![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.
Sparks says:
June 6, 2014 at 7:26 pm
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.
Nothing is 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.
The see-saw is a historical artifact that we have inherited. The new series that we are working on removes all of that nonsense and is simple and straight-forward SSN = 10*Groups+real spots
e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Stenflo.pdf
Your attitude toward me is bla.
I am trying to educate you a bit, but obviously fail.
Greg says:
June 6, 2014 at 7:41 pm
The negative quadrant is the settled response and it peaks at about 11 months lag.
On the time scale of solar cycles that is a negligible lag.
michaelwiseguy says:
June 6, 2014 at 8:01 pm
If we shift temperature records 1 to 3 years before and after solar max, we may find some correlation with solar activity.
‘may’?
Again, such a short lag is no real lag.
and Cheers !
dbstealey says:
June 6, 2014 at 8:05 pm
Study magic
Miss direction is key
Well deception is in play once again.
oops too dunk write, I just reread what I wrote earlier.
“.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.”
Should say :
It is the Sun that drives temps but it ain’t driving much now as much as it has in the past
the peaks and valley matter less than the current and previous trending
Co2 has been sky high 8k or so i s it not the 800 ppm if we burn all Co2
and we still went into ice ages.
Why because the Sun had waned in trend and previous trend. This DIRECTLY leads to
increase and/or decrease of Co2
As it cooled earth cooled
As it warms earth warms
But trend does weigh more than current level
But it never hicupped in the past don’t expect it to react
that way now.
LOL burn all Co2
burn all fossil fuel
then we can burn all the plant matter wonder how much Co2 then
I Wish Thorium reactor research got as much funding as Co2 BS
or Fusion even
But we know Thorium works, only downfall is less high grade material for A bombs.
Unless I have made an unintended colossal blunder, a little calculation to gain an order-of-magnitude perspective of solar input to climate compared to the IPCC surmised global temperature rise of 4degC, is at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html. Another of my ‘musings’ regarding ‘truth’ and its connotations, could also be of interest, posted at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brainology-101-midwives-hold-thenewborn.html
Someone Delete the AD for Cleanergy pundent please lol
this is too funny
“CLEAN ENERGY is energy that is limitless in availability, is ubiquitous, is pollution free, is capable to provide source to use proximity, empowers rural populations, does not deplete food, forest or water resources, does not deplete biomass, and does all that for generations to come. The challenge is to propagate and implement CLEAN ENERGY production throughout 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th(Favelas) Worlds, employing all its technological, humanist and democratic dimensions.”
thats what the guy llnked?
well sounds more like a nice pipe dream.
maybe like the water powered car engine or other famous pipe dreams or perpetual motion
sorry it does not exist guy
All energy has their good and bad sides.
Coal has the benefit of feeding plants what they want but has some particulate and other problems but Co2 is not a problem unless you have no brain.
oil or gas less problems
hydro dams way less (but many local, fish, and biological push out problems)
and Nuclear (uranium) the least cost in pollutants and the cheapest energy by far
no nasty coal mine ponds of waste that often flood out into farming, waterways, rural areas, and more.
or oil every once in a while we know a tanker will screw up or a well may break on land or at sea.
solar well it isn’t totally clean either on production side. and the cost means under developed nations lose out, making it hard for them to get loans for power plants that people can afford like coal and oil or gas.
natural gas fraking no need say much there we all get the don’t mess with my drinking water or aquifer issue.
I like plants so Co2 or Nukes nice cheap fuel till we bring costs down on solar and wind and other looks best to me.
I’m waiting for the first time that one of the catastrophists makes a public statement to the effect: We can ignore any climate science that comes out of China because Chinese industry wants to keep spewing out CO2 and Chinese scientists are subject to political pressure. I give it six months at most before we hear something like this.
Wait for it . . .
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 8:12 am
Bob Tisdale says:
June 6, 2014 at 8:02 am
Good morning, Leif. Have you written a blog post for WUWT about the grand solar maximum…or lack thereof?
No, not specifically. But many of my recent papers and talks touch on that, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future-Notes.pdf
————————————————————————-
I think you are doing a great job on the historical sunspot cycle reconstruction. Using other older indices to help confirm your findings is interesting too. I’ve done some genealogy and worked with some older documentation.
Leif isn’t doing this under a rock, those that have used the “Grand” solar maximum as a mantra for their technical papers will be watching this closely, just waiting to find some mistake.. well good luck guys, I think Leif is gettin’ done right. Some of them are reviewers?
Did have a slight issue with the above link, but it is your notes, didn’t always line up with the respective slide.
thanks
• Sunspot Number (and Area,
Magnetic Flux)
• Solar Radiation (TSI, UV, …,
F10.7)
• Cosmic Ray Modulation
• Solar Wind
• Geomagnetic Variations
• Aurorae
• Ionospheric Parameters
• Oscillations
• Climate?
• More…
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future-Notes.pdf
Maybe not useable for the sunspot series reconstruction but as a another parameter for how the sun and earth interact we very soon may be adding LOD Length of Day (earth rotation rate) to the list…
THE IERS BULLETIN C
AND THE PREDICTION OF LEAP SECONDS
Daniel Gambis*
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/files/42_AAS%2013-522_Gambis.pdf
page 4
It appears that, since the year 2000, the Earth is relatively speeding up,
and the rate of introduction of leap seconds has significantly decreased.
Figure 3. Leap seconds per year between 1972 and 2010 (courtesy of W. Dick8, 2011)
Not all the ‘absences’ of adding leap seconds coincide with lower solar polar field, as there are other perturbations, like solar and lunar tides that can affect rotation but quite striking by comparison to the solar polar fields graph here.
http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Polar-Fields-1966-now.png
Puts a new twist on orbital drag (resistance) when the drag (solar wind/speed/density/storms etc.) are minimum as they have been for solar cycle 24.
Stronger rotation, stronger vortexes, more cold air pushing southward from the poles in the winters…..
Warm air from the equator unable to push it out the way (blocked). The two didn’t mingle nice together last winter…They took on the appearance of an older atmospheric regime that Earth has had before in its past.
In addition to the figure 3 on page 4 below. One leap second was added in 2012 (per IERS bulletin). So between 1998 and 2014 only 3 leap seconds have been added.
THE IERS BULLETIN C
AND THE PREDICTION OF LEAP SECONDS
Daniel Gambis*
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/preprints/files/42_AAS%2013-522_Gambis.pdf
page 4
It appears that, since the year 2000, the Earth is relatively speeding up,
and the rate of introduction of leap seconds has significantly decreased.
Figure 3. Leap seconds per year between 1972 and 2010 (courtesy of W. Dick8, 2011)
Carla says:
June 7, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Maybe not useable for the sunspot series reconstruction but as a another parameter for how the sun and earth interact we very soon may be adding LOD Length of Day (earth rotation rate) to the list…
I don’t think so. According to the paper you cite the decadal and longer changes are due to interaction between the core and the mantle, not the Sun or solar wind.
Carla says:
June 7, 2014 at 6:53 pm
Maybe not useable for the sunspot series reconstruction but as a another parameter for how the sun and earth interact we very soon may be adding LOD Length of Day (earth rotation rate) to the list…
I don’t think so. According to the paper you cite the decadal and longer changes are due to interaction between the core and the mantle, not the Sun or solar wind.
lsvalgaard says:
June 7, 2014 at 8:17 pm
—————————————–
The paper cited contains the LOD time series so that others may see that yes the Earth is rotating faster at this time than 1998.
But other papers are available which use solar cycle parameters to make their case, that solar activity influences atmospheric angular momentum (AAM) and Length of Day (LOD).
And the jury is still out on this Dr. S.
For instance:
Manifestation of Solar and Geodynamic Activity
in the Dynamics of the Earth’s Rotation
V. L. Gorshkov, N. O. Miller, and M. V. Vorotkov
Central Astronomical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pulkovo, St.Petersburg, Russia
http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/as/publ/gorshkov_etal_ga-2012.pdf
Abstract—The relationships between different manifestations of solar and geomagnetic activity
and the structural peculiarities of the dynamics of the pole wobble and irregularities in the Earth’s rotation are studied using singular spectrum analysis.
There are two close major peaks and several lower ones in the same frequency range
(1.1–1.3 years) in the Chandler wobble (CW) spectrum. Components in the geomagnetic activity were distinguished in the same frequency band (by the Dst and Ap indices). Six to sevenyear oscillations
in the Earth’s rotation rate with a complex dynamics of amplitude variations are shown in variations in geomagnetic activity. It is revealed that secular (decade) variations in the Earth’s rotation rate on average repeat global variations in the secular trend of the Earth’s geomagnetic field with a delay of eight years during the whole observation period.
..pg. 9 of conclusions,
..The Earth’s rotation rate is closely related to solar and, especially, geomagnetic activity in the region of
5 to 6year periods. Beginning from the second half of the 20th century, an increase in solar activity generally corresponds to a decrease in the Earth’s rotation rate
(vice versa for Dst) in this region of periods, although phase variations sometimes strongly disturb the correlation between these processes…
Now that solar activity is lower than what has been, the correlations should become even more evident in this.
More fun to come in the future on this topic..
Solar differential rotation is also becoming more fun..lol
Solar equator rotation more dominant now, due to the lack of repression from sunspot magnetic fields.
How about the solar polar rotation, my brain keeps tripping on that…and the lack of twisting up of the dipolar field, breaking off, and making flux.
What a mess, seems all fluxed up..hee hee eeeeek
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…”
Would this author be one of them?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CGIQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdejager.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F10%2Freviewsolarforc-ssr.pdf&ei=MY2UU8vTA8OnyASH4oLQBg&usg=AFQjCNE3I-eEhxJQ4EocAWWNJZbcUiklyw&sig2=u_KTUn7i0YmOtFUMjmrxzA
lsvalgaard says:
June 6, 2014 at 8:37 pm
“Nothing is removed.”
The present sunspot record includes all of the sunspots that were not visible to the observer in the past.
Leif,
What are your thoughts on this?
“A still unresolved question is how Hoyt & Schatten got the K-factors so wrong”
Are there any clues/suggestions why?
source: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Petaluma–How%20Well%20Do%20We%20Know%20the%20SSN.pdf
Below fig 12.
Sparks, the telescopic power used back “in the day” is the same one today. Are you saying that today’s humans have better vision? Because it has nothing to do with the telescope used. Same power.
What has been done is overcounting the big ones because of weighting them. They count the small ones same as before. The corrected data will hopefully remove that 1940’s addition.
Pamela Gray says:
June 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
———————————–
Pamela, Wolfer saw more spots (80mm 64X) than did Wolf, pocket scope (37mm 20X).
pg. 12 http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Activity-Past-Present-and-Future-Notes.pdf
Not why I am here though.
Well went on the hunt for solar differential rotation and landed in Russia again. huh go figure. Then on page 2 she finds this kinda thing..
Solar cycles, velocity of Earth rotation, speed of the stratospheric winds.
Cycles of the magnetic activity of the Sun and
solar-type stars and simulation of their fluxes
E.A. Bruevich a , I.K. Rozgacheva b
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow, Russia
Moscow State Pedagogical University, Russia
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1148.pdf
2012 April 5
pg 2 In the recent studies on the subject of quasi-biennial variations of so-
lar radiation (Ivanov-Kholodnyj & Chertoprud 2008; Bruevich & Ivanov-
Kholodnyj 2011) the importance of this problem study were emphasized. It
turned out that quasi-biennial solar cycles are closely associated with vari-
ous quasi-biennial processes on the Earth, in particular with quasi-biennial
variations of the velocity of the Earth rotation and speed of the stratospheric
wind…………….
Dr. S., you have got to check this little wavelet analysis out. Picture this after a little sunspot number fine tuning. It is already the most remarkable analysis of magnetic cycle I have ever seen. Don’t be shy, blow up the image, get a 2D feel going. It is good … I start seeing background like ISM.
..Figure 2: Wavelet-analysis (Daubechies wavelet) of time series of annual
averages of Wolf numbers. The ordinate axis is the duration of the cycles
(Cyclicity, years), the abscissa axis is the time (years)
Cycles of the magnetic activity of the Sun and
solar-type stars and simulation of their fluxes
E.A. Bruevich a , I.K. Rozgacheva b
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow, Russia
Moscow State Pedagogical University, Russia
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.1148.pdf
2012 April 5
Carla, check slide 4 in your link to Leif’s powerpoint. Large spots were given extra weighting because it was thought they had more of an influence on other “stuff”.
Carla says:
June 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm
quasi-biennial variations of the velocity of the Earth rotation and speed of the stratospheric
wind
The literature is full of such nonsense, especially from Russian researchers. You shouldn’t uncritically believe everything you find on the Internet, and especially not when what you find are what you want to find. BTW, you may safely assume that I am fully aware of all relevant scientific literature.
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 1:17 pm
“A still unresolved question is how Hoyt & Schatten got the K-factors so wrong”
Are there any clues/suggestions why?
H&S seem to be unaware of the fact that Wolf used two telescopes of different power at different times. This confuses their analysis. I asked Schatten what he thought, and he said [somewhat incredulously] that he can’t recall how they did the analysis….
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 1:10 pm
The present sunspot record includes all of the sunspots that were not visible to the observer in the past.
Nothing is removed. Observations by different observers are calibrated to a standard observer by multiplying by an appropriate factor to allow difference in telescopes and eyesight.
Pamela Gray says:
June 8, 2014 at 6:42 pm
“Carla, check slide 4 in your link to Leif’s powerpoint. Large spots were given extra weighting because it was thought they had more of an influence on other “stuff”.
Pamela,
Lets discuss Large spots, should there be a decrease in their value?
Should small sunspots be increased in value?
Regardless of influence at this point, the fact remains…
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 6:55 pm
“H&S seem to be unaware of the fact that Wolf used two telescopes of different power at different times. This confuses their analysis. I asked Schatten what he thought, and he said [somewhat incredulously] that he can’t recall how they did the analysis….”
Don’t give me a half-ass excuse like that Leif, it’s not scientific, there has to be a reason. You will need need to produce more…
And be clear! 🙂
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Regardless of influence at this point, the fact remains…
The total count on each day [of all spots, large and small] should be decreased by an appropriate factor. You can see the result of such a decrease in the plot of all total counts for the past decade on slide 17 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf
The blue curve is the official sunspot number, the red curve is what it should be after correction for weighting. That is the simple fact. Nothing mysterious, nothing strange, nothing to get confused about.