Guest post by David Archibald
Successful prediction of levels of solar activity suggests that prediction of other phenomena driven by solar activity might also be successful, and useful. Sea level rise is a concern of some people. President Obama said in June 2008 that his nomination in the Democratic primaries was “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow”.
The above graph shows the satellite data from the University of Colorado from late 1992. A change of trend is evident in 2004. Prior to that, sea level was rising at 4.2 mm/annum, and after 2004 at 1.5 mm/annum. 2003 was the recent peak in solar activity in terms of flares, F10.7 flux and proton flux. It is likely that the lower rate of rise post 2004 is due to lower subsequent solar activity.
The CSIRO compiled tide gauge data from 1870. The graph above shows that data with the subsequent satellite data plotted together.
The modern retreat of glaciers began in 1860. Initially sea level rose at 1.0 mm/annum. After 1930, it almost doubled to 1.9 mm/annum. This is a well-defined uptrend, now 80 years long.
Our prediction of a 2° C decline in temperature for the mid-latitudes over Solar Cycles 24 and 25 suggests that sea level will stop rising, and should start falling at some point prior to 2032.
The graph above combines the satellite data with the prior ten years of tide gauge data and shows the bounds of the long term rise at 1.9 mm/annum post 1030. Sea level could remain flat for another ten years before that trend in sea level rise is broken.
tallbloke says:
December 1, 2010 at 11:49 pm
The spin orbit coupling that was proposed by he who cannot be named on this site was not between the planets and the Sun directly, but between the irregular motion of the Sun’s own orbit about centre of mass of the solar system, and it’s own spin.
And that motion about an immaterial point with no mass or charge has even less chance of spin-coupling, but as you said this has already been flogged to death.
@David Archibald says:
December 1, 2010 at 6:39 pm
“Two degrees for the US-Canadian border, one and a half for Norway for example.”
Professor Jan-Erik Solheim
“temperature is expected to decrease by 0.6 – 1.8 degrees over the following 10-12 years, relative to the mean values for period no 23.”
That`s some range, I still maintain that it will not really kick in till 2014.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/13/solar-driven-temperature-decline-predicted-for-norway-by-a-norwegian/#comment-432456
The big distraction is all the talk of sea level rise, as if it is etched in stone that it must rise.
What I see in the range, that David has pointed out, is just how easily the start of a sea level drop could be disguised.
Seeing that the world is totally distracted and unprepared for a sea level drop, just what do we know about how fast that can occur?
Covering the bases for all contingenices, not just the politically Cancuncorrect one.
rbateman says:
December 2, 2010 at 5:24 pm
The big distraction is all the talk of sea level rise, as if it is etched in stone that it must rise.
If all the Greenland ice would melt, the sea level around Iceland would fall 60 meters….
rbateman,
“The big distraction is all the talk of sea level rise, as if it is etched in stone that it must rise.”
Leaving aside Leif’s joke about isostatic rebound…
The sea level has been rising for the last 120 years (at least). That doesn’t make it 100% sure that it will continue to rise in the near term, but I would not bet against it if I were you. The interesting quest is not if, but how much.
Steve Fitzpatrick says:
December 2, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Leaving aside Leif’s joke about isostatic rebound…
No joke. No rebound; if all the Greenland ice would melt, the sea level around Iceland would fall 60 meters….
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 2, 2010 at 6:54 pm
I’m not laughing either Leif, removing that much weight from Greenland would make a lot of crust move/warp/crack.
rbateman says:
December 2, 2010 at 7:27 pm
I’m not laughing either Leif, removing that much weight from Greenland would make a lot of crust move/warp/crack.
The reason is this: the gravitational force from the Greenland ice [which is mostly above sea level] lifts the ocean around Greenland. Near Iceland the displacement is about 60 meter [200 feet]. In the North Sea [being further away] perhaps only 10 meter. Melt the ice and spread the melt water over the oceans, the lifting would disappear and the sea level at Iceland would drop 60 m [ignoring the few meter of melt water]. In the North Sea, the drop would be several meters: The Netherlands might not even need its dikes anymore…
“tallbloke says:
December 1, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Here’s the graph of tropical cloud cover vs temperature from the ISCCP data:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/isccp-temp.jpg
I believe Roy Spencer had a ballpark figure for the solar forcing increase per 1% drop in cloud cover, but I can’t recall it. Anyone?”
The link below is not by Roy Spencer, but is it what you were looking for?
It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Under point 4, even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its effect would be canceled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%,
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm
David
You state or quote
Our prediction of a 2° C decline in temperature for the mid-latitudes over Solar Cycles 24 and 25 suggests that sea level will stop rising, and should start falling at some point prior to 2032.
Please tell me who is saying this – is this a quote from CSIRO scientists?
Would appreciate more references as to origin of data. I see that the satellite data also shows a change in trend post 2004 – has this been calculated ?