Sea Levels and Climate Drivers

CSS-18 One of “Climate Change” alarmist’s great scares (fear porn) is the threat of sea level rise. The temperature rise prophesied by the IPCC high priest modellers will flood all the major coastal cities and drown many island nations around the world. So, say the models. In the real world, the models do not match the empirical data. My first look at sea level data was laid out in my OPS-23 – Sea Levels post. The focus of that post was the tide gauges and the slope of the sea level rise. In virtually all the tide gauges around the world (whether local sea level appears to be rising or falling), the sea level rise/fall has no curvature (i.e.: the sea level rise rate (initiated long before any human intervention) is not accelerating). School children in the early 1900’s could have predicted New York’s current sea level with a ruler and a pencil. Strange that today’s climate scientists cannot get the job done with billions of dollars and the latest supercomputers at their disposal. Actually, not really that strange given that the modellers themselves have declared that their models run too hot (AAAS article, July 2021). Additional information (with backup links) can be found in my OPS-55 – State of the Climate post.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

This Climate Short Story (CSS) expands the discussion out to much longer time scales (800,000 years ago to the present). On the longer-term time scales (CSS-18a), the current sea level rise (mid-1800s to the present) is insignificant and barely visible on the charts. Natural forcings are obviously much more dominant than any anthropogenic forcings. However, the sea level story is much more complex than shown on the first chart. I will be presenting a variety of time scales, lest I be accused of cherry picking.

Atmospheric temperatures have a direct influence on sea levels. As temperatures increase, melt rates increase and ultimately sea level increases and vice versa. That process cycles up and down on a variety of time scales (daily, seasonally and in conjunction with the various solar and ocean cycles). The consolidated atmospheric/ocean process is extremely complicated. As with the temperature/CO₂ relationship, the sea level changes can also take centuries to manifest. In the ice core data, CO₂ follows the temperature up with a several century delay (as the warmer oceans release CO₂). When global temperatures decrease, CO₂ is reabsorbed by the cooler oceans but with a longer millennial scale delay. The ocean cycles (and there are many) have well documented effects. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) cycles between warm and cool over a 60 year period. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had a similar cycle time. The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) causes some dramatic global temperature changes, but the cycles have a shorter more erratic time frame. There are other ocean cycles that can affect the globe and/or more localized areas.

The solar cycles also act on a variety of time scales. As solar activity rises and falls, so does the energy that reaches our planet. As with the ocean cycles, that process is very complicated. Much more complicated than the simplistic, unscientific narrative that CO₂ is the primary climate driver being preached by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) alarmist crowd. There are significant sea level fluctuations throughout the pre-MTR (Modern Temperature Record (1850 to the Present)) Holocene Interglacial warm period that could not possibly be due to any anthropogenic (CO₂ or otherwise) causes. CO₂ has been essentially flat for the last 12,000 years. CO₂ levels have increased sharply over the last couple of centuries, but most of that increase would be due to natural forcings (primarily solar activity (directly or indirectly (ocean cycles, cosmic ray flux, high energy particle fluctuations, etc.). Most of our emissions (86%+) have occurred since 1950. Both temperature and sea level rise began long before we could have had any measurable effect.

The best general fit (over the last 3,000 years) between solar activity and sea level rise is a delay of just over 500 years. Has the increased energy, delivered by the sun as the world recovered from the Spörer Minimum (500+ years ago) been released from the deep ocean over the last century and a half, contributed to the recent sea level rise? Maybe, maybe not, but I can say that the sea level rise and fall over the last 3,000 years (pre-MTR) had nothing to do with CO₂ (since CO₂ was flat over the pre-MTR period). Has CO₂ contributed to the MTR sea level rise? More than likely, yes. But how much? The natural forcings present pre-MTR were still active through the MTR and will be active in the future (unless you live in the virtual reality world created by the IPCC programmers). To answer the question, the CO₂ Climate Sensitivity (CCS) science would have to be “settled”. Given that the IPCC models use a CCS range of 1.8 to 5.6 °C, settled science is a long way off (CSS-6 – Dr. John Christy – January 2021 Presentation for a little more colour). That does not take into account that many real climate scientists have shown that the narrow CO₂ absorption band is becoming saturated and CCS is very likely well below that range as CO₂ concentrations increase (“Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules”). I looked at CCS in my CSS-3 – CO₂ Sensitivity post a while back and more recently in my OPS-42 – CO₂ Climate Sensitivity and CSS-7 – CO₂ – The FECKLESS GreenHouse Gas posts.

The last few slides look at the relationship between temperature and sea ice extent since satellite coverage was readily available (1979). I looked at this earlier in my CSS-5 – Snow and Ice – September 2020 post. The University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite temperature data is plotted along with NOAA’s Global Sea Ice Extent. Not surprisingly, the two parameters move in opposite directions. Sea Ice Extent rises when global temperatures fall and vice versa. The mirror effect is very visible when UAH temperatures are used. Not so visible when the “over-homogenized NASA/GISS surface temperature data set is used. The biggest increase in temperature (and matching decrease in Sea Ice Extent) has nothing to do with CO₂. The step increase in 2014 is due to a very positive, warm phase in the ENSO cycle. Note, the temperature drop forecasted in the September 2020 post occurred as predicted. Continued temperature drops can be expected as we move further into the Grand Solar Minimum over the next couple of decades.

The last slide (CSS-18o) breaks down both the UAH and NASA/GISS data into their land and ocean components. The UAH data is much more consistent and logical than the NASA/GISS data. The UAH data produces a global temperature trend (1.35 °C/century) that is consistent with the land (29%) and ocean (71%) proportions. NASA/GISS’ proportionate global temperature trend works out to 1.68 °C/century (compared to a 1.89 °C/century linear regression). Why the discrepancy? Likely due to the over-homogenization (i.e.: manipulation) that NASA/GISS routinely implements. Through the early NASA/GISS history, the green Global curve remains much closer to the Ocean (blue) curve than the Land (red) curve (as it should). Not so post 1979. The surface land data is excessively “homogenized” (hence the excessive +3.02 °C/century temperature trend). Older measured temperatures have been reduced and more recent temperatures increased to get that just right temperature rise. A larger discussion of homogenization is included in my CSS-13 – A Look at Homogenization post.

Note, some homogenization is required and can be justified. Over-homogenization to adjust the measured data so that “official data” corresponds to the CAGW narrative is ideology (or more accurately idiotology) not science.

It is time to WAKE UP!! The Real Threat is the GSM Lower Temperatures over the next couple of decades, not the beneficial warming CO₂ might provide a century from now.