![74273_rel[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/74273_rel1.jpg)
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)
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 8, 2014 at 7:20 pm
And be clear! 🙂
I am as clear as anyone can possibly be.
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:21 pm
“The total count on each day [of all spots, large and small] should be decreased by an appropriate factor..”
By the ‘slight of hand’ no thank you… you have refused to resolve issues, maybe you don’t see them yet, I’ll give you the benefit of doubt.
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:23 pm
“I am as clear as anyone can possibly be.”
To yourself perhaps.
Thank you for the advice about not believing everything on the internet Dr. S.
But the wavelet analysis is way too cool. You might enjoy it. So have a look at the Magnetic elephant walking through the heliosphere’s room.
Not too mention use of the HK project..
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
“”To study the cycles of magnetic activity of the atmospheres of the stars
we use new dataset of simultaneous observations of variations of the pho-
tospheric and chromospheric radiation fluxes of he Sun and of 33 stars of
“HK-project”.””
page 6
..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)
page 10
Figure 4: Wavelet-analysis (wavelet Morley) of the time series of monthly av-
erageWolf numbers. The ordinate axis is the duration of the cycles (Cyclicity,
years), the abscissa axis is the time (years)
I’d like to see, page 6. Figure 2: in the new sunspot series and not the Wolf series. The more fined tuned version of this .. extra cool..
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:36 pm
“I am as clear as anyone can possibly be.”
To yourself perhaps.
I can’t help it that you are above average when it comes to not wanting to understand anything. But, hey, you are not alone, there are many like you at WUWT. Few as persistently dense, though.
Carla says:
June 8, 2014 at 8:09 pm
But the wavelet analysis is way too cool. You might enjoy it. So have a look at the Magnetic elephant walking through the heliosphere’s room.
Repeating the same nonsense does not help
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 8:18 pm
“I can’t help it that you are above average when it comes to not wanting to understand anything. But, hey, you are not alone, there are many like you at WUWT. Few as persistently dense, though.”
Have you got you big boy pants on Leif? go on.. throwing insults about isn’t scientific, but fun nonetheless, please continue.. we’re all learning.:)
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 8:18 pm
“I can’t help it that you are above average”
Leif,
I’ve never liked how you would take people out of context and reply to them until now.
You know it…
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 8:32 pm
we’re all learning
You are showing no signs of having learned anything, but I’ll give you one more chance:
On slide 14 of http://www.leif.org/research/Confronting-Models-with-Reconstructions-and-Data.pdf you see a drawing of the sunspots made in April. You can see all drawings here http://www.specola.ch/e/drawings.html
Now comes the learning part: you see five sunspot groups [numbered from 141 and up]. For each group you simply count the number of spots you see. I have made little boxes with a blow-up of each group. My counts for each group are shown in red. Are you with me so far? The weighted counts are shown in black in the table on the plot. The colums marked ‘f’ shows the official count [with weighting]. Still with me? Their total count is 44, mine is 19. What is yours? The sunspot number is now 10*groups+spots, i.e. 94 for them and 69 for me. Then you do this for every single day since 2003 and plot the result, shown in slide 17. Still with me? If not, which step do you falter on?
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 8:53 pm
I’ve never liked how you would take people out of context and reply to them until now.
Should I care about what you like or dislike? Now show that you are capable of learning something by responding meaningfully to my post of 8:58 pm.
Leif,
🙂
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:22 pm
🙂
You call that a ‘meaningful response’?
I have done this 8:58 pm exercise with scores of people. You stand out as the only one who did not produce anything. As I said: you are above average in that respect.
That’s smiley face, catch yourself on…
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:26 pm
That’s smiley face, catch yourself on…
As in ‘silly’. Do the 8:58pm or shut up.
Maybe your “exercise” flawed!
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:29 pm
Maybe your “exercise” flawed!
You wouldn’t know unless you tried.
Leif,
I’m not here to tick your boxes or jump through hoops on demand, get used to it..
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:30 pm
You wouldn’t know unless you tried.
Let’s try this with tiny steps. How many spots do you see in the box labeled 141?
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:32 pm
I’m not here to tick your boxes or jump through hoops on demand, get used to it..
As I said: learning-resistant. In which case nothing is gained by feeding that particular troll.
lsvalgaard says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:35 pm
“As I said: learning-resistant. In which case nothing is gained by feeding that particular troll.”
As I have said “To yourself perhaps.”
Sparks says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:32 pm
I’m not here to tick your boxes or jump through hoops on demand, get used to it..
Since you confirm that you are unable [or worse: unwilling] to learn how the sunspot weighting is performed and what effect it has on the sunspot number the loss is yours alone. Hopefully other people will understand and appreciate the facts, in which case this whole charade would not have been totally in vain.
The sun is less active or more active that’s the question. How active? Varies I’m sure. Cycles? I don’t doubt anyone can argue that. Affects climate? We will see. I’m staying with my own research, if the Chinese agree that just confirms what I already thought. Although this entire debate has raised some interesting ideas, I’m sticking with whether the sun is active or not in its affect on weather and climate.
Here’s an interesting thought: The IPCC has put so much effort into co2 related climate change and trying to bring about political goals, what if they are wrong? (Which increasing they seem to be) By trying to silence some people by linking them with denying that the holocaust ever happened, what should be the proper response if it gets colder rather than warmer? The idea is that we think globally, but act locally. My idea based on cycles and sunspot activity is that I act locally and move to a warmer climate. I’m going to be proactive, I don’t need to close my eyes and hope everything is going to be just fine. Somewhat like moving inland away from the sea where there is a high probability of hurricanes, or the shape and design of my house in Kansas. If there are large scale crop failures due to colder climate, who do I hold responsible? If they are going to send out an alarm, it better be right. So far I see no evidence that they are.
rishrac, please don’t make the same mistake catastrophic global warming advocates do. This endeavor should not be a guess and check process. The fall back position is the null hypothesis against human caused or solar caused warming temperature trends. That fall back position is that Earth’s oceanic and atmospheric teleconnections cause short and long term chaotic variations in the amount of solar insolation (IE the entire infrared spectrum) that arrives at the surface to penetrate and heat the oceans at considerable depth (you can safely ignore land surface as this surface prevents deep penetration or storage). The oceans are fully capable of then storing that heat, moving it around, and belching it up all at once or in fits and starts. Why is this the null hypothesis? Because mathematically it is plausible. It can even be modeled using wind, cloud, and aerosol variations that have sufficient capacity to filter solar irradiation such that the amount of heat taken up and stored in the oceans is significantly affected. From there global circulation models show how this ocean heat can be released, made to vary by known oceanic atmospheric oscillations. If you can’t go all the way to the null hypothesis, at least keep in mind that Earth is a far more variable entity than the Sun is.
lsvalgaard says:
June 9, 2014 at 5:02 am
“Since you confirm that you are unable [or worse: unwilling] to learn how the sunspot weighting is performed and what effect it has on the sunspot number the loss is yours alone.”
Leif, if there are no solar effects on the weather or even climate (as you claim) from the representation of the sunspot cyclical activity and various permutations of these cycles, then any adjustment is irrelevant, whether it’s a 20% increase of the past ssn record before 1947 or the recent suggestion of a 20% decrease of sunspot numbers after 1947.
Prove to me that there is no planetary solar influence, prove to me that it is not colder (snowier) at higher and lower longitudes during solar minimums, and prove to me weaker maximums don’t effect planetary solar budgets during their preceding solar minimums, prove to me that prolonged solar inactivity like the maunder minimum has no solar planetary effect.
Also, prove to me that there are sunspots present during previous ice ages and that the familiar and regular solar cycle was present, prove to me that these cold periods on a planetary scale with beginning with higher carbon dioxide levels than today have no solar relationship at all.
You see Leif, it’s not that I’m indifferent to your education or your scientific opinion, in the grand scale of things your adjustments on either side of 1947 are trivial and almost irrelevant to me, but obviously noted as you know. I have frequently used your ssn count, btw out of curiosity what name does the ‘sea saw’ ssn adjustments go by lol 🙂
Note; when I say “planetary solar” above I’m referring to the sun/solar influence upon planets as in a planetary scale.