2012-03-09 04:12:09Why David Archibald is wrong about solar cycles driving sea level (Part 1)
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.34.191

Here it is.  I am not done yet, and have two sections that I will finish pending feedback from some professors here at UMich, or anyone else that might have some insight into time series questions as per here.  Feedback on what I have now though would be appreciated.

2012-03-09 14:34:40
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
138.130.140.206

Alex - As I said before, can’t help you with the science but:

Question - Have you or are you going to send your analysis to Holgate for comment - and if or when he is happy with it then get his endorsement for inclusion in the post? This would demolish Archibald completely.

Also, don’t know which post it would go in but include a section on peer-reviewed sea level rise projections. Some info previously posted here but there are SkS mythbusters here and here and here and here. The reason why this is important is because Governments’ sea level rise policy is formulated on these projections but Archibald’s graphs show sea levels falling over 21st century. Must have a solar activity crystal ball.

SkS has no rebuttal on connection between sea levels and solar activity so post can be added to the myth list.

Some words that would cover this but only one way of putting it.

False Argument – False Claim

Archibald’s cherry-picking of Holgate’s data sets is scientifically inexcusable, but even worse still this lead him to make the startling claim that sea levels would fall during this century. This is in complete contradiction to the peer-reviewed projections.

The 2007 IPCC Assessment Report projected a rise of up to 0.59 metres by 2100, but even at the time of the report’s release this figure was in the process of be revised substantially upwards. This paper in 2010 has the rise at between 0.6 and 1.6 metres, but the current projection is between 0.75 and 2.0 metres.

In the argy bargy of the public debate Archibald’s misinformation has most unfortunately become common place but under the principles governing scientific validity he fails completely.      

2012-03-09 15:56:51
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

Looking good.  A couple comments.

First, it certainly seems logical that there would be some correlation between solar activity and sea level changes.  After all, changes in TSI cause warming or cooling, which is what drives sea level changes.  Now, over the past century, solar activity hasn't been the main driver of global temperature changes, which is why Archibald's analysis fails.  He's only considering one forcing/temperature influence rather than the net forcing/influence, which has been dominated by CO2.  Then of course there are other short-term influences like ENSO.  I think an important point to make is that Archibald is only looking at a small piece of the picture, which is why he finds some correlation, but overall a poor one.

Somewhere in your post it would also be good to link to David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change, and where you talk about his cherrypicking, to Archibald’s take on world temperatures.

At the end you say "The only difference is that I lagged sun spots by a year."  I'd clarify this a bit - "in my analysis, sun spot changes lag behind sea level changes by 1 year" or something similar.

2012-03-09 16:27:15
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.37.75

Brian:

- I have already told Simon I would send him a copy of the post when I have finished it here (not necessarily final draft, but once I get something that isn't incomplete).  He said he would like to see it, and I think I can get some good comments and endoresement from him.

- Part 2 will look at the literature, I don't want to do that yet.  But, I welcome any early leads on what papers to discuss.

- I can make this the advanced version to the myth, I suppose.  I think it would be a good addition.

Dana:

- Logical sure, and I don't want to say there is no link.  That's why I included the sentence near the end that there could still be a link, though Archibald has not found it.  I have also talked with Simon Holgate some about this, it has already been researched as a topic, and a link has been searched for and not found.

- Of course his analysis fails with regards to net forcing, and I will go over that briefly as I discuss other factors in Part 2 (that will also include a bit of discussion of the comparative forcings, greenhouse gas v. solar minimum, which is about a 1.8:0.25 comparison).

- I'll see if I can include the link.  It might fit well in the introduction.

- I'll reword the lag phrasing.

2012-03-09 16:35:29
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.37.75

Actually Brian, Simon was the one that first mentioned the problem with choice of trend length and searching for correlation with cycles that are of the same temporal span - I'll send him what I have now, and see if he has any feedback on how to go about interpreting his work and my stats problem I brought up earlier.

2012-03-10 12:41:32
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.38.251

Haven't made the changes, yet, sorry, will do that now.  I have found the tidal gauge data online used by Holgate 2007 - this will actually be EXCELLENT for testing the effects of trend length.

2012-03-12 14:14:52The smallest changes...
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
71.35.29.177

Per Holgate, "The smallest changes in sea level are seen in Trieste...and Newlyn (England)..."

And, "...As has been noted previously [Woodworth,1990] the rates for northern European tide gauges are consistently lower than the global mean.  Triests, along with other Mediterranean tide gauges, has shown a much lower rate of increase since 1960."  {Note that the Cascais (Portugal) record is incomplete}

This is due to gravitational pull of the Greenland ice sheet, as explained by geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica in the video that is the topic of rustneversleep's pending blogpost, "Advancing Climate Science..."

2012-03-12 19:28:21
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.43.55

SOF - interesting, I wasn't aware that the GIS could have such a notable effect.

As an update, Simon was kind enough to offer me the corrected station data from which Figure 3 is derived.  I will be slightly modifying the general layout of the first couple sections, then adding in discussion on how the choice of trend window influences periods that emerge in the output data.

2012-03-12 20:33:03
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
138.130.140.206

Great to hear Holgate is actively involved in getting the science data right. Latest on the politics and it’s not good.

I was told today that the review of sea level rise policy will be conducted by a special internal parliamentary committee. This means only politicians on the committee and no public disclosure of the committee’s deliberations and how the committee arrived at its final decision and no appeal.

There is only one democratic process at work here and that’s freedom of the press but the media is a strange and unpredictable animal.

But that just makes the challenge more interesting.   

2012-03-16 14:45:38
Same Ordinary Fool

chicagoriverturning@gmail...
71.35.29.177

"There seems to be evidence for a link between solar activity and water level."   From, 'Water levels correlate with Sunspots.'  (John Cook, June, 2010)  Fixed Skeptic Argument # 95

JC didn't like the Lake Victoria paper he included in the article.  He briefly mentioned another one in a Note down below.

[Just stumbled upon this, and don't see it mentioned above.]

2012-03-16 15:20:08
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.32.236

Specifically, "water levels," and as you said, the article only discussed Lake Victoria levels.  It is clear though where Archibald got his graphs for the Lake Victoria discussion...

The paper seems very amateurish.

2012-03-16 15:47:25
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.110.129

"The paper seems very amateurish."

Yeah, that's Archibald in a nutshell.

2012-03-16 16:33:22
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
138.130.140.206

But that’s the problem, amateurish science is winning the political argument and the mainstream media is to blame.

Alex – did you see my comment about including Climate Central study in one of the posts? If you agree, I would link directly to the US mapping. There is similar Australian mapping but only for highly populated areas – Lake Macquarie is one of them.

2012-03-19 16:08:06
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
58.164.46.96

From Climate Realists – 14th March 2012

Mr. Archibald - who has been recognized as "the first to realize that the length of the previous sunspot cycle (PSCL) has a predictive power for the temperature in the next sunspot cycle" - also argued that the warming of the last 150 years will be reversed as the Earth's temperature begins to cool sharply due to lower solar activity. Contrary to the Jeremiads of the global warming alarmists, the sea levels are also falling. Global cooling may well jeopardize grain production and threaten potential famines, which will certainly impact significantly the international situation.

2012-03-23 05:17:44
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.42.219

OK, so update: GMSL data from Simon doesn't help much, since it's merely the trend data he used to generate the figure showing all stations; I have made little progress otherwise in way of statistical analysis BUT I have received much better counseling on how to go about this.  I need to talk with Tamino and learn about FRFs and cross spectral analysis.

2012-03-23 05:18:34
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.42.219

Brian: I'm little concerned about Climate Realists, they're the same "Slayer" supporters beating down Watts because he supports the greenhouse effect.  Irrelevant.