Guest post by David Archibald
The background to this is that, in 2009, evil environmentalists in the New South Wales Government made a regulation that councils in that state would have to base their building permits on an expected sea level rise of 900 mm by 2100. This had the effect of wiping billions of dollars off the value of coastal properties, as well as ruining peoples’ lives etc. By comparison, sea level rose 200 mm in the 20th Century.
The NSW Govt. regulation was gleefully enforced by Lake Macquarie Council to the detriment of its residents. Lake Macquarie is 140 km north of Sydney. In response, a local property developer, Mr Jeff McCloy, organised a public meeting at which Professor Ian Plimer, Professor Bob Carter and myself spoke. 400 people attended on four days’ notice. The subject of the public meeting was sea level rise.
Before we go on to the oceans, let’s start with a smaller body of water first – Lake Victoria in East Africa. It was known back in the 1920s that the level of Lake Victoria went up and down with the solar cycle. This is the data on the level of Lake Victoria from 1896 to 2005:
The relationship with solar activity broke down in the 1930’s and resumed in the 1970’s. There was also a very rapid rise in the 1960’s. Taking out the period of the solar relationship breakdown and detrending the data from 1968, this is what the relationship looks like (data courtesy of Dr Peter Mason):
There is no doubt about the relationship between solar activity and the level of Lake Victoria, which also means that East Africa has about 30 years of drought ahead of it based on what is going to happen to solar activity.
Some may remember this post from 2009: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/07/archibald-on-sea-level-rise-and-solar-cycles/
which contained this graph:
That has now been updated as:
The good correlation between sea level rise and solar activity is evident. What is very interesting is that during four solar minima over the 20th Century, sea level fell during those minima. That means that during prolonged low solar activity, sea level can be expected to continue falling. That relationship is quantified in this graph:
Using the period of best fit from 1948 to 1987, the relationship between solar activity and sea level is found to be 0.045 mm per unit of sunspot number. The threshold between rising and falling seal level is a sunspot amplitude of 40. Below 40, sea level falls. Above that, it rises. We can now combine that with Livingston and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 to derive this graph of seal level rise from 1870 with a projection to 2040:
Sea level has a few more mm of rise to the maximum of Solar Cycle 24 in 2013 and then will fall 40 mm to 2040 taking us back to levels of the early 1990s.
Now back to the subject of Lake Macquarie: the nearest high quality sea level data is from Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour. This is the record from 1915 to 2009:
The rise over the 20th Century has been slight, so slight that it can be compared to human hair which on average is 0.1 mm thick. The rise has been an average of 5 human hair widths per annum, with most of that over 60 years ago. Let’s compare that with what the NSW Govt and Lake Macquarie Council are projecting for the 21st Century:
I have called sea level rise the second last refuge of the global warming scoundrel, with ocean acidification being the last refuge. It no longer provides any refuge now that the relationship with solar activity has been quantified.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A lot of CAGW people become indignant and complain that sceptics are undermining the scientific argument that global warming is happening – that 97% of 2700 climate scientists supposedly accept is happening .The only reason they can say this is because some of them must be reading sites like this otherwise they wouldn’t even know there is another side to the argument. A quick scan of the responses above indicates that not many people – maybe one – wants to object to or refute the evidence that indicates a correlation between sun activity and sea level rise. As a matter of fact, although they visit the site very few object to any of the matter presented here. I’m a sceptic for what I think are logical reasons [most definitely not poltical or economic reasons or “in the pocket of big oil” reasons], but the engineer in me just wants to see the logical argument and is quite prepared to listen to and evaluate the arguments of alarmists. There just aint much argument put up apart from the “may”s and “could”s and models. So, alarmists, please rebutt the implied conclusions in the article above. Convince us here, not through a press release or a biased editorial. If you can just convince me that sea level is still rising significantly I’d be happy because that would at least explain some missing heat. We’re the villains so convince us here, not elsewhere. If you can convince the readership of this site then you’re making headway. I am sure most of he readership would be happy to listen to reasoned hypothesis even if scientific facts and conclusions cannot be presented in an immediate timeframe of a blog. The silence of the CAGW camp has become deafening in the last 12 months.
About all these scary alarmist warnings that are now being exposed as ‘voodoo science’… you know, like dangerous sea level rises. The only way this nonsense will ever be put to a stop is by legal action… by holding to account councils and bureaucrats pushing this drivel, which causes untold damage to people such as falls in property values, increases in insurance cover, etc.
Until the bureaucrats behind all this damaging scaremongering are held to account and prosecuted for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct that directly resulted in unnecessary losses being suffered by property owners, the global warming band wagon and its potion of climate lies will continue to be promoted.
Jason
Linked below is my article on chaging sea levels from the Holocene to the Romans which is Part 1 of 3
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
Towards the end of the article are some modern graphs to put the historical changes into context. I also clarify how much should be added to the graph I used in order to bring it up to date. We currently remain somewhat below the sea levels appertaining during the Roman period and also it would seem the MWP
tonyb
I think we are heading for ‘zero sunspot day’ event in next 3-4 days
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/img3.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/stereoB.htm
that would be a rare event for a cycle near solar max.
Not a fan of most comparative studies between freshwater bodies and oceans, generally. Mostly the only thing they have in common is that the preponderant ingredient is water. In lakes, you also have to consider sedimentation rate when you are looking at level rate trends, among other things.
Minister for truth says
No wonder both Combet, the Minister for Climate Change …snort snort… and the raving looney Commisioner for Climate Change Tim Flannery, have in quite recent times bought properties at or near sea level.
———-
Like anyone else they can look at the rates of sea level rise at a particular place and work out that it won’t affect them over the lifetime of their occupancy.
So it appears you are interested in cheap shots and have no interest in the truth at all. So your 1984 reference is rather apt.
“The relationship with solar activity broke down in the 1930’s and resumed in the 1970’s. There was also a very rapid rise in the 1960’s. Taking out the period of the solar relationship breakdown and detrending the data from 1968, this is what the relationship looks like (data courtesy of Dr Peter Mason):”
Sorry but this does not compute for me. Why? I see the cherries landing all around me.
“There is no doubt about the relationship between solar activity and the level of Lake Victoria,”…
The first statement belies the second without some pretty serious explanation.
The rest of the article about the actual sea level is OK, but as others have said, I don’t see how you can update a graph from year 2000 to year 1999.
I keep expecting Willis to leap out from behind a tree and shout “Fooled you again, suckers!”
Just in case Willis is looking down on this from his high horse that is meant to be funny!
And a PS for anyone infected with the stupid. Yes I do know this article is by David Archibald.
Whoever invented the linear regression should be shot. It’s the most overused and misused function know to mankind.
A couple of others have made similar points to the one I am about to make, but you act as though a slowing in the rate of rise is a decline — it is not. You claim that “The threshold between rising and falling seal level is a sunspot amplitude of 40. Below 40, sea level falls. Above that, it rises.”
There were only 7 years in your scatter-plot diagram where the rate of increase was negative, i.e., declining. While those all occured when sun spots were <40, the sad fact is that in your own graph, the rate of increase was positive (8 observations) more often than negative when sun spots <40.
While I am intrigued by your analysis and am a skeptic of warmists' claims, this is indeed sloppy and we would rip apart a warmist who presented a similar argument in support of a theory that picks our pockets to advance a pro-govt agenda.
Replicant says:
February 3, 2012 at 7:28 pm
“With the trend of 3.1 mm/year there would be about 28 cm sea level rise if the trend continues. That is a fact. Whether the trend continues or not nobody knows.”
If I were you, I wouldn’t worry.
You only have a life expectancy of two years.
LazyTeenager says:
February 4, 2012 at 5:47 am
“Minister for truth says
No wonder both Combet, the Minister for Climate Change …snort snort… and the raving looney Commisioner for Climate Change Tim Flannery, have in quite recent times bought properties at or near sea level.
———-
Like anyone else they can look at the rates of sea level rise at a particular place and work out that it won’t affect them over the lifetime of their occupancy. ”
Yes, and like anyone else in a position of power capable of driving the price of an asset down, they did it, then bought it.
NOW, of course, they own it, so the next step is to make a U-turn, explain to everyone that they erred and that sea level rise isn’t that much of a problem, then sell it for a much better price.
Does Australia has a minimum time that you have to own a property so that you can sell it without paying tax on the profit? In Germany, that time is 10 years.
To all the people who deride Archibald for the “cherry picking”; why can’t any of you use a search engine?
The correlation between water levels of Lake Victoria and sunspot numbers; and water availability and famine in the the region, have been the subject of research for more than 100 years.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/alexander2707.pdf
“After the commissioning of the Owen Falls dam and power station in 1954, at
Jinja on the mouth of the Main Nile, flows
through the power station were maintained
on a ten-day rolling basis so as to match the
flows which would have occurred, had the
Ripon Falls still been the control. Thus, in
effect, the natural Nile outflows were maintained
in an unbroken form up until June
2000. This requirement was enshrined in
the Nile Waters Agreement. In June 2000
the new Kiira power station was commissioned
in parallel to the original station and
subsequent extractions then exceeded the
‘natural’ ones.”
“However, in the early 1960s
a dramatic rainfall increase over central and
east Africa raised the lake to unprecedented
levels. To meet ‘agreement’ requirements from
the 1960s onwards, the sluice gates at the
dam had to discharge excess water, beyond
those which could be used for generation.
The rainfall event and the climate anomaly it
produced have been thoroughly reported by
Lamb (1966).”
You see, since 1954 we meddle with the outflow.
I tend to believe that sea level rise impacts the number of sunspots instead of the other way around…
At least that’s Algore’s theory 🙂
William says:
February 4, 2012 at 1:56 am
“The data indicates sea level correlates with solar magnetic cycle period without lag.
Why? Physically what is causing sea level to increase and decrease? It cannot be temperature as there would be a significant lag as the oceans warm and cool if temperature was driving the change.”
Please excuse me, Bob Dylan:
It ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
It don’t matter, anyhow
An’ it ain’t no use to sit and wonder why, babe
If you don’t know by now
I fear we are using the same causal approach as that of the AGW crowd and mistaking correlation for cause and effect. Perhaps the time series approach is slightly more valid though it appears that this case is substantially over stated.
DirkH says:
February 4, 2012 at 8:03 am
“To all the people who deride Archibald for the “cherry picking”; why can’t any of you use a search engine?”
Why would I need to search engine to see if he cherry picked the data, he said so in his post.
Here it is: “Taking out the period of the solar relationship breakdown ” He then shows us a graph with part of the data removed.
So he wiggle matched when it was convenient and disregarded the rest. No explanation given,
I think there is a great danger in relying on limited data sets. Sea levels have risen about 130 meters over the past 20,000 years (you can track the more exact figures if you think it necessary). That works out to about 6 mm. per year. Over the past century, the rate has averaged perhaps 2 mm. per year. It appears that the rate is slower now than it was earlier in the interglacial period of the current Ice Age.
The stock market and the weather fluctuate — so we are wiser to look back further if we hope to predict the coming century more accurately, being aware that sudden changes in direction have occurred. We should all be cautious about enthusiastic predictions that because the weather is warmer in February than in January, that within a few years we will all be hotter than Hades.
Jerry says:
February 4, 2012 at 9:32 am
“Why would I need to search engine to see if he cherry picked the data, he said so in his post.
Here it is: “Taking out the period of the solar relationship breakdown ” He then shows us a graph with part of the data removed.”
Curiousity, maybe? Asking yourself whether there is an explanation for the breakdown of the relationship? As for “wiggle matching”, read the article I linked to. It’s very interesting. Many people before David Archibald have researched it. Calling it “wiggle matching” is demeaning to all of them. You can’t hold Archibald responsible for your ignorance.
Why dose everyone seem to have a problem with exuding data that was the result of known out of process activity, i.g. dam building and extreme rainfall events, especially when the author plainly states that the data was excluded because of a break down in correlation? If he wanted to hide non-correlation, he would not have said that. Any correlation in the missing years was swamped by KNOW factors, which means those years are irrelevant. Lake Victoria height is directly related to local rainfall and until the 50’s, evaporation. It is fed only by small streams a two small rivers. It has a large surface area and is relatively shallow (especially by rift lake standards). It sits on a geological active dome.
If I am trying to monitor my utility bill, relative to temperature, the data from the period where I was remodeling my kitchen and a wall was torn out would probably not be useful. And I would have to split the data between the periods before and after the watermelons force a 20% increase in rates.
It certainly would be nice and clean if a simply correlation between sea level rise and solar activity actually existed, but none does. Fortunately the Grace satellite data clearly show where all the ocean water went during the big drop in 2010-2011, and rather than being based on solar activity, if was based on the activity of the large La Nina of the period. The most current La Nina has not been quite as strong of course, allowing much of that ocean water to begin draining back from the flooded land areas back to the oceans and, not coincidentally, ocean levels have started going bck up. Would I be so lucky to be around in 2040 (and even more, to actually care about any of this then) it would be quite interesting to compare you sea level decline forecast, based on your “the sun did it” theory, with what the actual rise will be. I suspect we’ll continue to see the ocean level fluctuate up and down with the ENSO cycle (a much tighter correlation than solar by the way), and that fluctuation will ride on top of the general (and perhaps steepening) uptrend, as more and more ice melts in Greenland and Antarctica.
What happened ’60-62? Dam building downstream?
Rob Crawford
February 4, 2012 at 4:23 pm
What happened ’60-62? Dam building downstream?
###
A couple of very wet years in a row, the type of thing that happens rarely. This is a well documented event. Greenies don’t like to talk about it much because they like to use the early 60’s as their base-line to compare with current conditions as proof of environmental degradation.
This reminds me of a documentary I saw about 2 years ago. In it, a scientist who measured the rate of flow of a river in South America also saw that it varied with the sunspot activity cycles.
How many times have I read on this site that “correlation is not causation.” An interesting series of graphs, but I don’t believe I’ve heard a theory that explains how solar activity and sea level are linked.
I don’t know about sunspot cycles, but I’ve got a theory that the tides are related to the phase of the moon…