Sea level rise: Levelling off

Posted: October 8, 2010 by Rog Tallbloke in climate

I downloaded the sea level rise data from Colorado.edu and plotted the trend prior to and following the point when solar output dropped below the long term average.

mean sea levelThe drop in ocean heat content measured by the Argo network from 2003 means most of this rise would be down to meltoff due to continuing warm temperatures especially around Greenland, and increased runoff due to enhanced precipitation caused by a faster hydrological cycle.

I think we will see the mean sea level continuing to level off over the next few years, and then starting to fall as lower temperatures reduce the melt rate, and ocean heat content falls further, and faster under the quiescent sun.

Time will tell.

Comments
  1. Tenuc says:

    “I think we will see the mean sea level continuing to level off over the next few years, and then starting to fall as lower temperatures reduce the melt rate, and ocean heat content falls further, and faster under the quiescent sun.”

    I agree, give it 10y and the rate of fall will be the same as that of the rise seen in the past 100y. In the long term the temperature of the ocean dictates what we experience on land. Should the sun decide to say in the doldrums, we’re in for some bad NH winters in the coming years :-(

  2. Douglas DC says:

    Agreed Tenuc, I think the cold nasty winters of the 1950’s and 60’s are upon us.
    Maybe worse. I do not want to see a volcanic eruption any time soon, that would make matters an order worse,only thing ,we still have warmists preparing for warmth instead of cold…

  3. Tim Channon says:

    This requires an explanation and is not simple. Should be part of a paper.

    The Geosat overlay was unearthed by Johnathan Drake in this powerpoint.

    http://www.oco.noaa.gov/meetings/OCOSR/07/presentations/tuesday/NESDIS_4_Miller.ppt

    Look at slide 8 and chuckle at the straight line thinking, so severe the satellite data is assumed wrong.

    I have strongly associated the sea level data with solar magnetic but the whole thing is so large and complex, as well as partially a work in progress I dispair at being able to put it all together.

  4. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Don’t forget the expansion / contraction of water caused by changes in energy content. pg

  5. Tim Channon says:

    The reason why global sea level seems to alter will be very complex.

    Given the earth is squishy, not a hard sphere, and many other things, I doubt much is certain.

    I doubt we can measure sea level absolute. Satellite is little help, all relative again.

  6. rbateman says:

    I have never seen any analysis of what would happen to ports/canals if the Sea Level were to drop.
    All this fuss over rising sea levels that don’t seem to register on 50 and 100 year comparison images.
    So, I’ll just punt:
    Imagine the embarassment and the finger-pointing that would ensue when the locks at the Suez and Panama canals can’t get the ships in off the oceans. Port piers and docks left high and dry, just like the boat ramps you see at a reservoir in dry years.
    Since the political focus is on rising seas, I’m guessing that they don’t have plan #1.

  7. Tenuc says:

    P.G. Sharrow says:
    October 9, 2010 at 2:23 am
    “Don’t forget the expansion / contraction of water caused by changes in energy content. pg”

    I know temperature is a poor measure of our complex planet’s energy content, but here’s the latest info from Dr Roy Spencer…

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/10/meanwhile-sea-surface-temperatures-continue-to-fall/

  8. Doug Proctor says:

    In order for the previous trend (blue line) to continue, an important part of conventional AGW/CAGW, the raw Denver data must peak at 50mm by the beginning of 2012. Not far away.

    We are at the “tipping point” of our skeptical position. Should temps not keep rising, even with the NASA/GISS adjustments, for the next 18 months, the trends will be significantly off for the CO2 connection. The sunspot correlation to lower temperatures also will be apparent (or not), as a Sun Cycle 24 of 50-55 looks possible with the current data. Temps should be dropping as a result of that. The PDO is supposed to be turning around now, and if so, is supposed to result in Arctic temperatures falling and sea ice increasing. All to be undeniable (irony of ironies!) by January 2012.

    The warmist position should become shriller yet. 10:10 No Pressure! might be an opening salvo.
    The Green position is that the Earth’s biosphere is being damaged by humans activity, a position impossible to refute, though perhaps not irredemiably as they propose. The de-industrialization of our society is behind the CO2-devil imagery. If global warming does not hold up for the next 18 months the Green agenda is in danger of being dismissed for the ideology it is. Expect to be attacked. Expect to hear more alarmism, not less.

  9. Tallbloke,
    That is a good observation. How about considering sea levels as cyclic or quasi-cyclic?

    http://tiny.cc/2sthe

  10. Doug Proctor says:
    October 14, 2010 at 12:20 am
    Changes in the field change one of its components:Gravity, changing the length of the day (LOD) and this (among other things) changes temperatures.
    You are right, you’ll suffer an INCONVENIENT WINTER. Hopefully beginning in November for the climate summit at Cancun.

    http://www.giurfa.com/unified_field.pdf

  11. Tim Channon says:

    I hope Tallbloke will forgive me posting a link without asking his permission.
    If it works click on my name above.

    At the end of the long ramble is something which might be of great interest to some readers of Tallbloke’s place. About gravity and 60 year periods.
    gravitational force on sun

    I am not fishing for comments or traffic. Rather than write at length here, it is there.

  12. tallbloke says:

    Tim, interesting, thanks for that. I’d be very interested to know more about your calculation and filtering. Could you easily run the data over a longer period? Say from 1840 to 2040? I’d expect the nice 60 year sine wave to alter as the longer term planetary periodicities manifest their effect. It would be interesting to compare that to the quasi cyclic PDO and AMO.

  13. tallbloke says:

    Jonathan Drake says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm (Edit)

    Tallbloke,
    That is a good observation. How about considering sea levels as cyclic or quasi-cyclic?

    http://tiny.cc/2sthe

    Given the cyclic nature of all of the rest of the phenomena we have been studying, I’d be surprised if it wasn’t. :)
    Thanks for the link, I’d like to run that as a seperate article if you are willing.

  14. Tim Channon says:

    I ought to write this up, never mind, put some here.

    Method.
    1. Data produced as time series by Solex 100, is one file per planet and set to a useful data format. (this can take some time)

    2. Lua script reads the files and spits out gravity data in whatever form is wanted, time series again.

    3. Import to SS for plotting. Export or whatever to file for filtering. (all ansi c and not public at the moment)

    There are some twists.

    An indeterminate and nasty one is whether simplifying the data can be done, specifically whether short period planets can be ignored, with the problem that long time series, say daily, become massive and take forever for solex to output. Nyquist is probably involved here.

    Big twist.
    The data is XYZ axis. This can be computed to real |XYZ|
    However, the solar system is not that simple.

    XY in essence is a circle, the orbits.
    YZ is a line, how the solar system looks on edge that axis.
    XZ is the interesting one, viewed on that axis there is new detail to do with the Z axis.

    Crudely filtering for 60y shows what might be in phase with earth temperature for the XZ data, not XYZ. That is what the quick plot shows.

    Confirmation bias, is exactly what I expected, is to do with the Z axis, which is to do with solar asymmetry and magnetics.

    Do I have longer data? Of course, but see the data explosion problem. Not sure it is good enough.

    More detail.
    Gravity computation, for a single data point, Gm.mass1.mass2/square_distance. the units do not matter for the purpose here.

    XYZ is then scaled so it is precomputed for gravity.

    We can then sum the rectangular data, merely x=x1+x2+x3 etc.

    Then we can compute a real vector, just the rms of the data. In this case also for two axis.

    Is this correct? Hope so. Plots two axis as a sensible looking projection.

    This should correctly compute the real force. That though does not compute a result if there is non-linearity, where things would get extremely complex very rapidly. Almost certainly the sun is highly non-linear.
    The simplest form of non-linearity computation involves the products, likely incomplete. On what, with what and so on. All guesswork.
    I do however have some ideas on ballparking some of this stuff.

  15. Tenuc says:

    Jonathan Drake says:
    October 14, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    “How about considering sea levels as cyclic or quasi-cyclic?

    http://tiny.cc/2sthe

    Good piece of work Jonathan! The quasi-sinusoidal curve also appears in the 60y temperature oscillation and other climate metrics. No surprise perhaps that sea levels do the same.

  16. Tim Channon says:

    I’m seeing strange results from attempting a massive run. Solex takes about 15m, 272M of output. Sheer size should not matter. Sigh, is always the same, two forwards, one back. Maths shouldn’t be overflowing. Lua is garbage collected. My stuff is careful with memory and tends to fall over sanely including carrying math limits through.

    Have to think about this. No rush.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Take your time Tim, no hurry. Very promising work!

  18. Tim Channon says:

    I conclude it is because there is nothing there, so small it is into processing artefacts. The plot software was autoscaling.

    Why? Or more reasonable why did something appear in daily 1950 onwards and not in 1749 onwards? Solex is old and very stable. Human fingers are not, at least the second part. Alternatively the whole lot is just nonsense.

    Can’t handle to whole file so lets hack off the end.

    And with the result plot the gravity orbits, which is sane.
    solar motion

  19. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tim, thanks again. So is it possible to put the result into the same format as the first graph?

  20. Tenuc says:

    Tim Channon says:
    October 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    This should correctly compute the real force. That though does not compute a result if there is non-linearity, where things would get extremely complex very rapidly. Almost certainly the sun is highly non-linear.

    The simplest form of non-linearity computation involves the products, likely incomplete. On what, with what and so on. All guesswork.

    I do however have some ideas on ball-parking some of this stuff.

    I think your right. It is the inherent non-linearity which seems to keep all natural systems quasi-stable as the oscillate around the various strange attractors. No two orbits of a planet are exactly the same regarding any metric, and even the computational power behind the JPL planetary ephemeris can only produce approximations which drift further from reality with time.

    Planetary motion depends on the attraction of gravity (pull) and the radiative force of the photon bombardment field (push) and the resulting motion acts like a driven oscillator. However, because of the sensitivity to initial conditions the outcome of any series of orbits cannot be exactly known.

    The fact that planets are constrained to different but nearly identical orbits, despite the perturbing influence of variations in strength of solar wind, other bodies passing close or through the system e.t.c. is confirmation of the miracle of dynamic order being created from chaos. Trying to freeze the system at any moment in time is useless to understanding.

    Some good stuff here, Tim, which could help understanding:-

    http://milesmathis.com/third.html

  21. Tim Channon says:

    More I look the less things makes sense. Bumped up the precision of the intermediates to a lot, doesn’t seem to have changed much.
    Come back to this after a break.

  22. Tim Channon says:

    Given the topic I may as well indicate an old file.

    sea level