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.
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]