![74273_rel[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/74273_rel1.jpg?resize=200%2C111&quality=83)
Has solar activity influence on the Earth’s global warming?
A recent study demonstrates the existence of significant resonance cycles and high correlations between solar activity and the Earth’s averaged surface temperature during centuries. This provides a new clue to reveal the phenomenon of global warming in recent years.
Their work, entitled “Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations” was published in CHINESE SCIENCE BULLETIN (In Chinese) 2014 No.14.
The co-corresponding authors are Dr. Zhao Xinhua and Dr. Feng Xueshang from State key laboratory of space weather, CSSAR/NSSC, Chinese Academy of Sciences. It adopts the wavelet analysis technique and cross correlation method to investigate the periodicities of solar activity and the Earth’s temperature as well as their correlations during the past centuries.
Global warming is one of the hottest and most debatable issues at present. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claimed that the release of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases contributed to 90% or even higher of the observed increase in the global average temperature in the past 50 years. However, the debate on the causes of the global warming never stops. Research shows that the current warming does not exceed the natural fluctuations of climate. The climate models of IPCC seem to underestimate the impact of natural factors on the climate change, while overstate that of human activities. Solar activity is an important ingredient of natural driving forces of climate. Therefore, it is valuable to investigate the influence of solar variability on the Earth’s climate change on long time scales.
![74272_web[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/74272_web1.jpg?quality=83)
This study also implies that the “modern maximum” of solar activity agrees well with the recent global warming of the Earth. A significant correlation between them can be found (Figure 2).
As pointed out by a peer reviewer, “this work provides a possible explanation for the global warming”.
See the article:
ZHAO X H, FENG X S. Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (in Chinese). Chin Sci Bull (Chin Ver), 2014, 59: 1284, doi: 10.1360/972013-1089 http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtb/CN/abstract/abstract514043.shtml
Science China Press Co., Ltd. (SCP) is a scientific journal publishing company of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). For 60 years, SCP takes its mission to present to the world the best achievements by Chinese scientists on various fields of natural sciences researches.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Alex says:
June 6, 2014 at 10:57 am
don’t like to be treated like a fool,
Behave like one and you are treated accordingly. The ‘span’ is irrelevant for the climate as it refers to rare large sunspots and is short-lived excursions. The relevant time scale is years or more and there the ‘swing’ is much smaller [1 W/m2]. You took your span to indicate that TSI was unreliable. Quite the contrary, every satellite shows the same rare excursions. Those are not indications of uncertainty in determination of TSI as you suspected. So, behave as a man and learn.
Alex says:
June 6, 2014 at 2:04 am
When people are discussing earth energy balance and referring to fractions of watts per sq mtr as making some sort of significance then I get suspicious.
The relative uncertainty of TSI [after correcting for scattered light and sensor degradation] is a small fraction of a Watt, e.g. for TIM/SORCE: 0.007 W/m2
Apparently I am misreading the graphs
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
Forgive me for interfering with your agenda. Whatever that is.
Your name will never pass my lips again and I will never respond to you again. Deal?
from one fool to another
So, you read Chinese? Give us an abstract
my Korean is better than my Chinese..
직접 가서 지랄
Alex says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:21 am
Apparently I am misreading the graphs
You are misinterpreting what you see. The large excursions are rare and short-lived and irrelevant to the debate about TSI’s influence on climate. They are not indicative of uncertainty of the measurements of TSI. Every satellite will have those same excursions.
Deal?
The greater fool is the one who refuses to learn.
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 8:26 am
“What do you think?”
The peak of that graph above has a data point at about 1966 of 68.0336, a 20% decrease would reduce it to 54.42688, looking at the decreased data point there still appears to be a substantial increase in sunspot activity through the 20 century.
I think the decrease in the more accurate modern sunspot numbers (not counting A+B specks etc..) is preferable to an increase in pre 1947 sunspot numbers.
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:42 am
there still appears to be a substantial increase in sunspot activity through the 20 century.
As there was in the 19th and the 18th. The 20th is no different.
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:42 am
I think the decrease in the more accurate modern sunspot numbers (not counting A+B specks etc..)
A+B specks have been counted since 1876…
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:44 am
Sparks says:
…there still appears to be a substantial increase in sunspot activity through the 20 century.
“As there was in the 19th and the 18th. The 20th is no different.”
I agree, I will however point out the same can also be said about temperature variability during the 19th and the 18th century.
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:45 am
Sparks says:
I think the decrease in the more accurate modern sunspot numbers (not counting A+B specks etc..)
“A+B specks have been counted since 1876…”
Of course, (nice factoid) if you say so… I specifically meant the suggested post 1947 20% sunspot number decrease.
The extremely small variance in TSI throughout the solar cycle is the primary reason that Warmists dismiss this cycle in all their climate models. At ~1360 watts per sq meter, TSI definitely IS the reason for ALL warming on Earth but in their view it’s simply a strong constant in the equation.
But other outputs from the Sun display much higher variability throughout the cycle, so they are strongly affected by weaker cycles: specifically, the Sun’s magnetic field (which augments the Earth’s field in moderating Cosmic Rays) and the Sun’s X-ray output (which varies by a factor of over 10x). We are just now sorting out these and other effects of our local star on true multi-decadal to millenial climate cycles.
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:19 pm
I agree, I will however point out the same can also be said about temperature variability during the 19th and the 18th century.
I don’t think so. You will have to document and show your claim with data.
I specifically meant the suggested post 1947 20% sunspot number decrease.
Has nothing to do with A+B specks, but with the introduction of weighting of large spots [not A+B which are small spots].
lsvalgaard says June 6, 2014 at 7:51 am
“In addition to that there are powerful research groups whose funding depends on the old data. Rocking that boat is vigorously resisted…”
I believe there is the same resistance to Tisdale’s (and others) natural intrinsic ENSO driven SST and land temperature trends. It is a plausible hypothesis with a plausible mechanism that better explains the rise in global temperatures. The puny amount of change in anthropogenic CO2 just doesn’t have the necessary energy chops to drive an energy sucking temperature trend. But the ocean storage capacity and belching mechanisms teleconnected with atmospheric mechanisms certainly do. So if Tisdale’s hypothesis is indeed the case, it will call into question hundreds of well-funded papers and groups ascribing human cause to temperature increase (or change or catastrophe, or whatever they now call it).
djtex says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm
But other outputs from the Sun display much higher variability throughout the cycle, so they are strongly affected by weaker cycles: specifically, the Sun’s magnetic field…
Which has not changed the past 180 years [except for the cyclic solar cycle variation]. See e.g. slide 3 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf
djtex says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:20 pm
“…the Sun’s X-ray output (which varies by a factor of over 10x). We are just now sorting out these and other effects of our local star on true multi-decadal to millenial climate cycles.”
X-ray intensity varies by a factor of almost 100% between solar minimum and solar maximum.
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“You will have to document and show your claim with data.”
And you will no doubt understand such a claim!
“Has nothing to do with A+B specks, but with the introduction of weighting of large spots [not A+B which are small spots].”
Therefor the specks that they couldn’t see to even count in the past are ok today, interesting!
Are specks weighted today?
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Therefor the specks that they couldn’t see to even count in the past are ok today, interesting!
Specks have been seen and counted ever since Wolfer started in 1877.
Are specks weighted today?
Large spots are weighted, so it depends on your definition of specks. This obsession with ‘specks’ is misplaced. Specks are just small spots and they have been counted for 138 years.
Leif,
I have no misplaced obsession about sun spots, I have some questions and a few thoughts here and there, so… are Specks Weighted? regardless from when they have been counted.
The old Leif is back! (after an apparent short break…good to see, even if I don’t agree with everything you say!)
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm
are Specks Weighted?
Since you have not defined what a ‘speck’ is, it is hard to say. Large specks are weighted [since 1947]. To be precise: a spot with penumbra has weight 3, no matter how small it is.
The last 60 years has had the strongest cycles in it, with the exception of the weak one that occurred during the sixties. Any one can see there is clearly an impressive maximum that occurred during the 80’s and 90’s and into early 2000, and then it slowed, and the world started cooling, just like it did during the sixties when we had the last weak cycle. Do not let a solar physicist interpret their own data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm
I have no misplaced obsession about sun spots
Here is the problem: the word ‘speck’ is not used by solar observers, so from that end there are no specks. It has been used by some people with the intention of throwing doubt on the modern way of counting. So when you use the word ‘speck’ you [inadvertently or not] put yourself in that same group. It is like any other loaded word, e.g. ‘ni**er’. If you use that word, you give a strong impression that you are racist [whether or not you are]. So, since there are no specks, just spots, you may just be asking if small spots are weighted, something that is done exclusive with large spots, so there is a bit of disconnect here.
LT says:
June 6, 2014 at 4:18 pm
The last 60 years has had the strongest cycles in it,
Simply because the sunspot count since 1947 has been inflated by 20-25 % on average. You can verify that yourself: here is a drawing of the spots on Jan. 1st, 1981 http://www.specola.ch/drawings/1981/loc-d19810101.JPG
The table at the upper right shows how many spots the observer allocate to each numbered group. Take, for instance groups 717 and 719, They contain [according to the table] 4 and 3 spots, respectively. Now count how many spots you see in each group [I count one in each].
For all the groups I count a total of 52 spots [as opposed to the count of 127 reported by the observer]. How many do you count?
So do you think they weighted them because they thought these were spots really close together and because of that were hard to count as individual spots? Did they think that there must be more than one spot given the irregular shape? Are these irregular spots just another form of a single spot? Or do spots ever “run together” and combine into one spot?
Pamela Gray says:
June 6, 2014 at 4:49 pm
So do you think they weighted them because they thought these were spots really close together…
No, simply because they thought that a large spot is more important [e.g. carries more magnetic flux] than a tiny spot, and they felt that that somehow should be reflected in the count. This practise can be defended provided it is done at all times. What destroys its value is that it was stealthily introduced some time in the 1940s, c.f. slide 22 of http://www.leif.org/research/SHINE-2011-The-Forgotten-Sun.pdf
Alex says:
June 6, 2014 at 11:21 am
Apparently I am misreading the graphs
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/
Forgive me for interfering with your agenda. Whatever that is.
Your name will never pass my lips again and I will never respond to you again. Deal?
from one fool to another
lsvalgaard says:
You are misinterpreting what you see. The large excursions are rare and short-lived and irrelevant to the debate about TSI’s influence on climate.
===
Well to look at those graphs it seems obvious that general level of ERB data from the dense baseline to the high around 1979 is at least 2.5 W/m2
So perhaps you need to define what you call “short-lived” and what kind of filtering you suggest is necessary to reveal the “true” figure.