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.
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… 🙁