Solar Sun Spot Cycles Impact on Crop Yields, Energy Use and Weather Patterns

The global climate has not warmed steadily during the past century. During the quarter century after WW II, it dropped enough that people were concerned with "global cooling." The chart of sunspot activity shows a 20th century peak around 1950, when global cooling was active. If there has been global warming, which itself is open to debate, it was in the last two decades of the century, which don't have as much sunspot activity.

That said, it does seem that when sunspot activity goes to nearly zero, there has been an impact. The sun has been very quiet and it's worth being concerned. It probably isn't worth founding an investment strategy on.

This article includes sun spot activity graphs up to 2000. Surely it does not take 8 years to release the latest activity counts. The key question - every month - is what is the current state of play? Has activity returned to normal - all breath a sigh of relief, or is activity still non-existent - be concerned very concerned? I really would like to find a data that is updated monthly for sun spot activity cycles - perhaps in graph format.

Do you know of such a source - please sned me the address?

Many thanks and appreciated.

Try www.solarcycle24.com.

Interesting comments. The link between sunspots and commodities markets, is that high commodities prices with a lot of sunspots and low commodities prices with few sunspots?

It would be interesting to see some accurate readable data to be able to see clearly if there is a connection between sunspot cycles and commodities prices.

CO2 is good, not bad. We all benefit from more of it in the atmosphere, especially farmers and foresters. Why?

Plant growth stops at 200 PPM in the atmosphere.

Plant growth is optimized at 1000 PPM; commercial greenhouse owners invest good money in CO2 generators to raise greenhouse concentrations toward the optimum to increase the productivity of their fixed growing area.

In particular, increased levels of CO2 enable plant growth in drought conditions.

150 years ago CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was 285 PPM, now it's 385 PPM. It's like free airborne fertilizer in the atmosphere.

Increased levels of CO2 have significantly increased crop and forest yields over the last century. If environmentalists truly wanted a greener planet they would want more, not less, CO2 in the atmosphere.

Warmer temperatures are generally good, not bad. Most of us benefit from warmer temperatures, especially farmers and foresters. Why?

Warmer temperatures increase growing seasons and produce more consistently successful crops from year to year.

Warmer temperatures reduce heating fuel consumption in the winter. This is a very big deal today because world oil production peaked three years ago and will begin a permanent decline in two years. That is why the cost for all fuels is going through the roof. Fuel costs will only decline during economic down turns, like we are experiencing now.

Warmer temperatures two thousand years ago enabled the rise of the Roman Empire. The subsequent cooling period resulted in the fall of the Roman Empire and the social and economic decline into the Dark Ages. The next warm period one thousand year ago ushered in the Renaissance. Today's warm period enabled the rise of the United States. The Dalton (type) Minimum the sun is now entering will dramatically affect us all by virtue if it's impact on crop yields in the northern and southern hemispheres.

The cooling we are now experiencing, together with declining availability of carbon based fuels, will dramatically affect our lives and our economy. Taxing the use of carbon based fuels will make matters much worse. Taxing carbon is like leaning into a right hook. It's a quick way to end the fight.

Warming is caused principally by the sun, not by elevated levels of CO2.

Energy from the sun drives our climate, not CO2. Energy from the sun is modulated by the oceans and the atmosphere to produce our weather. Changes in climate are driven by long-term changes in the sun's radiative output and magnetic field strength. Google: Fairbridge Solar Inertial Motion (SIM) for a sense of how this works physically.

The principal green house gas is water vapor. It provides 95 percent of our greenhouse warming effect. Without it the earth would be a ball of ice. As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is a distance fourth behind methane and nitrous oxide, which produce most of the remaining 5 percent of greenhouse warming. CO2's concentration in the atmosphere is four one-hundredths of one percent (.04 %). That's roughly equivalent to the thickness of the floor wax on your community's high school basket ball gymnasium, compared to the distance from the floor to the ceiling. The quantity and warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is negligible.

The two trends described above have done more to "GREEN" the planet over the last several decades than anything humans have done to motivate that change. Both trends are now headed south, naturally. Solar activity is declining and will continue for the next few decades, cooling the earth about 2 degrees (C) in this quiescence period. The sun has just emerged from several decades of very high activity, which has warmed the earth by about one half degree(C). CO2 levels will naturally decline as carbon fuels production, particularly oil, begin their long decline. World oil production has been flat for three years. We are all going to meet our Kyoto targets whether we plan to or not. The environmentalists should be pleased. The rest of us won't.

Global Warming legislation just came out of committee. World oil production is now in permanent decline. What oil is left will provide us the only bridge we will have to what comes next. I am asking myself, "Why is the Democratic Party making this a TOLL BRIDGE with the passage of this new tax legislation?"

The move to change legislative language from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" confirms Congress's acknowledgement that the planet is now cooling and that the decline in solar activity is responsible for the "Global Cooling" we are now feeling.

Dubious? Google "IPCC Global Warming Potential (GWP)" to find the real story on CO2 as an atmospheric trace gas contributing to warming. Oh, by the way, what Prof. Mann's infamous hockey stick diagram Bristlecone proxy data shows conclusively is that nothing has done more to "GREEN" the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. Increase atmospheric CO2, increase crop and forest production. That's the bottom line. It’s no accident that commercial greenhouse operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to boost the productivity of their fixed growing facilities.

Let’s review the arguments.

Argument: Warming is bad.

Fact: History shows warming is good. Rome rose to power during the Roman Warm Period. The Medieval Warm Period enabled the Renaissance. The Modern Warm Period gave rise to the US super power.

Argument: CO2 causes warming.

Fact: IPCC technical reports give CO2 a GWP of unity (1); lower than most trace gases by several orders of magnitude, particularly water vapor.

Argument: People release CO2; therefore people are responsible for Global Warming.

Fact: A review of the carbon cycle shows very clearly humans are responsible for only 3 percent of the CO2 entering our biosphere. How high would fuel Cap&Trade Taxes have to go for you to reduce your carbon fuels usage by 1/3? 2/3? Think about it. The result is in the noise, that is 1 or 2 percent reduction in CO2 production IF everyone on the planet complies.

Simple Fact: World oil production has been on a plateau for 4 years. That production has now rolled off into permanent decline. Why put a crushing tax on it now? …and why avoid the subject leading up to the vote on this toxic legislation?