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.
“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.