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 “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?