have had dated to about 6000-7000 years ago were shaped by wave activity,” says Astrid Lyså. They are located at the mouth of Independence Fjord in North Greenland, on an open, flat plain facing directly onto the Arctic Ocean. Today, drift ice forms a continuous cover from the land here.
Astrid Lyså says that such old beach formations require that the sea all the way to the North Pole was periodically ice free for a long time.
”This stands in sharp contrast to the present-day situation where only ridges piled up by pack ice are being formed,” she says.
However, the scientists are very careful about drawing parallels with the present-day trend in the Arctic Ocean where the cover of sea ice seems to be decreasing.
“Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes.
Inuit immigration
The mapping at 82 degrees North took place in summer 2007 as part of the LongTerm project, a sub-project of the major International Polar Year project, SciencePub. The scientists also studied ruined settlements dating from the first Inuit immigration to these desolate coasts.
The first people from Alaska and Canada, called the Independence I Culture, travelled north-east as far as they could go on land as long ago as 4000-4500 years ago. The scientists have found out that drift ice had formed on the sea again in this period, which was essential for the Inuit in connection with their hunting. No beach ridges have been formed since then.
”Seals and driftwood were absolutely vital if they were to survive. They needed seals for food and clothing, and driftwood for fuel when the temperature crept towards minus 50 degrees. For us, it is inconceivable and extremely impressive,” says Eiliv Larsen, the NGU scientist and geologist.
(hat tip to many commenters and emailers, too numerous to mention, but thanks to all)
Leif,
We gots ourselves a consensus….
(Done as C. W. McCall in “Convoy”!)
MJB
Lief,
“During the summer [i.e. the day] the very top few inches might partly melt to slush, but during the winter [i.e. the night] that layer freezes solid. The slush takes up air bubbles that scatter light, while the ‘night ice’ is clear. In this way annual layers build up that are easily counted. And none go missing, because at night everything is frozen.”
Yes it is now…but what about 6-7k ybp if it was possibly significantly warmer during the summer months?
Also, doesn’t ice flow down toward the coast? (i.e. calving is the result of this). I’m assuming it would flow down from 10,000 feet as well? Could this effect measurements?
I haven’t had a chance to read through this paper, but I think it’s might be relevant
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/lev/g6jgrpub.pdf
Which is a common misconception. They were just as intelligent as we are, but lacked the accumulated knowledge we now have. Just as we lack much of the knowledge they had, which is largely lost.
To Leif:
Frank: “There must be quite some unsecurities in the datings.”
Leif: “Yes, but not 2000 years for an age of 6000. Leif:”
Then howcome for example these measurements tell a little differnt story?
1) Humlum, Ice-sheet Greenland / Dahl Jensen 1998:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SummitAndCulture.gif
2) South Greenland, Kaplan 2002:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_qipisarqo.php
3) Venezuela, 2004:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php
These studies finds on the contrary that the whole period from around 3000 to 7000 years ago is warm. So, i dont understand how you can say without any compromise that there cant be these differences.
And then you mention 3 times to me something about a “pet theory”. I dont know what your point is. If you can come up with something that supports that my opinions are merely “Pet theories”, it would be slightly more acceptable.
Then you point out, that even though it was warmer 6-7000 years, this does not rule out AGW. I definetely agree! But this and the Medieval warm period does indeed show that the condition right now may not be as alarming as IPCC claims. And it shows that we have “come back” from much watmer conditions and thus these “point of no returns-scares” seems unfounded.
This, you might not find interesting, but i do.
Leif,
You could just as easily say you are making an extra assumption to confirm your theory specifically that the discovered shore edge was not caused by sea water.
The only place nearly everyone including me on this site wants to go is where the facts lead.
What does your temperature equation for the cycle comparison mean in real terms i.e temperature for a Dalton and temperature for an average cycle generally. Comparing 15000 spots with 50000 spots that’s 3 1/3 times as many.
Ed
Leif, heres an example where results differ quite markedly from the three i showed you before. Just to show that YES, theres a timing problem between your solar irradiance graph and the article about warmth in Greenland – but still these results are quite different:
South Africa:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_coldaircave.php
Not to mention IPCC that does not think there has been any warmer periods in the last many thousand years.
Therefore it certainly takes more just like that to rule out the sun as the temperature driver.
Arctic ice is back to 1 STD of normal.
http://eva.nersc.no/vhost/arctic-roos.org/doc/observations/images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
and identical to 2002-2006
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
Has Lewis Pugh made it to the North Pole yet?
Comments from Piers Corbyn to Lord Monckton seem appropriate here.
“The problem with the approach of Dr Chameides and others (eg Lockwood) is that even though they know (or should know) that very many weather phenomena – eg world temperatures and many river floods (eg as excellently researched by Will Alexander) – pretty well follow the magnetic (‘Hale’) cycle – 22yr – of the Sun they persist in examining effects related to an 11 year solar cycle of particle and light intensity. So obviously half the time the world temperatures etc and solar activity will move in opposite directions (and note there are many modulations of this including lunar effects). So looking over 3 solar cycles as he does will not indicate much which I suggest is why he chooses to do that rather than have a proper look at more data.
The data is there so lets use it! ‘Conclusions’ of examinations involving single solar cycles or parts of single cycles do not in anyway undermine the massive evidence for solar effects. In fact they reveal either ignorance or a misleading approach on the part of researchers.
1. In terms of smoothed out solar activity (or proxy thereof) over many decades there is very good correlation between solar activity and world temperatures
2. In terms of shorter time scales the correlation between geomagnetic activity and temperatures is EXCELLENT over successive 22yr Hale periods (as a consequence of the magnetic linkage)
3. The reason why 22yr geomagnetic activity beats everything is because that is a measure of particles actually reaching the right places on earth
4. The main world temperature periodicity is the double sunspot 22yr period rather than 11 yrs
So do not fall for solar particles alone as the driver of world temperatures, nor for Cosmic rays which also have to have an 11 year effect which is not observed in long data sets. Magnetic linkage effects are crucial
The upshot of this is essentially that – and this is a simplified look and notwithstanding other modulations (of which CO2 is NOT one):
a) Now we are in a very low particle but relatively good magnetic connectivity phase this still means cooling.
b) When the sun moves into cycle 24 although particles will go up the magnetic connectivity factor will change to ‘poor linkage’ and still cause generally cooling; this trend will generally carry on to 2013
c) Other modulation effects (eg lunar) in fact suggest a more general decline in smoothed temperatures to around 2030* – and there are other suggestions to continue beyond that from some Russians and others. (not withstanding sub-variations) {*stated at WeatherAction Press conference Sept 30th)
Finally of course, as you frequently point out!, the above ideas are not complete but any amount of shortcomings in them do not give any support to the CO2 centred theory. The CO2 theory fails not because other theories might not have all the answers but because the CO2 theory has no answers and there is no evidence for it in the available data.
All best Piers”
I’m just going to add that I’ve looked at Piers stuff closely with his indexes for reading his charts correctly from his monthly forecasts and found that he can predict accurately from the sun and other factors six and twelve months in advance.
Cheers, Ed.
Patrick Henry (07:25:39) :
Having been through a graduate program in geochemistry with a an emphasis on isotope dating, my confidence in age claims by geologists is usually +/- about 20%.
Their own confidence [and mine] is considerably better:
http://www.stratigraphy.org/chus.pdf
Dave (08:32:15) :
Yes it is now…but what about 6-7k ybp if it was possibly significantly warmer during the summer months?
So, the slush would be an inch deeper. Now, you must understand that it is not that one stands in water up there. The ice underfoot is very cold and the slush is patchy and freezes when you have clouds [one out of three 24-hour periods], and everything is frozen solid during night [winter]. So the 10Be isn’t going anywhere but down.
Also, doesn’t ice flow down toward the coast? (i.e. calving is the result of this). I’m assuming it would flow down from 10,000 feet as well? Could this effect measurements?
The ice flows down first, then near the bottom it flows out. Takes hundreds of thousands of years [millions in Antarctica].
Lansner, Frank (08:50:56) :
These studies finds on the contrary that the whole period from around 3000 to 7000 years ago is warm. So, i dont understand how you can say without any compromise that there cant be these differences.
The differences are not in the timing, but in regional temperatures, And if the whole time was warm then that incorporates the minimum in sunspots, which was my point.
And then you mention 3 times to me something about a “pet theory”. I dont know what your point is.
My point is that you [or anybody else] would tend to discard data that doesn’t fit. Timing errors, melting ice, what have you. This is just human nature.
Then you point out, that even though it was warmer 6-7000 years, this does not rule out AGW.
I’m at a loss as why AGW is always brought up [I did it just to say that it is irrelevant]. I have a feeling that almost anything people say is colored by their feelings towards AGW. This is not how to do science. Take them AGW-colored glasses off.
Edward Morgan (08:55:14) :
You could just as easily say you are making an extra assumption to confirm your theory specifically that the discovered shore edge was not caused by sea water.
Well, shores are where the sea is.
The only place nearly everyone including me on this site wants to go is where the facts lead.
So, tell me where they lead?
What does your temperature equation for the cycle comparison mean in real terms i.e temperature for a Dalton and temperature for an average cycle generally. Comparing 15000 spots with 50000 spots that’s 3 1/3 times as many.
As I said: 0.02 degrees.
The average sunspot covers 0.00001 of the Sun’s disk, so having 3.5 times as many doesn’t change the radiance of the Sun all that much.
Lansner, Frank (09:28:25) :
South Africa:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_coldaircave.php
Therefore it certainly takes more just like that to rule out the sun as the temperature driver.
As per the graph in the link you gave, the temperature was high around 1500, smack in the middle of the very deep solar Spoerer Grand Minimum. As I said, if the data fit one’s theory they are good, otherwise clearly bad. The data you showed fit mine, so are good, obviously.
My point is that the oft repeated statement that it is obvious that the Sun is the main driver has little support when you begin to look at the data [and not just that subset that fits]. The usual response is to invoke all kinds of possible errors [timing errors, scientists not knowing what they are doing, “it’s only regional’, on and on the hand-wringing goes]
Leif Svalgaard (10:11:53) :
As per the graph in the link you gave, the temperature was high around 1500, smack in the middle of the very deep solar Spoerer Grand Minimum.
And I clearly forgot to point out that the Oort minimum was during the MWP.
I’ll say it again: there is an abundance of evidence that the arctic was warmer in the mid-holocene than it is today
Tom
So many questions:
– Was the GRIP ice core uknown to science up to now?
– However did the polar bears survive?
– Why didn’t the methane escape into the atmosphere and kill the planet?
– That crackpot Roy Spencer had been pointing this out for some time, how is it that he was right?
Sorry, none of the above questions deserve an answer on account of they were asked by a skeptic.
As for proof of solar influence, I haven’t read the whole thread yet, but uncharictaristically, I am with Lief on this one. Remember that summers were longer in the Arctic at this time, due to the changing eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit, Keplers second law, and precession of the seasons through the orbit.
Also, the sun was more directly overhead at that time, due to a wobble in the Earth’s orbit, increasing not TSI but total summer solar insolation at high lattitudes/
The real question this raises is where were the pile-on effects of this that we have been assured will come?
This study is interesting, but by no means sensational. It is already known that most of the Greenland coast and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago was ice-free in the mid Holocene, i. a. from subfossil finds of Bowhead Whales and Walrus (which need open water). However there does not seem to be any beach ridges or subfossils on the north coast of Ellesmere land, northern Axel Heiberg land and some of the northernmost islands to the west, so a small area of summer ice may have survived there. As for the Greenland Ice, there is evidence that it retreated some tens of kilometers at this time.
There is an intersting parallell to the paleoeskimos that died out about 4000 years ago. About a thousand years ago the Thule culture (direct ancestors of the Inuits) arrived in northwestern Greenland from the west. They subsequently spread and settled all around the northern and eastern coasts of Greenland during the MWP, but became extinct during the LIA. A few were still around in 1823 according to a british whaler, but when the next european expeditions reached eastern Greenland in the 1870’s they were gone. The inuits living at Scoresbysound now have re-immigrated during the (warm) 20th century.
crosspatch:
Polar Bears are older than the last interglacial. There is last interglacial fossil record from Svalbard and an early last glacial record from the Lower Thames.
As for their surviving the last (much warmer) interglacial when the Arctic Ocean was very likely ice-free in summer, why not? Somehow it seems to be overlooked that Polar Bears do perfectly well around Hudson Bay and Baffins Bay which are always ice-free for several months in summer and autumn. What they do need is winter ice so they can hunt ringed seal. As a matter of fact they avoid areas of very thich multi-year ice, since this is to thick for the seals to make breathing holes, and is therefore a desert for a polar bear.
Suzanne Morstad:
Yes it is indeed well-known to anyone familiar with Quaternary paleoclimate that, generally speaking, deserts expand during cold periods and shrink during warm periods (it is not quite true, always and everywhere). To some extent this effect is probably reinforced by the fact that plants need more water when CO2 is low. However it is not considered politically correct to mention such things in public.
Lansner, Frank (08:50:56) :
Then how come for example these measurements tell a little differnt story? http://[…]cariacobasin
The link you provided carefully left out a part of the data, here is a link that fills the gap:
CARIACO BASIN SST RECONSTRUCTION (1221 to 1990):
http://i38.tinypic.com/nearh5.jpg
As you can see, again the Spoerer Grand Minimum stands out as being as warm as today, in spite of the extremely low solar activity.
Again, this is regional, but, there was another region [South Africa] that showed the same, and here is another region [Torneträsk in Lappland] showing that is was warm during 1400-1600:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/tornet78.gif
and on and on.
Again, none of these plots prove anything except that it is not obvious of clear or indisputable or [your favorite word], that solar activity is the main driver [or even just a significant player] in climate change
Rather than taking a firm stand on solar impact on climate, a wise person or a true scientist might be willing to wait and make observations for the current “unprecedented” 😉 period of low solar activity.
Watch the CO2 concentration curve diverge from the temperature curve and find reasons for the discrepancies from revered climate models of Hansen et al.
Climate proxies are pathetic. Even the proxies that Leif uses should probably receive less deference than he appears to give them.
Mr Pugh had to turn back.
No 15 minutes of publicity for him.
Dr. Lief, thanks again!
Anyway you look at it… isn’t it exciting? I hope that we all live long lives and we all know how this thing turns out. If I had it to do all over again, I think I would go into some branch of earth science.
Just for the record, I hope that we turn to various forms of solar and wind for our energy needs regardless of the status of the AGW debate. There are lots of other great reasons to do it.
Leif,
I would be interested in your thoughts on the statements re solar activity made by Piers Corbyn at http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1984
Leif said, “The average sunspot covers 0.00001 of the Sun’s disk, so having 3.5 times as many doesn’t change the radiance of the Sun all that much.”
Yes but as Piers Corbyn shows on slide 18 of 30 of his powerpoint lecture http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMG_en-GBGB291&q=hale+cycle+corbyn&btnG=Search&meta= (see second one down in the search list) “World temperatures and solar particles move together astoundingly well when averaged over the double sunspot cycle” this factors in the Hale cycle.
He goes on to say “When the IPCC include ‘solar variations’ they do not mean changes in particle and magnetic effect, they only mean light- which changes by 0.1% (cycle). The relative change in solar particle and magnetic effect in one solar cycle is 50,000 times larger”.
Now its likely you will find other ‘evidence’ Leif but it would cost you too much to admit you were making it up? I mean you should know about this being a solar physicist. Come on. Ed.
Leif,
I meant by, “You could just as easily say you are making an extra assumption to confirm your theory specifically that the discovered shore edge was not caused by sea water.” that the ridges in the above article were caused by the sea you were disagreeing earlier saying with your graph that it wasn’t warm enough 6000 years ago. Ed
Changing sea level isn’t simply a matter of the sun and sun spots. It is also affected locally by isostasy, for which one reason might be loss of ice loading. Thus, if areas that were previously ice loaded lose their ice, from melting and so on, the land will bounce back up. However, the effect is very slow compared with the duration of melting events. Hence, it will take many years for the land to rebound isostatically to allow for the loss of load. Norway is still uplifting rapidly following the loss of its ice sheet 10 ka or so ago; so is Scotland, although at a lower rate, and there are other examples.
The effect is further complicated by the spatial dependence of what melts first and where, and where the water goes. Sea level change at the last termination was not steady and gradual, but came along in various spurts, caused by melting in different places and times. The advancing oceans also inundated areas in a non-linear way, depending where you were, so that some reconstructed sea level curves suggest generally a rise since the termination, whilst others show rises and gentle reversals, followed by another rise, and so on.
So, what might this imply for the raised beaches found in Greenland, suggesting water where we might not have expected it, and even the possibility of a largely ice free Arctic Ocean at the time? Well, probably not so, actually, although the inference of what it does mean isn’t easy either. For one thing, Greenland is also still rebounding, and the rates of rebound were huge at times after the termination, 110m or so in parts of southern Greenland, not sure what the figures are for elsewhere. Hence, even if the climate was warm 6ka-7ka ago, and there had been a fair bit of melt, it woudn’t take much extra water near a gently shelving coast to make quite a bit of difference to the shoreline; similarly, it wouldn’t take much rebound to move the sea away again. The transgression doesn’t therefore require massive melting of the Arctic ice, let alone an entirely ice free Arctic; likewise, the regression doesn’t require a huge cooling and reforming of ice over the sea.
So, an interesting set of results, but it doesn’t change that much when taken in the context of what’s already known about sea level changes around Greenland and the northern archipelago.
Edward Morgan (09:50:05) :
Phillip Bratby (11:51:08) :
I would be interested in your thoughts on the statements re solar activity made by Piers Corbyn
I’ll do this statements by statement [and give a grade A=good, B=mixed, C=poor]:
1. In terms of smoothed out solar activity (or proxy thereof) over many decades there is very good correlation between solar activity and world temperatures
Solar activity in the 1850-1870 period was not different from what it was in 1980-present, but the temperatures were, So C.
2. In terms of shorter time scales the correlation between geomagnetic activity and temperatures is EXCELLENT over successive 22yr Hale periods (as a consequence of the magnetic linkage)
This one is a D. First there is confusion as to what a Hale cycle is. One view is that it is two consecutive solar cycles [that is the usual view]. Another is that a Hale cycle extends from polar field reversal [at solar max] through the following polar field reversal and until the one after that [when the polarity change is the same as at the start of the cycle], thus from maximum until the maximum 22 years ahead. It is this definition that would make sense for ‘linkage’. Second, the EXCELLENT correlation is just hype, show me! I have looked at this for decades and would not have missed EXCELLENT correlations.
3. The reason why 22yr geomagnetic activity beats everything is because that is a measure of particles actually reaching the right places on earth
Muddled and factually incorrect. We have satellites [POES http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/index.html ] that measure the actual amount of energy in GigaWatt. These measurements go back 30 years and have proxies back 150 years and do not show a pronounced 22-year influence. [E.g. page 17-18 of http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS.pdf and also http://www.leif.org/research/POES%20Power%20and%20IHV.pdf ]
Now there is a very subtle effect has has to do with a 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity. It is discussed in detail on pages 53ff of http://www.leif.org/research/suipr699.pdf . A more modern plot can be found on page 10ff of http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf
The ovals show two time intervals [1977,1996] where observed and inferred solar wind parameters differ slightly. The small differences [see page 11] are due to the 22-year cycle in geomagnetic activity [which was ignored in the calculation of BV^2]. It is evident that this effect is small and transient and that it is highly unlikely that this hard-to-detect second order effect is the primary driver of climate. So, a C.
4. The main world temperature periodicity is the double sunspot 22yr period rather than 11 yrs
Stated without statistical confidence levels. An FFT power spectrum http://www.leif.org/research/PowerFFT-CET.png of Central England Temperatures since 1659 does not show a prominent peak at 22 years. There are [statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level] peaks at 70, 25, 16, and 7 years. None at 22 or 11 years. Perhaps Basil can run a wavelet analysis of this. So far, a C.
a) Now we are in a very low particle but relatively good magnetic connectivity phase this still means cooling.
The good connectivity was in 1977 and 1996 [remember the two ovals on page 10 of http://www.leif.org/research/Seminar-SPRG-2008.pdf ], so now we have ‘poor’ connectivity. Another C.
b When the sun moves into cycle 24 although particles will go up the magnetic connectivity factor will change to ‘poor linkage’ and still cause generally cooling; this trend will generally carry on to 2013
Muddled, the ‘connectivity’ that controls the 22-year cycle changes after the maximum, probably in 2013. So the connectivity we have now will not change for another 5 years. C again.
c) Other modulation effects (eg lunar) in fact suggest a more general decline in smoothed temperatures to around 2030* – and there are other suggestions to continue beyond that from some Russians and others. (not withstanding sub-variations) {*stated at WeatherAction Press conference Sept 30th)
Here we are in D territory.
Edward Morgan (12:17:55) :
“World temperatures and solar particles move together astoundingly well when averaged over the double sunspot cycle” this factors in the Hale cycle”
As I just pointed out, the Magnetic 22-year cycle goes from max and not from min, so this is muddled.
He goes on to say “When the IPCC include ’solar variations’ they do not mean changes in particle and magnetic effect, they only mean light- which changes by 0.1% (cycle). The relative change in solar particle and magnetic effect in one solar cycle is 50,000 times larger”.
How is that for effect, wow! All he is saying is that solar activity varies by 50% [=50,000*0.1%]. It is like the difference between having 2 fleas versus 3 of them on the back of an elephant.
Actually, the sunspot number varied from 1810 where it was zero to 1816 when is was 50, by an astounding 50/0*100% = infinite %. Beats even Corbyn’s 50,000 times as much.
Now its likely you will find other ‘evidence’ Leif but it would cost you too much to admit you were making it up? I mean you should know about this being a solar physicist. Come on.
Will let the readership judge this one on its merit.
Nick O. (12:56:32) :
Changing sea level isn’t simply a matter of the sun and sun spots. It is also affected locally by isostasy, for which one reason might be loss of ice loading.
One might [and I shall] surmise that Astrid Lyså is well aware of this and either have compensated for it or judged it of minor importance. After all, since most of the ice on Greenland is still there, perhaps the isostatic rise was not so important.