![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.
Greg says:
June 6, 2014 at 5:08 pm
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
You should not look at the upper envelope, but take a reasonable mean. A good and natural time scale is 27 days [one solar rotation]
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Q. are Specks Weighted?
“Since you have not defined what a ‘speck’ is, it is hard to say.”
incorrect, you did acknowledge and define what I am referring too, a sun speck, “A+B specks, but with the introduction of weighting of large spots [not A+B which are small spots].”
Small Spots.
Are Specks Weighted?
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 5:21 pm
incorrect, you did acknowledge and define what I am referring too, a sun speck, “A+B specks, but with the introduction of weighting of large spots [not A+B which are small spots].”
You did not define what a speck is. Perhaps I did [to speak your language]. If by ‘speck’ you simply mean a small spot, then by definition they are not weighted, as only large spots are weighted. Now A+B spots make up about half of all spots. So your question is a contradiction in terms, unless you have something else in mind.
Leif,
A “speck” as in a “speck of dust” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/speck
“A+B spots make up about half of all spots.”
Specks.
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 5:57 pm
A “speck” as in a “speck of dust” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/speck
Sunspots are bigger than the Earth…
“A+B spots make up about half of all spots.”
Specks.
Solar observers do not use the word ‘speck’, all we see are spots of various sizes. If you want to communicate you should use accepted terminology in the field. If you don’t, you just look like a fool. Is that what you aspire to?
Planet Earth absorbs and disperses energy from the Sun at a relatively constant rate thanks to the worlds oceans and relatively small land mass. Think of our planet as a giant spherical battery. During some point in the assent of any solar cycle toward solar max, the Earth is absorbing energy at a faster rate than it is being dispelled. The planet is heating up slightly. It would appear the planet is still heating up during the peak of solar max to some point in the decent to solar minimum, when it would appear the planet is cooling down slightly toward the trough of solar minimum till some point in the next ramp up. Relative temperature is smoothed due to lag time effect of recharge and discharge cycle of the battery.
Lag time effects shrink and expand with varying intensity of each solar cycle. The field of climate science should include research into the time lag effect of solar cycles. I suspect solar cycle 24 will provide invaluable data for this. While there are many factors that affect climate, I believe our Sun is the biggest factor.
michaelwiseguy says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:04 pm
I believe our Sun is the biggest factor.
As Pamela observed: “belief trumps data”.
michaelwiseguy says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:04 pm
“As Pamela observed: “belief trumps data”.”
I should have said, with my educated guess.
What do you think about a Time Lag Effect study, in the event the Sun is relevant?
So… a “speck of dust” is weighted relevant to mountain and are treated equally. Regardless or oblivious of all the semantical nonsense and suggestive crap your dishing out.
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 5:57 pm
A “speck” as in a “speck of dust” http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/speck
Sunspots are bigger than the Earth…
a speck is smaller than a sunspot. what is your point?
* a mountain
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:19 pm
a speck is smaller than a sunspot. what is your point?
The point is that there are no specks, only spots of various sizes. The smallest ones (A and B classes) are not weighted, so whatever you want to say about specks and weighting is not relevant.
So… a “speck of dust” is weighted relevant to mountain and are treated equally.
Mountains has been weighted since 1947 and dust not. To make the record homogeneous we remove the weight on the mountains to be compatible with how the counting has been done the 350 years before 1947. We could also do it the other way around, but since the reference station [Locarno in Switzerland] is the only station in the whole world that weights it seems more reasonable to go with the majority.
If you wish not to understand the above, perhaps do as Alex.
michaelwiseguy says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:13 pm
What do you think about a Time Lag Effect study, in the event the Sun is relevant?
People who do regression analysis on spots and temperature find no time lag and I wouldn’t expect any in the first place.
Looking at the graph it seems that beginning in about 1975, the temperatures begin rising out of sync with the solar variables. One could very easily conclude that this is the A in AGW.
So a first glance for me seems to confirm anthropogenic rather than refute it.
lsvalgaard says: “You should not look at the upper envelope, but take a reasonable mean. A good and natural time scale is 27 days [one solar rotation]”
Thanks, I ran a lanczos filter designed to remove 27d and below. Taking mid-points of the remaining short term fluctuations gives 1979.5 at 1374.0 and the low being 1987.0 at 1371.3 ; that gives 2.7 W/m2 difference.
This confirms my original eyeball figure of “at least 2.5″. Somewhat short of Alex’s ” 4 or 5″.
“The important number is how much TSI varies on, say, a yearly time scale, and that is about 1 W/m2 resulting in a 0.1 degree temperature change.”
I would have thought the important number was how much it varied from peak of solar cycle to a trough, although the annual variation will matter in some contexts.
Taking your suggested scaling that would be about 0.3K temp change across a solar cycle.
If a study is to truly be done on our Sun they should be saying this maximum is no big thing.
Lets think about the role of the Sun it supplies the fuel. The clouds and the Oceans are like the regulator on a Steam engine.
How much does Co2 effect Earth’s temp?
Think about this…… you know how the clouds at night can keep it warm?
Well the Co2 levels have not changed they remain almost constant within respective hemispheres of air.
So it was the 95% greenhouse gas = water vapor…… that caused the effect,
and not the 0.4% Co2
makes sense to me,
How about you?
oops 0.04% damn typos oops
“So a first glance for me seems to confirm anthropogenic rather than refute it.”
Yes. In fact it was predicted back in 1896 that if C02 increases the temperature will eventually increase all other things being equal.
Since that time scientists have been busy trying to pin down the following.
1. How much warming: our best guess is between 1C and 6C
2. How will this temperature increase manifest itself
A) smoothly and globally?
B) in fits and starts in spatially irregular ways?
3. What other forces can increase it or diminish it?
A) what changes in internal variability can “mask” the increase
B) what other systematic changes (feedbacks) can increase it
Bascially #3 looks at how we can account for “all other things” NOT being equal.
So, a prediction was made. The evidence supports the prediction it does not count against the prediction.
However, the prediction was far from exact and the details are still subject to constant revision. its science.
It may turn out that the effect is smaller than we think ( <1C) it may turn out that it is larger than we think.
But the best science has the answer narrowed down to a range. It's like this with all complicated systems. You bound the problem and keep refining.
Of course some people want to act on this knowledge. Other say we need to know more. Thats besdide the point. The point is c02 raises temperature it does not lower it.
Greg says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:43 pm
I would have thought the important number was how much it varied from peak of solar cycle to a trough, although the annual variation will matter in some contexts.
I was referring to yearly averages, not variation within the year.
The generally accepted variation over the cycle [with short-term variations filtered out] is 0.1% or 1.5 W/m2. See e.g. Figure 5 of http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 6:32 pm
“The point is that there are no specks…”
If there is nothing smaller than a small sunspot, why are all sunspots getting counted (including the little ones), and then they are statistically removed. Obviously if you have a value of sunspots stretching back several centuries, then why all this manipulation? Leif, You are doing a sea-saw act with solar activity to suit yourself.
Your attitude toward me is bla.
lsvalgaard says: “People who do regression analysis on spots and temperature find no time lag and I wouldn’t expect any in the first place.”
Well most people doing regression don’t seem to be doing lagged correlation so the reason they are not finding a lag is because they are not looking for one.
This seems to be the fundamental error in most regression analyses since, a change in radiative forcing (whatever it’s origin) will cause a rate of change of temperature dT/dt . Only once the system has reached equilibrium can one expect to find a final change in settled temperature that can be related to the change in radiation. That will necessarily have a considerable time lag.
Since power (rad) and energy (temp) are orthogonal the direct correlation will be rad vs dT/dt. Climate response ( feedbacks, sensitivity etc. ) once it plays out can relate delta rad vs delta T but it will be a lagged response.
If you wouldn’t expect one in the first place you have not thought it through.
excerpt from Spencer and Braswell 2011 show observational data of rad and temp.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/sb11_fig31.png?w=521
The negative quadrant is the settled response and it peaks at about 11 months lag.
Similar to what I found in the reaction of tropical climate to Mt Pinatubo forcing changes:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
Greg says:
June 6, 2014 at 7:41 pm
“Well most people doing regression don’t seem to be doing lagged correlation so the reason they are not finding a lag is because they are not looking for one.”
Exactly my point. The theory is probably valid and should be explored more in depth. If we shift temperature records 1 to 3 years before and after solar max, we may find some correlation with solar activity. The fact that virtually no one is looking for it is a problem. Good response Greg.
You guys dont get it the or a lag don’t matter as much as looking back further pull back on the graph include more years. The more years back look at geological evidence in stalagmites.
it ain’t Co2 that drives temperatures.
It is the Sun that drives temps but it ain’t driving much now as much as it has in the past during other peaks or valleys in modern history compared to even when we went into ice ages.
Steven Mosher says:
1. How much warming: our best guess is between 1C and 6C
The real world says it’s ≤0.5ºC.
2. How will this temperature increase manifest itself
Good question. So far, it hasn’t. We might be seeing a decrease.
3. What other forces can increase it or diminish it?
Plenty of unknown unknowns are out there.
Planet Earth is clearly telling us: CO2 is a non-problem. There are lots of real problems in the world. Instead of this ridiculous ‘carbon’ scare, let’s fix the real problems.