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.
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.
The original graph from CA is here: http://www.redcentresoftware.com/public/Holgate2007_sealevel_sunspots.PNG
and the CA post is here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1125
Yes Lubos, it is an obvious thing and something that you would expect to see. It would be a quick and easy paper for anyone interested.
The less perfect correlation on Solar Cycle 22 was due to the eruption of Mt Pinataubo in 1991, which even affected the power output from solar panels in the Mojave Desert.
OT… but Skeptics should ONLY stick to ONE argument and that is that Human produced CO2 causes warming. Everything else (ie land use ect) is debatable. Refer to Joanne’s Skeptic Handbook.
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening
RE previous that site is actually debunking her but it has a link to her booklet. It interesting to see their arguments in any case LOL
Leif Svalgaard (21:52:10) :
Ah, Dr Svalgaard. For the last six months Oulu neutron monitor has been rising at 12 counts/minute/month on average. It remains on target for my prediction of 6,900 in July 2010.
“Fluffy Clouds”
I would expect overall the climate to become dryer as the oceans cool. Reduced evaporation will mean less moisture in the atmosphere. We still don’t have a grip on what the climate looked like over most of North America during the LIA because it was so sparsely populated by people who could record anything.
Also, climates can change locally. A cooling ocean would mean changes in jet stream and persistent pressure gradients that can change weather patterns over an area. What might have been a dry area in warmer times may become wetter as the storms now track through that area. Or areas that were wet may become dry. But I would expect to see overall global precipitation to increase with warmer temperatures and decrease with cooler temperatures.
Watch for a return of droughts in Africa and expect Ethiopia to be back in the news soon.
Hi,
first “there’s an obvious correlation” is not really a good scientific measure of the correlation coefficient – it should be done (if it hasn’t been yet). I can already see many regions with opposing trends.
second, the solar cycle seems to be in phase with the changes in the RATE of increase, but why in the world is this rate always positive, i.e. why is there an underlying positive trend?
Pardon for a simple question.
How can we be sure that the sun is more active now than in the last 8000 years? We have been hearing about the medieval warm period and the Roman empire era warm period. How does your statement fit in with this?
I keep on noticing that Dr. Svalgaard seems to have a position that solar activity has historically been more or less than same.
less lake and pond water means less CO2 adsorption in these waters.
A reduction of a few mm or cm wouldn’t a noticeable difference. There is plenty of open water for absorbing CO2.
SKEPTIC MODE:
What if the sea is rising at a (roughly) constant 2mm/year (i.e. a straight line), and solar activity cycle is just causing a +/-2mm cycle to be overlaid on top of it? That sounds as (if not more) plausible than solar activity directly causing sea level rises!
Also, I would like to know the source of the sea level data. If this data is from just one place (or a few), it could just be that sea levels are being raised there (and lowered elsewhere). Not sure how solar activity would do that, but then I’m not sure how solar would impact sea level (without global air temperature varying in the same way).
I would expect the timing and scale of any oceanic response to changes in solar input of energy to be affected by the current net state of all the combined ocean oscillations at the time. I would not expect to see a precise correlation.
The rate of absorption or emission of energy by the oceans over multidecadal time periods will affect the response to changes in solar energy input both as regards timing and scale.
Subject to verification the chart shown by David is a good starting point for further investigation.
The precise mechanisms which change the ocean emissivity/absorption properties over time needs fuller investigation such as that being conducted by Bob Tisdale and others.
The precise mechanisms which then create climate effects in the air also need fuller investigation and Erl Happ with his colleague and others are doing useful work on that.
All of us need to consider the ‘chicken and egg’ aspect. Personally I feel that the right sequence as far as climate events in the air are concerned is as follows:
Ocean energy absorption/emissivity changes over multidecadal time periods are the primary cause of climate changes observed over human lifetimes.
Behind that are gradual cumulative, if small, solar changes over several centuries.
I suspect that movements within the Oceans are primarily caused by density differentials combined with the Earth’s rotation and variable friction effects on the underlying sea floor and continental shelves but changes in solar energy input would have effects first on the water densities and then on the circulatory flows.
As regards the air I suspect that the ocean surface temperatures drive everything else because of the overwhelming scale of their influence and the high sensitivity of the responses in the air. I am supportive of but as yet unconvinced by the cosmic ray aspect because it would be minor as compared to the effect of ocean surface temperature changes but I am open to persuasion as evidence comes in.
I see a suggestion from Erl Happ and Svensmark that the cosmic ray induced changes in the air would be the primary driver of temperature changes in the air but I disagree with that at present. Hence the ‘chicken and egg’ point that needs to be resolved.
Nir Shaviv has published this same comparison in JGR 2008.
However, I must point out that the decadal varibility in a few tide-gauges does most likely not represent anything global. On decadal scales shifts in local weather patterns will dominate over the global signal. Further, like Anna V, I do not find the correlation impresssive. All i can see from the series is that they both seem to have a spectral peak at decadal periods. But notice how the relative phase relationship is consistently slipping – like the wavelength of the sea level rate is slightly longer than that of solar cycle.
Ofcourse changes in the radiation balance (TSI, GHGs, volcanic and other aerosols) must have some impact on sea level. However, you would have to invoke some extremely powerful feedbacks to explain the huge variability in the above figure from TSI variations alone. Feedbacks that presumably also should work for aerosols & GHGs.
I would like to see the graphs plotted to 2009 rather than 2000. Would this be possibe .
Its an interesting co -relation.
This looks like a stick-and-carrot job. The big carrot is the undeniable correlation. And the big stick (apart from the usual human reluctance to consider new parameters) is the areas of apparent non-correlation. Well, there’s got to be an explanation. The correlation will not just disappear because of the non-correlation areas.
This looks worthy of Svensmark. He too had to explain some serious areas of anomaly (as well as cope with Damon and Laut’s nonsense and the hostility of Bolin etc) but he has been coming out trumps, both theory-wise and practice-wise, with improvements that strengthen the hypothesis, as well as the ability to answer shoddy detractors, AFAICT.
This is interesting!
Dear David, I completely agree with your excitement and publishability of such results etc.
The sea level rise seems to show the cycle which the normal global mean temperature series don’t. While I agree that the volcanos (and perhaps the El Nino 1998 that may have delayed the maximum of the sea level rise, too) have an impact, I feel that it is less visible in the sea level data than the HadCRUT3-like data.
In this sense, the sea levels look “deeper” to the climatic system, beyond the visible meteorological phenomena on the surface. The mean temperature reconstructed from the sea levels could be more accurate a measurement of the external drivers of the temperature – a better way to filter out the local atmospheric phenomena.
Of course, all these things are falsifiable. The correlation may completely break down or revert in the next 20 years, in which case I would believe it was a coincidence. But I do expect this phenomenon to be visible in some data so I won’t leave the hypothesis before it is falsified.
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
Yes there is a mark, however, there is an ongoing argument regarding the time and exact date it was created. It does sit well above todays “MT”, due to the ongoing debate, it is impossible to use it as a reliable measuring tool.
I don’t see a particular correlation there, TBH. The leading edge would suggest that as often as not a rise in sea-level causes a change in solar output, along with the end of WW2 🙂
Really glad to have seen the information you are presenting here. And the calibre of the comments is fantastic. I have added your site to my own blogroll. I trust that is OK.
This all just goes to show how easy you can make graphs give you the evidence you want to find.
I’d like to know how the earth’s sea level change affects the sun’s output as the graph often eems to indicate.
If we overlaid PDO and AMO into the graphs it might give some causation for the linkage between solar cycles and Seal Level Rise.
Another factor could be Solar Winds which effect the earths Daily Rotation rate slowing it with high solar winds the reverse with low, causing the 57km bulge at the equator to minutely change.
We still know little about the deep ocean temperature changes, and the rate of transfer across the thermocline.
even at the equator the deep ocean temperature is only about 5 deg C.
if only the top 200 m of ocean is heated an extra .1 or .2 deg then the coefficient of expansion of aprox .0021 then at most expansion will be about .5mm per year
this paper by Wigley is interesting
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/mva/WR1987/WR1987.html
and rates the thermal expansion from 1880 to 1980 at 2 to 5 cm
Nasa gives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea_level_change_trend.jpg
an interesting map of regional variations to sea level change
The interesting co-relation deserves further study.
Les Francis (23:12:57) :
A good little summary of the Solanki paper is here: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20041028/genPDF.pdf
Otherwise just Google search “Solanki active Sun 8000 years”
vg (22:56:04) :
OT… but Skeptics should ONLY stick to ONE argument and that is that Human produced CO2 causes warming. Everything else (ie land use ect) is debatable. Refer to Joanne’s Skeptic Handbook.
http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbook-global-warming-real-and-happening”
vg,
Are you proposing that we shut down our brains like the warmists who make AGW responsible for everything that is happening in the world?
When there is more solar energfy in the oceans the water expands. When there is less such energy then the water contracts.
There is a constant flow of energy from sun, into oceans and then from oceans to air and then to space.
There is a small solar variability over centuries but much larger ocean induced variations in the flow over shorter multidecadal time scales.
When there is an El Nino the energy flow from ocean to air is accelerated and the air warms faster than energy is flowing from air to space. The equatorial high pressure systems expand and the jet streams shift poleward. There is eventually a faster emission of energy from air to space which stops the process continuing but at a new equilibrium involving altered jet stream positions. The oceans contract unless there is an even higher solar input such as that from 1975 to 2000 when the oceans actually expanded despite the persistent powerful positive PDO.
When there is a La Nina the energy flow from ocean to air is decreased and the air cools because the energy flow from air to space continues and a deficit develops. The equatorial high pressure systems contract and the jet streams shift equatorward. There is eventually a slower emission of energy from air to space which stops the process continuing but at a new equilibrium involving altered jet stream positions. The oceans would normally expand unless the solar input is reduced enough at the same time to prevent that expansion. That may be the position we are in today.
In reality there is a constant switching between the two modes with the scale and timing of the changes being induced by changes in the oceanic energy absorption/emissivity characteristics.
On human lifetime scale it is those oceanic changes which control all the climate changes we observe.
If extra human CO2 has an effect the air circulation deals with it in the same way that it deals with oceanic energy emission variations.
It just shifts the air circulation patterns an infinitesimal distance to maintain the background energy flow by maintaining the link between sea surface and surface air temperatures.
That is not currently a mainstream theory but it is mine and I believe it to be correct on the basis of logic and observations.
Note that PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) appears to shift from warming to cooling and back over a complete cycle of about 60 years (6 solar cycles of 11 years or, if one prefers, 3 solar cycles of 22 years). It is the interplay of the two sets of cycles that explain all observed global temperature shifts in the historical records and the partial correlation seen in David’s chart.
There can be El Nino events during a negative PDO and La Nina during a positive PDO but what matters is the netted out energy characteristics of the oceans during each phase. The situation is complicated further by the presence of similar oscillations in each ocean which introduces time lags and amplification and suppression effects.
David,
Can you supply a link to the data, and describe what exactly is measured, and by what method? (or just email it to me?) Also need a 2nd Y axis scale for solar describing what solar measurement is used. It would be interesting to continue whatever was measured to 2009, or maybe use different solar indicators.
I’d like to take a look at it. There might be other factors that explain the leading / lagging effects. Raw / unsmoothed is best for me if you have it, or the entire analysis so I can see how you did this. Sounds like others are interested too. Thanks.
Could it be possible that we are seeing two affects with one common cause ?
I recall reading an article about sunspot cycles being driven by gravitational forces of celestial bodies, in particular Jupiter. Wouldn’t sea levels be affected by the gravity of other planets in the same way as tides are driven by the moon ?
Just a thought.
Stephen Wilde: You wrote, “The precise mechanisms which change the ocean emissivity/absorption properties over time needs fuller investigation such as that being conducted by Bob Tisdale and others.”
Thanks for the honorable mention but “ocean emissivity/absorption properties over time” are beyond my capabilities. Additionally, an investigation longer than a decade or two would required long-term cloud cover data, and that’s the weak link in all climate studies.
Aslak,
However, you would have to invoke some extremely powerful feedbacks to explain the huge variability in the above figure from TSI variations alone.
All you have to invoke is the feedback from the GHGs of 0.6 which gives an amplification of 2.5.
1 W change in TSI will give a 0.44 W (1*0.7/4*2.5) change on the surface and that’s very close to Lyman et al 2006, probably 0.4-0.5 after correction.
As a laymay wishing to better understand the “forcings” behind climate change I have been following this and other blogs on both sides of the CO2 & AGW argument. I am progressively coming to the conclusion that, considering the current behaviour of the sun, the next 4-5 years could be more conclusive in determining the relative influence of the various “forcing agents”. From my practical experience as a businessman (now retired) there is rarely a simple explanation to a complex problem and I dare to predict that eventually (within a reasonably wide margin of error) there will be an emerging consensus on the % distribution of climate variance causing agents spread out between the sun and its influence on magnetic field, cosmic rays etc, earth’s rotation, speed proximity to the sun etc, and possibly atmospheric CO2, a part of which will be man made. As a “watcher” I really find the 100% pro and 100% against AGW tedious. I think that many of the theories put forward may have a small or medium influence but in reality we are talking about a very complicated interplay, part of which will be man made CO2, but this may only be a small part that can be overwhelmed by other forces or we would not see a dip in global temperatures as evidenced by http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ and other graphs agains a continuing output of CO2. I really find the alarmists tiresome with their daft predictions.
It would be interesting if it were possible to construct as accurate as possible a temperature graph covering say the last 1200 years and determine which forcings were responsible for the variations and the potential interplay (sun, rotation CO2 etc).
A recent study has published a paper which notes that the Australian continent (including Taswegia) is moving Northeast at the rate of 7cm per year. i.e. 7 meters a century. 1841 was 150 years ago so it follows that the shift would already be 10+ metres from the position now.
So how does this tectonic movement tie in with Sea Level pegs?
It would be only guesswork trying to estimate Australian sea levels in a century.
Bob Tisdale:
Whoops.
Nevertheless I think the work you are doing will help to ascertain the nature and scale of mechanisms within the oceans that have to be understood before we can nail down the causes of the phase shifts which result in changes in the absorption/emissivity characteristics.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
speaking of the sun, there’s a weird anomaly at 2 o’clock on the latest SOHO MDI continuum…anyone have an idea what that is?
OT: Here’s an Op-ed yesterday (April 7) from Washington’s governor Christine Gregoire:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008995804_opina07gregoire.html
Samples:
“RECENTLY in Copenhagen, scientists heard the startling news that climate change is happening even faster than predicted. We’re seeing the devastating results here — two 100-year floods in the past two years, droughts, changes in snow pack and rainfall, and more.
…………………
That’s why I recently urged lawmakers to pass legislation that will:
• Bring us through the current crisis better prepared than ever to compete nationally and globally.
• Speed up our transition away from fossil fuels like coal and oil to renewable energy like wind and solar.
• Require coal-fired power plants operating in the state to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases or be fully carbon neutral by no later than 2025.
• Develop a “West Coast Green Highway” to accommodate fully electric, zero-emission vehicles and those powered by alternative fuels.
• Reduce traffic and tailpipe pollution in the state’s most populated areas.
• Work with our new partners in the other Washington to create national greenhouse-gas-reduction programs that don’t harm our Washington.
By acting now, we will declare our energy independence and create job growth that the world will envy. When this recession ends, Washington must be ready to take new, bold steps to address climate change. We can’t let fear drive us into inaction that we and future generations will regret.
President Obama is already working with Congress to develop a national cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases — a most effective and efficient way to reduce harmful emissions.
By enacting a strong bill now, Washington will be positioned to influence the national discussion on climate change, and protect our state’s vital interests — which include our natural resources, our businesses and jobs.
Last year, Washingtonians sent $16 billion overseas to buy fossil fuels. Instead, we can invest those dollars in Washington jobs, clean energy, businesses and families. Every $1 billion that Washington residents spend here generates 6,300 jobs.
Washington didn’t have any wind farms in 2000. Today we are the nation’s fifth-largest producer of wind energy. That’s innovation. That’s leadership. That’s the competitive edge.”
Well, thankfully no one is trying to bring in the barycenter argument.
John Peter>> I agree with most of what You´re writing. The problem is that the alarmists, when confronted with fact after fact about how thin their soup of evidence really is, often resort to; “But this is the best science we have right now, shouldn´t we adhere to it?”
No, there is no reason to act according to any science, simply because we have no better. That would be like if NASA would have sent people towards the moon with their first prototype rocket; “This is the best rocket we have, shouldn’t we use it?”
Lubos Motl. ” Why hasn’t anyone ever noticed this obvious thing?”.
Good question. But I’ve actually seen Jennifer Marohasy mention this correlation about a year ago… (It struck me too when I saw Holgates graph at World Climate Report, and my tiny little blog mentioned that. 🙂 )
May it be the cloud as drivers of sea surface temperature?
I think it’s also is interesting that sun activity have roughly about a 50-60 percent positive correlation with temperature and at the same time cycles in ocean currents have more than 80 percent correlation with regional climate (Compo & Sardeshmukh, 2007). Maybe the sun conduct the cycles in the ocean currents via the changes of cloud patterns? Imagine if we there also have kind of a “background template” which consists of the Geomagnetic Field Intensity, which is more visible when the sun has a particular active (or inactive) phase and we got more (or less) GCR…? I mean that patterns of the geomagnetic field is masked…? See this post at Niche Modeling:
http://landshape.org/enm/global-temperature-change-and-geomagnetic-field-intensity/
BTW Palle et al (2004) shows a correlation between GCR and low level cloud cover at the 99.5 percent confidence level.
(I know this is kind of a lot of hypothetical ideas of connections between factors — the AGW people like to ridiculize any attempt to search other hypothesis than the more than weak CO2 consensus-hypothesis, written in the holy word of the IPCC summary — but anything that can be falsified makes new hypothesis worthwhile (which doesn’t seem to be the attitude the IPCC disciples have).)
Sea level rise vs. solar cycles shows more often then not that sea level precede solar cycle upturn, and more recently the other way around.
Conclusion must be that one cannot be causing the other. However, that does not exclude the possibility of a common cause for both, and that only could be a planetary orbital factor of one kind or another, and not necessarily the same one in both cases.
Flanagan, the reason the rate is positive is because we are in an interglacial period, called the Holocene. We are actually due for another ice age, which is when the ice sheets will begin growing again, and sea levels will once again drop. That will not be a good time for mankind, or indeed life on earth.
Like Flanagan and others here, I also would like to see the numeric value of the correlation coefficient together with CI. Visually “striking” correlations can be close to zero when checked numerically.
The plot looks interesting and I certainly would not be surprised if there is a) a correlation and b) a causal link between solar and sea level.
HOWEVER, I never trust correlations inferred qualitatively from lining up 2 time series beside each other – our brains are wired to “see” patterns in data.
What is the actual correlation coefficient between these 2 time series?
Also (to answer questions here about what lags what), what does the autocorrelation function look like?
With these metrics we can confirm/deny what the correlation and lag is. Then we can move onto causality.
Don’t get me wrong here, I strongly believe solar and internal variation has a big part in climate, but we can’t prove this and stop the AGW bandwagon with qualitative eye-balling.
Re: realitycheck (04:48:44) :
Correction. I mean “what does the CROSScorrelation function look like”
Stephen Wilde (02:03:28) :
“When there is more solar energy in the oceans the water expands. When there is less such energy then the water contracts.
There is a constant flow of energy from sun, into oceans and then from oceans to air and then to space.
There is a small solar variability over centuries but much larger ocean induced variations in the flow over shorter multidecadal time scales.
When there is an El Nino the energy flow from ocean to air is accelerated and the air warms faster than energy is flowing from air to space. The equatorial high pressure systems expand and the jet streams shift poleward. There is eventually a faster emission of energy from air to space which stops the process continuing but at a new equilibrium involving altered jet stream positions. The oceans contract unless there is an even higher solar input such as that from 1975 to 2000 when the oceans actually expanded despite the persistent powerful positive PDO.
When there is a La Nina the energy flow from ocean to air is decreased and the air cools because the energy flow from air to space continues and a deficit develops. The equatorial high pressure systems contract and the jet streams shift equatorward. There is eventually a slower emission of energy from air to space which stops the process continuing but at a new equilibrium involving altered jet stream positions. The oceans would normally expand unless the solar input is reduced enough at the same time to prevent that expansion. That may be the position we are in today.
In reality there is a constant switching between the two modes with the scale and timing of the changes being induced by changes in the oceanic energy absorption/emissivity characteristics.
On human lifetime scale it is those oceanic changes which control all the climate changes we observe.
If extra human CO2 has an effect the air circulation deals with it in the same way that it deals with oceanic energy emission variations.
It just shifts the air circulation patterns an infinitesimal distance to maintain the background energy flow by maintaining the link between sea surface and surface air temperatures.
That is not currently a mainstream theory but it is mine and I believe it to be correct on the basis of logic and observations.
Note that PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) appears to shift from warming to cooling and back over a complete cycle of about 60 years (6 solar cycles of 11 years or, if one prefers, 3 solar cycles of 22 years). It is the interplay of the two sets of cycles that explain all observed global temperature shifts in the historical records and the partial correlation seen in David’s chart.
There can be El Nino events during a negative PDO and La Nina during a positive PDO but what matters is the netted out energy characteristics of the oceans during each phase. The situation is complicated further by the presence of similar oscillations in each ocean which introduces time lags and amplification and suppression effects”.
Stephen,
I think you are spot on with regard to your observations.
Thank you very much for writing it down in such a clear manner.
It’s pretty obvious from the overlay that sea level changes are leading solar changes. So the correlation isn’t… Sure, it’s striking, but like the ice cores, it’s obvious that solar isn’t causing the change.
John Peter
I’m in exactly the same position and I’m sure that we are a majority in the debate.
David Archibald (23:01:55) :
Leif Svalgaard (21:52:10) :
Ah, Dr Svalgaard. For the last six months Oulu neutron monitor has been rising at 12 counts/minute/month on average. It remains on target for my prediction of 6,900 in July 2010.
Can you expound upon the significance of the neutron count? What does this change imply?
Recently I started at looking at the lower freq. waves in long term temperature. So I took the data temp from central England and compared it to a linear estimated temp given by
Temp_est = 8.69 +0.003(Yr – 1659). I then took the error between the actual and estimated, an ran it through some filtering. What came out was a interesting temperature error profile over the last 350+ years. It show the filtered and unfiltered error. Posted on:
http://www.imagenerd/uploads/temp_est_3-NmQP2.gif
In checking the link, there seems to be something blocking it from a web site. Try typing it in from a browser.
SpecialEd (22:12:49) :
LS said: “Apart from the confusing terminology: ‘rate of change’. Just say ‘change’.”
But these two are very different. “Change” implies deviation from normal.
See how confused you are. For you and for Archibald:
This set of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 changes by 1 for each step. what is the rate of change?
Is it possible that there any instrumentation changes in the way the data referenced was recorded? It appears that the RoC for Sea levels falls into a more regular pattern the more current the data gets and that the correlation between the two data sets is hazy at best until around ’79-’80 when, presumably, records from satellite instrumentation was added to the dataset. Is it possible that all data pre-1980 is invalid for this comparison leaving us with four concrete cycle changes and the reasonable probability that any perceived correlation is merely coincidence?
My everyday common sense tells me that, of course, sea level will rise and fall with the “strength” of the sun. Earth, especially including its oceans, also seems to be in the clutches of cycles of which we have been too little aware, but about which we are learning humility — except AGW-GCMers — regarding their (historical) inevitability (e.g., PDO recognized relatively recently).
I see too many places on the graph where the ocean leads the solar cycle to say, Great! Nevertheless, David Archibald, make a hypothesis out of it and let us falsify away. Thanks for showing the coincidences; there are many. Now we need the hypothesis re causation.
How strong are the correlations between solar cycles and rate of sea level rise, vs change in CO2 concentrations?
Israelis bless the sun.
Maybe that will help get the next cycle underway?
Do the pagans have anything that will help? I’m getting
more interested in traditional approaches now that so
many “scientists” have abandoned me… 🙁
“The reason the Earth came out of the Little Ice Age is because we had a more active Sun”
Gosh – who’d have thought that? Not the warmists, obviously, who would much rather have a complicated explanation that involves tiny quantities of an essential gas that has previously been far more abundant without the claimed side-effects, but is the by-product of activities that the Greens would love to regulate! Perhaps they should be introduced to Occam’s Razor, perhaps better known nowadays as the KISS principle.
Arresting as the graph is, however, we do need to be careful not to confuse correlation with causation without supporting evidence. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place, as I recall… 🙂
Dan B,
You are probably referring to the late John Daly’s work on sea level measurement in Tasmania. I think Mr. Daly’s website is still up. If I remember correctly (and at my age that’s a big IF) , it was called something like “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”.
It still boggles my mind when talking about sea level increases in the mm/yr range. Even the land is raising and falling depending on where you are. Now of course if we measure the difference over a decade or two, or perhaps a century, then divide it up to get the annual increase, then I can understand such minute measurements.
It appears to me the real problem is erosion from currents and tides. If you build on the water’s edge, then you can’t expect things to remain static. Some beaches in New Jersey are disappearing, while other’s are growing. I haven’t heard anyone cry that the sea level is receding in Wildwood.
Logic would hold that just as more CO2 helps plants grow and become more productive and warmer climate is better for the development of human civilization, then melting some of that ice trapped in the Poles would be better in many ways too. Why trap all the water in ice where it is essentially taken out of the water cycle for millennia? If we are heading into another period of glaciation, then we will start to lose quite a bit of fresh water to useless ice caps. Not a good prospect when combined with decreased growing seasons.
The NASA photo of sea level changes is fascinating. http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA11002. This should be trotted out EVERY time an AGWer says that sea levels are rising (and ducks as she says, “or someone says ‘its the Sun stupid'”). The response should be, yes, and no, regarding sea levels. It depends on where your oscillation is. Along with this graphic, a good rendition of SST that matches the 98-08 time frame would be useful as well. In a three-way game match, Global warming 0, Sun 0, Oceanic Oscillations 1.
Both Solanki and Usoskin (who I have a lot of admiration) have produced 14c graphs showing the past 100 years as a modern maximum not seen for many thousands of years. Sunspot records are dicey before 1850.
We have also had an unprecedented run of solar activity since the medieval warm period (MWP is nothing to rave about) because of the greater gap between grand minima in modern times. We are headed for a weak grand minimum for the next 2 cycles that will be followed by a slow rise to another future maximum at about 2140.
I have joined together Usoskin’s graphs to show the full impact.
http://users.beagle.com.au/geoffsharp/c14nujs1.jpg
Ron de Haan — Are you proposing that we shut down our brains like the warmists who make AGW responsible for everything that is happening in the world?
I think vg was being tongue in cheek via proposing that skeptics stick to the rules imposed by the AGW crowd, i.e. they don’t have an entry for “debunking” a line of argument so it’s unfair to argue it. It’s akin to Elmer Fudd demanding that Bugs Bunny is required to stand still long enough to get shot.
As usual in science, the obvious remains obscured, and the abstract remains consensus. I find it hard to believe that people can look at observational data pointing one way, as well as established science (as to the effect of CO2 at various concentrations to the greenhouse effect) and continue to preach CO2 based warming.
I will concede a 0.02 degree warming in the 20th century due to CO2, and an additional 0.01 degree from the heat island effect around cities and industrial centers to the overall global environment. I will even give you an additional 0.003 degrees from other human based causes. Wow am I going a long way! That is about 5% of the total warming in the 20th century!
On a side note, Until the recent solar weakness I have not looked at the sun in depth, and am no expert on sun spots, but is that a reverse polarity spot beginning near the lip of the coronal hole? Not really in a good spot for it to be Cycle 24, or 23. Could it be an anomaly due to the hole? Is it common?
David Archibald
Per your apparent correlation between rate of ocean expansion and solar cycle, See the following showing a very strong correlation between earth’s magnetic field strength and ocean warming/cooling.
At Numerical Modeling see:
Global Temperature Change and Geomagnetic Field Intensity
At Global Warming Science see:
Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html
Marit Oieroset University of California, Berkeley, cf two papers May 2008 in Geophysical Research Letters.
Cited in NASA Sun Often “Tears Out A Wall” In Earth’s Solar Storm Shield
David Archibald (23:01:55) :
Ah, Dr Svalgaard. For the last six months Oulu neutron monitor has been rising at 12 counts/minute/month on average. It remains on target for my prediction of 6,900 in July 2010
Ah, and Moscow has been falling and Thule is steady. Cherry picking is a fine art. A prediction without an error bar is worthless. At with error bar would you think your prediction has failed?
+/-10, +/-100, +/-1000 ?
Thankfully, (somewhat poor) correlation alone does not imply causation, else sea level rise would be causing solar cycles (it leads more often than not, after all), and leprechauns would cause climate change:
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture5-1.png
This might be worth looking into more, but my hunch is that any correlation is mostly coincidental (apart from some effects of solar cycles on temperature and, indirectly, on the rate of sea level rise).
Could Telluric currents affect sea level?
Leif Svalgaard (05:47:39) :
SpecialEd (22:12:49) :
LS said: “Apart from the confusing terminology: ‘rate of change’. Just say ‘change’.”
But these two are very different. “Change” implies deviation from normal.
See how confused you are. For you and for Archibald:
This set of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 changes by 1 for each step. what is the rate of change?
Let me clarify. The sea level is L [e.g. measured from the geoid]. Alternatively one could measure it relative to a reference level Lo. The Jason plots show delta L = L – Lo. The change with time of the sea level is dL/dt [or (delta L)/dt which comes to the same]. The ‘rate of change of the rise’ is just sloppy language.
We should vehemently object to this. Written by James Painter Latin American anal-yst.
“The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by between 19cm (7.5 inches) and 59cm by the end of this century.
But several scientists at the Copenhagen meeting spoke of a rise of a metre or more, even if the world’s greenhouse gas emissions were kept at a low level. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7977263.stm
I have objected to the inaccuracy of the article and provided a link to WUWT.
John H. (06:46:31) :
spot beginning near the lip of the coronal hole? Not really in a good spot for it to be Cycle 24, or 23. Could it be an anomaly due to the hole? Is it common?
You have to be a bit more specific. There is a burned-out pixel in the SOHO continuum image that people often mistake for a sunspot.
While I’ve come to regard the sea level data with suspicion–nearly as dubious as the sea ice extent/area/thickness/age compilations–I find criticism of the current use on that count a bit woolly, epistemologically.
In fact, the consistency of the illustration with other tests, e.g., the Lassen curve, tends to enhance my opinion of the received sea level data.
Certainly, not the soundest arrow in the quiver, but its presence adds comfort, however slight.
This observation is similar to CO2 levels ‘rate of change’ correlating to ocean (or even global) temperature.
The quality of data prior to the satellite era may explain some of the apparent inconsistent lag characteristics.
There have been many research articles in the past few years linking the sun to climate and weather much to the demise and disliking of certain individuals. Ignoring or simply ridiculing the research does not refute it.
One factor that seems to be missing from the the sea level debate is the polar rebound from the last ice age. Seem to me from my memory of the discussion of climate change/sea level rise back in the early 60’s was that most of the sea level rise could be explained by polar rebound. Most of the “modern” data on sea level ignores the polar regions. Has the polar rebound stopped or is just another inconvienient truth?
Israeli Jews bless the sun in rare 28-year prayer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090408/ts_afp/israelreligionjudaism
I’d not seen the article on CA
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1125
How wierd is this then
“The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”
(trivial to replicate this for yourself from Colarado data, just split the data and linear trend each part, is done on the published data as-is)
Now notice the global Jason data, new software version, one sample end of December, new software version, one sample for start January and total silence since, the data is months overdue. Why?
(reorbit of satellite doesn’t entirely explain this, recalibration might if they have problems)
Claude Harvey (22:25:38) :
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.
If you download the UAH satellite Lower Troposphere temperature data and the CU sea level data and then graph the Ocean Lower Trop. data and the sea level data…The curves track one-another right up until about 2003-2004. From that point forward the Lower Trop. over the oceans begins to cool rapidly and sea level continues to rise; but at a progressively declining rate. So the oceans clearly are “giving up” heat more slowly than the atmosphere…As would be expected.
Phydeaux (06:10:07) :
Dan B,
You are probably referring to the late John Daly’s work on sea level measurement in Tasmania. I think Mr. Daly’s website is still up. If I remember correctly (and at my age that’s a big IF) , it was called something like “Still Waiting for Greenhouse”.
Daly’s site is still listed but it’s been in hibernation since last August 2008.
http://www.john-daly.com/
There do seem to be similar cycle rates, but as others have pointed out the magnitude and timing don’t seem to match quite right.
Try adding about a 20 year delay between a solar cycle and its effect on ocean rise. Does that look better? Weak solar cycles cause weaker ocean heating than strong cycles, but almost two solar cycles later.
I only observed the time delay. There should already be related information available. If there is about a 20 year delay, there should be oceanic events which tend to occur over a 20 year time frame. Perhaps a major ocean current takes 20 years to travel across the ocean (surface and bottom).
How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?
Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming.
“The Sun affects the climate through several physical processes: For one thing, the total radiation, particularly that in the ultraviolet range, varies with solar activity. When many sunspots are visible, the Sun is somewhat brighter than in “quiet” times and radiates considerably more in the ultraviolet. On the other hand, the cosmic ray intensity entering the Earth’s atmosphere varies opposite to the solar activity, since the cosmic ray particles are deflected by the Sun’s magnetic field to a greater or lesser degree. According to a much discussed model proposed by Danish researchers, the ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperatures on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures.
Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.
These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. “Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,” says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research”.
Original work:
Krivova N.A., Solanki S.K.
Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850
Adv. Space Res. 34, 361-364 (2004)
Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko
A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940’s
Physical Review Letters 91, 211101-1–211101-4 (2003)
Sami K. Solanki, Natalie A. Krivova
Can Solar Variability Explain Global Warming Since 1970?
Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 1200 (2003)
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/
Fear not… Obama, Hansen, and Holdren will save the earth….
OT heads up…
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97ECHLG1&show_article=1
We human beings do not see big changes to occur because we fear them. That is why it seems really funny to see everybody preoccupied with variations in the order of nanometers. Let me tell you that there have been big variations, not in the millions of years but in the near thousands.
In 1961 an expedition of the department of oceanography of Duke University, were taking pictures of the bottom of the sea 60 kms. from the coast to the west of the Callao Port and 2.000 meters deep and took a picture of two carved columns of the Chavin Culture’s style; a culture which flourished just three thousand years ago. Then, it follows that the southamerican coast reached at least 60 km. to the west of nowadays sea shore.
Perhaps some of you could get a copy of the original picture, I have just a picture of a newspaper print.
David L. Hagen (06:46:42) :
As mentioned previously “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed”
Cited in NASA Sun Often “Tears Out A Wall” In Earth’s Solar Storm Shield
In fact, this happens every few hours, so don’t read too much into this. And the statement that it is ‘the sun’s magnetic field’ that is aligned is completely wrong and misleading. It is the interplanetary magnetic field that interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field, and although the IMF comes from the Sun it has been twisted and turned so much on its journey that the original north-south direction has been largely lost.
Roger Knights (03:27:48) :
“OT: Here’s an Op-ed yesterday (April 7) from Washington’s governor Christine Gregoire:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008995804_opina07gregoire.html
Samples:
“RECENTLY in Copenhagen, scientists heard the startling news that climate change is happening even faster than predicted. We’re seeing the devastating results here — two 100-year floods in the past two years, droughts, changes in snow pack and rainfall, and more.
…………………
That’s why I recently urged lawmakers to pass legislation that will:
• Bring us through the current crisis better prepared than ever to compete nationally and globally.
• Speed up our transition away from fossil fuels like coal and oil to renewable energy like wind and solar.
• Require coal-fired power plants operating in the state to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases or be fully carbon neutral by no later than 2025.
• Develop a “West Coast Green Highway” to accommodate fully electric, zero-emission vehicles and those powered by alternative fuels.
• Reduce traffic and tailpipe pollution in the state’s most populated areas.
• Work with our new partners in the other Washington to create national greenhouse-gas-reduction programs that don’t harm our Washington.
By acting now, we will declare our energy independence and create job growth that the world will envy. When this recession ends, Washington must be ready to take new, bold steps to address climate change. We can’t let fear drive us into inaction that we and future generations will regret.
President Obama is already working with Congress to develop a national cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases — a most effective and efficient way to reduce harmful emissions.
By enacting a strong bill now, Washington will be positioned to influence the national discussion on climate change, and protect our state’s vital interests — which include our natural resources, our businesses and jobs.
Last year, Washingtonians sent $16 billion overseas to buy fossil fuels. Instead, we can invest those dollars in Washington jobs, clean energy, businesses and families. Every $1 billion that Washington residents spend here generates 6,300 jobs.
Washington didn’t have any wind farms in 2000. Today we are the nation’s fifth-largest producer of wind energy. That’s innovation. That’s leadership. That’s the competitive edge.””
Roger,
As we all know, the entire proposal is a scam, a fraud and a hoax.
The motivation why we have to take the measures is based on lies, the solutions won’t deliver, there won’t be any extra jobs and in the end the consumer will pay the bill by: a. much higher energy bills, much higher costs for gas to fuel his car, much higher prices for food, distribution and services.
This will lead to a loss of jobs, deepening the current crises.
1. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/the-800-pound-gorilla-in-the-climate-system/
2. Please read comments on electric vehicles here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/more_electric_car_follies_1.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/business/energy-environment/08greenoil.html?_r=1&hpw
J. Bob (05:36:58) :
Your link does not work.
Posted on: http://www.imagenerd/uploads/temp_est_3-NmQP2.gif.
The correct URL is
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/temp_est_3-NmQP2.gif
Note the domain name and no full stop after gif
Your formula is Temp_est = 8.69 +0.003(Yr – 1659)
This simplifies to Temp_est = 8.69 +0.003Yr – 4.977
Which gives Temp_est = 3.713+0.003Yr
Is this what you intended or is the -1659 to be subtracted from 8.69 +0.003Yr as CET temperatures go back to 1659?
I uploaded the debate between Christy and Schlesinger on YouTube. Would be grateful if everyone spread it so that newbies and laymen can see that the climate models are junk
The chart tells us several things:
1.There is a general correlation.
2.There are powerful forces other than the solar cycle. Some of these are cyclic with a period greater than several solar cycles.
3. The phasing is interesting. If the chart is to be believed- sea level changes lead solar cycles until the 1980 peak – particularly note the turn-around points of the three cycles preceeding 1980. After the 1980 maximum the temperature lags. This would indicate that the sun-earth relationship, under some circumstances, has an effect that starts prior to the next solar cycle.
David Archibald. Much thanks for your input. I find your analysis insightful and educational. In addition, you are curious about the possible causes, effects, and the HUGE amount that is unknown. Ditto for Bob Tisdale and Stephen Wilde. You are a refreshing change from some posters that are needlessly arrogant. I found your paper on the future of energy in W. Australia very educational. fm
Leif Svalgaard (05:47:39)
“For you and for Archibald:
This set of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 changes by 1 for each step. what is the rate of change?”
One could just as easily have given the example:
100000001, 100000002, 100000003, 100000004, 100000005, 100000006, 100000007, 100000008, 100000009
Change & rate of change are not the same thing. (Tactic? Bait & distract?)
– – –
Lucy Skywalker (00:52:29)
“This looks like a stick-and-carrot job. The big carrot is the undeniable correlation. And the big stick (apart from the usual human reluctance to consider new parameters) is the areas of apparent non-correlation. Well, there’s got to be an explanation. The correlation will not just disappear because of the non-correlation areas.”
Well-said.
– – –
anna v (21:54:06)
“[…] That is a problem for causation.”
Fair criticism is constructive, but there is no claim of causation in the article.
–
anna v (21:54:06)
“[…] One would need a lot more cycles to call it not fortuitous.”
Causation & flukes aren’t the only explanations for phase concordance.
(“What am I looking for? Search: “not causation”, “not fluke” …are there other possibilities remaining?”…)
– – –
Michael D Smith (02:07:10)
“David, Can you supply a link to the data […]?”
^I second this request.^
– –
Lucy Skywalker (00:52:29)
“This is interesting!”
I agree.
This is somewhat off topic but thought this news wire concerning NASA’s inhouse battles over the Ares rocket may be similar to AGW
NASA’s Secret Rebels Want Obama on Their Side Wednesday, April 08, 2009
By James Osborne
The scientists, who have been collaborating after-hours in Internet chat rooms to discuss fuel-mass ratios and rocket trajectories, insist on remaining anonymous and leave their public comments to a spokesman.
“The reason we have to be unnamed is NASA has a reputation for making life miserable for anyone who’s working on [DIRECT],” said an engineer who works at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida and asked not to be identified. “Quite a few have been transferred to undesirable locations.”
NASA denies taking punitive action against DIRECT project participants.
Leif Svalgaard (07:00:09)
“Let me clarify. […] The ‘rate of change of the rise’ is just sloppy language.”
I don’t see where you’re getting this quote. I can’t find the phrase you are quoting anywhere in this thread (aside from your use) – and the graph in the article reads “Rate of sea level change”. (Tactic? Bait & distort?)
Will somebody explain what the neutron count indicates? What does it indicate and why should we care? Does it mean anything?
Leif it appeared on the magnetism image but has since disappeared. Didn’t seem to ever fully develop.
Aron, if you’d like another place to archive it, click on my name and register at my site, and I’ll get it uploaded for you.
If all water was removed from the atmosphere and poured into the ocean, how much would the ocean rise?
Leif Svalgaard
Any papers or presentations you could suggest on how the interplanetary magnetic field changes from sun to earth?
Any comments on the key item correlating the EARTH’s magnetic field with the heating/cooling?:
Paul Vaughan (09:06:33) :
This set of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 changes by 1 for each step. what is the rate of change?”
One could just as easily have given the example:
100000001, 100000002, 100000003, 100000004, 100000005, 100000006, 100000007, 100000008, 100000009
Change & rate of change are not the same
That is no answer to a straight question. You have above two series, reply with a series of ‘change’ and one of ‘rate of change’ for both series. There will be ~8 numbers in each series.
I think you are confounding ‘change’ with the notion of a ‘delta’ from an arbitrary reference level.
I’d guess a lot of you have already seen this…maybe not…
AP Newsbreak: Obama looks at climate engineering
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97ECHLG1&show_article=1
Now this is lunacy….do we need to recall the recently-failed iron fertilization of the ocean? What if we do this and the climate is actually cooling…won’t that make things worse?
Tom in Florida (03:37:15) :
Well, thankfully no one is trying to bring in the barycenter argument.
Two messages later:
vukcevic (04:05:31) :
Sea level rise vs. solar cycles shows more often then not that sea level precede solar cycle upturn, and more recently the other way around.
Conclusion must be that one cannot be causing the other. However, that does not exclude the possibility of a common cause for both, and that only could be a planetary orbital factor of one kind or another, and not necessarily the same one in both cases.
🙂
Dear friends
Thank you for providing one of highlights of my morning read. I always find these debates fascinating and entertaining.
Some thoughts and considerations:
I judge the skepticism of Anna V. to be well placed. We are attempting to measure the largest surface mass on the planet in terms mm. With regard to the height (depth) at any given geophysical point in the temporal domain, here are some thoughts to consider.
– Water is compressible. A variable quality that can be validated by a deep ocean acoustic wonk or submarine sonar type if you know one.
Variables would include but not limited to… the usual suspects;
Temperature
Salinity
Diffused gasses
Gravity (weight of the water)
Astronomic tidal effects
Local atmospheric pressure
Macro geographic heat accumulation (expansion)
Contributors all in the scheme of micro meter metrology on a mass of monumental scale.
When viewing the great oceanic environment consider that only a very small % is visible. I hesitate to even guess at the surface/volume ratio. With phenomenal resolution, we measure the surface temperature, chemistry, and apparent height as a brail code sensed by orbiters of various types and vintage. When the data sets are analyzed with elegant statistical probabilistic methods and the results confuse us, the numbers are pushed around to see if something makes sense.
Contrast and compare, sift and sort, long here, there…a bit short.
With regard to temperature in the sea. The top 100 meters are the region of the water column with greatest variability and where the majority of solar radiation absorption occurs. Consider the wave state (sea state for those of you of nautical heritage) as a diffraction grating. Fascinating no? The affects of spectral ray paths of energetic radiation at the sea surface could I suspect fuel a lively debate.
The top 100 meters of the water column is also the residence of most of the earth’s biota. Some ‘Big’ns’ and lots of little ones. One might assign the biomass an occluding characteristic. Others may see them as an absorbent factor. Just to tickle your imagination, consider them as a transporter of heat or chill… The little buggers migrate you see! On a dark moonless and cloudy night an investigator will find them some 50-100’ below the surface depending on the sea state, during the bright of day, about 600-800’ below the sea surface. I would be remiss to neglect the truly incredible amount of detritus floating in the upper surface of the oceans I have traveled upon. This ‘stuff’ wasn’t made in china. It is the natural decay of natural organisms returning to the earth in their fashion.
All this to make a point about “silly little millimeters” their origins, their validity, and just “whose little millimeters are we feeding into those elegant numerical models anyway”.
Thanks for the ‘space’ Anthony. It’s great fun.
Here is the link to the above NASA story http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513231,00.html
“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.”
Variation in the rate of change of sea level does not oscillate around 0. Therefore, there is another force acting to raise sea levels, which is then possibly being altered by variable solar activity.
If we accept the premise that the sun will be less active in the coming solar cycle, we will still have sea level rise. During minimums, the rate of change of sea level is just below zero. Unless no sunspots occur, sea levels may continue to rise.
“Quite a few have been transferred to undesirable locations.”
That has interesting meanings in NASA, where rockets are available. 🙂
Assuming “rate of change” is intended, i.e., the second derivative, the lag in the solar cycle behind the sea rise curve at points is not puzzling. The ‘mental’ exercise left to the reader.
Graph shows more often then not that sea level precede solar cycle upturn, and more recently the other way around.
Conclusion must be that one cannot be causing the other.
However, that does not exclude the possibility of a common cause for both, and that only could be a planetary orbital factor of one kind or another, and not necessarily the same one in both cases.
Leif Svalgaard (05:47:39) said: “…This set of numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 changes by 1 for each step. what is the rate of change?”
Yes, Leif-san, as in your subsequent clarification, the rate of change is, indeed, dL/dt, while the change itself is ∆L. Thus the 1 to 9 series argument above is ambiguous, based on an undefined unit “step” (∆s) such that ∆x/∆s just happens to be the same as ∆x, i.e., one. But if the “step” represents, say, an hour between numbers, the rate of change would be 1/60th of that for a one minute step, and would not be the same as the change. I think you imply this in your clarification.
“The ‘rate of change of the rise’ is just sloppy language.”–Leif
I agree, Dr. L. The graph ordinate, however, is labeled “rate of sea level change,” which I believe is in accordance with the clarification, or close to it.
[This all reminds me of the freshman physics barbarism: “Rate of velocity,” a pleonasm guaranteed to ire professors annually.]
OT
[snip – see new story on main page]
The “fit” is more pronounced from 1960 on. What techniques were used throughout this period to measure the elusive change / rate-of-change of global sea levels? Are global satellite techniques now in use? How were local anomalies compensated for, earlier on?
What exactly is measured in the “solar cycles” curve? Solar magnetic flux? Sunspot numbers? Cycle lengths? TSI? What? And is there a solar factor (shhh don’t name it!) that could precede the solar cycles time-wise?
Joe d’Aleo showed the highest correlation to global temp was from ocean currents, not from the Sun – but the solar correlation is not far off. Sealevel measurement bypasses ocean currents and SST altogether. Oceans hold 1000 times the heat capacity that the atmosphere holds. They would seem to be like huge batteries, charged by the Sun. Lastly, the correlation Alan Cheetham shows between temperature trend and geomagnetic poles is very striking, bearing in mind the cosmic ray link. All this suggests the solar/sealevel correlation is valid; but I want to explain the discrepancies.
Re: Aslak Grinsted (00:38:48)
Thanks for pointing this out:
Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989.
“In summary, we find clear evidence indicating that the total flux entering the oceans in response to the solar cycle is about an order of magnitude larger than the globally averaged irradiance variations of 0.17 W/m2. The sheer size of the heat flux, and the lack of any phase lag […] […] It should be stressed that the observed correlation between the oceanic heat flux and solar activity does not provide proof for any particular amplification mechanism, including that of the CRF/climate link. It does however provide very strong support for the notion that an amplification mechanism exists. Given that the CRF/climate links predicts the correct radiation imbalance observed in the cloud cover variations, it is a favorable candidate.”
I am often suspicious of language like “implies” and “must therefore” (which I have omitted where you see […] in the quote above), but I am pleased to see the tone of the language in the last 3 sentences. The discrepancy addressed in the first sentence merits attention.
Sideliner (09:49:16) :
“If all water was removed from the atmosphere and poured into the ocean, how much would the ocean rise?”
To do this you would need to syphon off the entire atmosphere and then physically separate all the water from the gasses.
Assuming this could be done, and while you were doing it, the planet would be subjected to the near vacuum of interplanetary space (This would also most likely lead to sublimation of the remaining ocean).
Alternatively one could subject the plane to exteme cold – cold enough that all atmopsheric moisture would freeze and drop out.
Either way, global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, would no longer be an issue as all life would perish.
B Kerr – Thanks for the tip, on the posting. The linear relationship is
T_est = 8.69 + 0.003*(Yr – 1659), with Yr running from 1659 to 2008. Purpose of the error (T_actual – T_est) is to set it up for a spectral analysis, namely to see if any low freq signals were present. Wasn’t sure what to expect, but it is interesting to see the 8-10 yr cycles show. As far as the downturn at the end, that at this time I don’t know. Could be “leakage”, since I padded the end with zeros, to get to the 512 data point requirement for the FFT. Or it could be part of a low freq. Wave, so there is some more to look at.
In response to Leif Svalgaard (09:51:38)
I’m trying to decide whether you are being:
a) disrespectful.
– &/or –
b) deceptive.
I can think of at least one other possibility…
– –
Comment regarding jorgekafkazar (10:21:48)
Leif either succeeded in baiting, distracting, & distorting …or maybe he just misread the graph?… …
– –
In any case, most of us value Leif’s contributions on solar science — thanks sincerely for those Leif.
If there is a 20 year delay between solar heating and ocean expansion, there should be 20 year mixing periods for the heat to reach deeper cold water. I found one mention of 20 year mixing in the north Atlantic. Of course, I’m not finding the articles which state THC and other circulation times.
Stephen Wilde (00:28:10) said: “I suspect that movements within the Oceans are primarily caused by density differentials combined with the Earth’s rotation and variable friction effects on the underlying sea floor and continental shelves but changes in solar energy input would have effects first on the water densities and then on the circulatory flows.”
Don’t forget viscosity, given the importance of winds in mass and heat transfer. Note that between 10°C and 20°C, surface seawater density only drops from 1.028 to 1.025 kg/liter. Viscosity, on the other hand, drops from 1.346 to 1.044 centistokes.
[Note that the above is based on Newtonian behavior. Seawater can also be a non-Newtonian fluid: the presence of organic material (plankton blooms, etc.) can raise seawater viscosity by factors as high as 50!]:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Aa3tELNW6UUC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=seawater+%22non-newtonian%22&source=bl&ots=z3T0pQd3aq&sig=hmXlmXWk1ahRQX-nXOzCY8wOu9w&hl=en&ei=QvPcSdzqGJCmM6jUyeUN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4
John H. (09:43:22) :
Leif it appeared on the magnetism image but has since disappeared. Didn’t seem to ever fully develop.
Do you mean the two rather quiet bands at 2009-04-07 at 21:41 ?
Click on movies and you can find it again.
I would think it an instrumental effect.
Response to SSSailor (09:56:34)
Distorted skepticism can (but doesn’t necessarily) sabotage the pursuit of deeper understanding.
It is the relentlessly linear logic that sometimes peppers these discussions that, at times, can get to be such a drag.
Your comments have enriched this discussion.
Thank you for sharing.
Pearland Aggie (09:54:23) :
Now this is lunacy….do we need to recall the recently-failed iron fertilization of the ocean? What if we do this and the climate is actually cooling…won’t that make things worse?
We should suggest instead a better and cheaper alternative: Not to wash gases emitted by carbon power plants…that would increase the particulate suspended matter in the atmosphere…but there is no need of it, nature and its volcanoes are already working in 24 hours non stop shifts to reach the next temperature negative feedback tipping point. ( and free of any charges: No “tipping” there for warmists new age “scientists”.
The Sun’s magnetism may well influence the shape of the zero geopotential surface.
What takes me to the following reasoning. Leif was right!, it is not TSI variations which are minimal but the sun’s napping break provoking volcanic activity and this increased volcanic activity lower temperatures. And we know it happened before.
Carl Wolk (10:14:11) : “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…”
Variation in the rate of change of sea level does not oscillate around 0.
If we accept the premise that the sun will be less active in the coming solar cycle, we will still have sea level rise…
Oceans have so many factors. Thermohaline time 800 years or more (Wikipedia have changed their best guess). Oceans could still be warming from LIA though that may be slowing down now and will perhaps be masked increasingly by other shorter cycles. But what about simple ocean floor sediment accumulation? Did Holgate factor that in? – from the above, it would seem not.
“If all water was removed from the atmosphere and poured into the ocean, how much would the ocean rise?””
If i remember well, there is some 2,5cm water column (in average) up to the dry stratosphere.
Paul Vaughan (11:00:12) :”…I’m trying to decide whether you [Leif] are being: a) disrespectful. – &/or – b) deceptive…”
Highly unlikely to be either. The problem most likely is ambiguity in the definition of “change,” which is both a verb and a noun.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/change
“Change” can imply either a process (v) or a deviation (n). As a process, ‘change’ could have a rate attributed to it, and thus “rate of change” could be construed as a redundant. “Change” (n) as a deviation (n) doesn’t require an implicit rate and would be non-redundant in the context of the ordinate label.
Let’s consider this matter resolved and move on.
G Alston (06:29:07) :
“Ron de Haan — Are you proposing that we shut down our brains like the warmists who make AGW responsible for everything that is happening in the world?
I think vg was being tongue in cheek via proposing that skeptics stick to the rules imposed by the AGW crowd, i.e. they don’t have an entry for “debunking” a line of argument so it’s unfair to argue it. It’s akin to Elmer Fudd demanding that Bugs Bunny is required to stand still long enough to get shot”.
Thanks G Alston,
I already suspected it would turn out to be something bad, but so bad…..!
Paul Vaughan (11:00:12) :
Leif either succeeded in baiting, distracting, & distorting …or maybe he just misread the graph?…
This line appears just below the graph:
“rate of change of sea level rise”
jorgekafkazar (10:21:48) :
the change itself is ∆L.
The ∆ on the Jason graph is not a ‘change’ but simply the sea level itself measured from a reference level. No change. The change per year would be (∆2-∆1) assuming the points (2) and (1) were one year apart.
Leif Svalgaard (12:17:29)
“This line appears just below the graph:
“rate of change of sea level rise””
Thank you for clarifying the exact phrasing of the typo in the text [whereas the correct term appears on the graph].
– –
I wasn’t buying into any notions that the majority of the audience doesn’t know the difference between absolute change & rate of change.
jorgekafkazar (11:55:49) – “Let’s consider this matter resolved and move on.”
Agreed – The typo-induced distraction has expired with Leif’s clarification.
– – –
(For me) the most fascinating aspect of this thread:
a) Who appears to think we should dismiss the graph out-of-hand?
– and –
b) Who appears to think we should advocate science to develop a deeper understanding? [so that (among other things) the pattern in the graph won’t need to be such a source of controversy]
That’s why I found that 20 year (Florida) mixing measurement interesting, as I thought THC involved hundreds of years. I don’t expect the thermohaline circulation to be a significant participant in early warming, as that seems to be driven by cold water. The THC water gives up most of its heat to the atmosphere before it sinks in the polar regions to join THC, thus most short-term heating should be mixed by other means into levels higher than the THC cold ocean floor regions.
Michael D Smith (02:07:10) :
Michael, Michael, if I was to do all that work, I might as well publish the paper myself. The graph above isn’t perfect, it is a first pass cleanup of someone else’s quick and dirty job (for which we are grateful).
John Galt (05:35:11) :
The importance of the neutron count is that changes in cloud cover of a few percent are all that is necessary to drive changes in climate, quite big changes. Open ocean absorb 95% of sunlight. Clouds absorb 40% of sunlight. If some cloud cover stops sunlight from hitting the ocean, it will cool. Galactic cosmic rays (detected as neutrons) create low level clouds. This is Svensmark’s theory and the effect is powerful enough to explain everything.
In 2007 I attended the first meeting of a new reading group at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The inaugural topic was the IPCC report. I spent many hours reading and preparing. As part of my preparation I overlaid the sunspot data with Holgate’s sea level data, just as seen in the graph shown here. I passed the plot around to the ten or so people at the meeting and made the argument that it showed a better correlation between sea level rise rate and sunspots than the correlation between sea level rise rate and CO2 level.
The consequence was that word got out that I was a “denier.” Several emails went out to all the reading group attendees, and to a wider circle of scientists at the lab, in which I was labeled a “tobacco scientist.”
This was a very unsettling experience for me.
One of the advantages of my position at the National Laboratory (Senior Scientist) is that I have access to practically any journal article from around the world. I have put that access to good use in the subsequent two years, reading everything I can put my hands on concerning the issue of climate change. It has been a fascinating journey.
The more I read, the more convinced I am that climate alarmism is in many ways a new religion. It combines truth, fantasy, scholarship, hysteria, guilt and a ridged hierarchy.
This experience caused me to start my own minor blog, ClimateSanity.
Best Regards,
Tom Moriarty
Lief:
Undefined.
In scientific English, “rate” refers to rate of change per unit quantity.
That is:
R = Δy/Δx
You’d have to define the quantity change Δx for each step for this to be a meaningful question.
For a continuous variable it is simply
R = y'(x)
Seriously this is the scientific English meaning of the word.
A change is a Δ measure, like
Δy = y2 – y1
Can we get onto something more significant?
Carrick (16:48:47) :
Can we get onto something more significant?
I thought this issue was taken care of already, but thanks for the lesson.
I’m not buke lurned but I think that since Sol is not producing as much energy, there would also be less reflective energy from that rock called Luna. Wouldn’t this enhance the notion of Sol forcings?
Does somebody keep temperature measurements of the moon during these cycles?
Dan B (01:13:38) :
There may be an “ongoing debate”, but those arguing that it is unknown when the mean tide mark was created, or why, are arguing from ignorance.
John Daly demolishes the critics here: click
Also, this NOAA gif shows tide gauge anomalies for the past eleven years. There is little apparent change in the sea level: click
Martin38 (17:42:02)
“[…] reflective energy from that rock called Luna. […] Does somebody keep temperature measurements of the moon during these cycles?”
Here’s a fascinating sci-news release (May 23, 2007) out of the University of Michigan:
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5864
A highlight from the article:
“”One of the main scientific objectives of the Apollo 15 mission was to drill two boreholes about three meters into the lunar soil and insert specially designed probes,” Huang said. “The point was to see how temperature varies with depth, in order to calculate the heat flow outward from the interior of the moon.” But drilling in the moon’s powdery soil, or regolith, turned out to be much more difficult than expected.
“The Apollo 15 crew overspent their precious time on the moon for this particular task, yet could only penetrate a little more than half the depth they wanted to reach. When the probes were inserted into the boreholes, several thermometers designed for measuring subsurface temperature ended up measuring surface temperature instead.”
Consequently, NASA acquired 41 months-worth of records of the moon’s surface temperature.”
A related poster:
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/msgc01-poster.pdf
Related research article:
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/Huang07ASR.pdf
No wonder I can’t go to the ocean and witness sea levels rising over the span of 50 years. It just goes up and down, and down and up, and up and down.
So does a bouy in the waves.
Nothing much doing in massive sea level rise.
Aron (08:46:31) :
I uploaded the debate between Christy and Schlesinger on YouTube.
Thanks for the posting: When did this debate occur? All links to Christy’s publications and database seem not working. Anyone with help? Thank you.
Leif:
Which explains your meaningless question:
Claude Harvey (22:25:38)[Mar.7]
“[…] I’d be more inclined to believe solar activity might have an effect on the instruments used to MEASURE sea level.”
Leave no stone unturned….
The comment from Boudo 02.11.36 was the most thought provoking,its a pity the graph did not extend to cover a much greater period of time.
john k (14:47:49) :
“The comment from Boudo 02.11.36 was the most thought provoking”
The topic raised by Boudu (02:11:36)[Mar.8] is currently banned on this site (after a recent overdose-thread).
If we graph the elevation of the sun (say over 8 days) against the ambient temperature and got a correlation similar to the one above it would be reasonable to conclude that the sun might be the driver of temperature changes throughout the day. Any number of other factors, such as cold fronts, cloudy days or even poor data could be responsible for the imperfect match. Nevertheless the suggested relationship would be strong enough to warrant further work.
I’m surprised that the world’s scientific community has not unearthed the possible connection between solar cycles and Leif’s “rate of change of sea level rise” long ago.
On the other hand, I’m not the least bit surprised by the tone of discussion on this and similar blogs. For me this tone confirms an even stronger relationship between the reach of global warming ideology and the standard of warmaholic science. This relationship, more than anything else, is causing the global warming hypothesis to implode.
“Any number of other factors, such as cold fronts, cloudy days or even poor data could be responsible for the imperfect match.”
As well as the fact that the smoothed sun spot curve is only one proxy for solar activity. Note, e.g., that sunspot numbers collapsed Feb. 2007, well after the aa, ap numbers in Oct. 2005.
Comment inspired by Bayrunner (01:49:14)
For a good example of 2 deterministically related time series that do not look related, scroll to Figure 2 at:
http://www.recurrence-plot.tk/crps.php
It’s not linear relationships that challenge with paradox.
The human race is being held back by linear thinking.
“The human race is being held back by linear thinking.”
May I be exused now? My head hurts, it’s full.
How scary is the threat of sea level rise?
Not so much.
California Coastal Commission yesterday (April 9) approved a new electric power generating plant (expected investment $50 million U.S.) on the beach at Oxnard, California. Investor/owner is Southern California Edison. Expected plant life is 25 years.
One of the special conditions is that SCE will not build seawalls or berms or other devices to keep out the sea, should it begin rising.
Another special condition is that SCE will report the sea level, and any threat to the new power plant, 20 years from now. Even if the sea rises 3 mm per year for 25 years, that is just under 3 inches total. Not going to make a bit of difference to the plant.
Also, the Port of Long Beach is investing multi-millions in a port expansion project. Sea level rise does not seem a deterrent there, either.
That’s even more than strange, Roger, as the Los Angeles Basin really is sinking at the rate of [1″ / century?]. Not even the 2 combined are enough to stop the build.
Those interested in understanding the correlation between sea level rise and solar activity shown in Archibald’s figure should visit Nir Shaviv’s blog at sciencebits.com. He gives a simple summary of his recent paper, which has been quoted here in several comments already. He derives the magnitude of the 11 year oscillations in the rate of energy input into the seas from three independent sets of data, direct measurements of the energy content in the seas, sea surface temperatures, and rates of sea level increase, and gets consistent results. Moreover, the oscillation magnitude of about 1 W/m2 is consistent with the estimated forcing from the oscillations in low cloud coverage, which are proposed by Svensmark to be caused by the oscillations in the flux of cosmic rays. The oscillations are larger by about a factor of five than the cyclic variations in solar irradiance.
Solar cycle and:
–earthquake cycle
–Volcanic Aerosol density
–Sea level
–Variations in gravity
–Variation in the mass of earth’s core
and so on…and why not?
New paradigms–corelations point to questions that lead to greater understanding of causality–I think it’s grandiose to conlude Man drives the earth’s climate when the interaction between the Sun and the earth’s core is so poorly understood. What climate variables are as powerful as the sun and the earth’s core…and the interaction thereof?
The colrelation between solar cycle and sea level could be explained not only by increased sea temperature but by the solar cycle’s effect on the earth’s gravitational variance. Increased gravitation would lower seas levels…right?.