Solar Activity and Climate Change

sun-earth-180From NIPCC Report

Authors de Jager and Duhau (2009) write that (1) “solar activity is regulated by the solar dynamo,” that (2) “the dynamo is a non-linear interplay between the equatorial and polar magnetic field components,” and that (3) “so far, in sun-climate studies, only the equatorial component has been considered as a possible driver of tropospheric temperature variations.”

In the present study, based on “direct observations of proxy data for the two main solar magnetic field components since 1844,” de Jager and Duhau derived “an empirical relation between tropospheric temperature variation and those of the solar equatorial and polar activities.”

When the two researchers applied the relation they derived to the period 1610-1995, they found a rising linear relationship for temperature vs. time, upon which are superimposed “some quasi-regular episodes of residual temperature increases and decreases, with semi-amplitudes up to ~0.3°C,” and they note that “the present period of global warming is one of them.”

Read the study: Episodes of Relative Global Warming

Read the rest at NIPCC.

52 Responses to Solar Activity and Climate Change

  1. Rob N. Hood June 7, 2011 at 9:44 am #

    The USA should focus on, and invest in, solar energy.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 7, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

      Oh, that’s brilliant!

  2. paul wenum June 7, 2011 at 11:07 pm #

    I agree. A professed “Science major” barr none? Solar is fine if you can afford $40,000 minimum for a small roof. To each their own I say. By the way, the sun may affect, somewhat our WI Fi etc. climate change is a dynamic wonderful thing isn’t it? Never changes, or should I say it is always changing without man’s interference no matter what we may say. Cool view at the Sun at it’s finest.

  3. Rob N. Hood June 8, 2011 at 5:09 am #

    A 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists found the US could meet electricity demand and cut power plant carbon-dioxide emissions by 84 percent over two decades by boosting energy efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy. Plans to build four new nuclear plants and 32 new coal plants “could easily be replaced by new natural gas plants or additional efficiency and renewable energy, at a lower cost,” the study noted.

    • A 2010 Synapse Energy Economics study concluded that the US “could replace coal-fired electricity generation with energy efficiency and renewable energy, and we could reduce our use of nuclear power” by more than one-quarter by 2050.

    “Our takeaway from this study is that we could have this quite different electricity generation future that’s much preferable in terms of resource mix and reliance on coal and nuclear — but at very little incremental cost,” says Bruce Biewald, president of Synapse, a Boston-based energy consulting firm and a study coauthor. He also added that Paul and Neil are NOT brilliant.

    .Meeting the renewable challenges
    Problems of variability in renewable energies are being addressed. “Smart grid” systems are coming that will balance loads with power generation. Natural-gas fired power plants could provide ready backup for wind and solar; they can start and stop quickly. Wind power variability can be greatly reduced by spreading wind turbines over a bigger geographic area. Thermal energy storage systems can give industrial-scale solar the ability to operate around the clock as a baseload source.

    “I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism,” Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff said in 2009. “We may not need any [new coal or nuclear plants] ever.”

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm #

      Solar Power Cons

      1) Higher Costs that Fossil Energy Forms – This is the biggest disadvantage cited by anti-Solar Power activists despite the massive decline in costs that Solar Power has seen over the last decades.It has been estimated that solar power costs fall by 20% for every 100% increase in supply.The Solar Cost Curve has declined massively in the last 2 years as cheap Chinese solar production has made solar panel costs come down by 50% .Note in the next 4-5 years expect an average decline of around 10% per year which would make solar energy competitive with fossil fuel energy in most parts of the world.Current solar power costs between 15-30c/Kwh depending on the solar radiation of the particular location,type of technology used etc.

      2) Intermittent Nature – One of the biggest problems of Solar Power ( Solar PV that is ) is that it is intermittent in nature as it generates energy only when the sun shines.This problem can be solved with energy storage however this leads to additional costs.This argument also does not make sense for a US DOE study indicated that solar and wind intermittent power won’t be a problem till 30-40% of the electricity in the US is from these 2 forms of renewable energy.Smart Grids and Cheaper Energy Storage in the future should allow even higher penetrations of Wind and Solar Power possible.

      3) High Capital Investment – A Solar Plant can cost around $3.5-6 million to be spent in building 1 Megawatt.This is said to be too high,however this again is one of the silliest arguments.The costs of energy can only be compared by Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) which calculates the cost of energy over the lifetime calculating the capex,fuel costs,maintenance,security and insurance costs.While it is true that the initial capital investment for solar power is quite high,the lifecycle cost of solar energy is not that high.

      4) Cannot be Built Anywhere – This disadvantage of Solar Energy is present with other forms of Energy as well.Some forms of Energy are just better suited to some places.For example you can’t build a nuclear plant on top of an earthquake prone region,you can’t build a wind farm near the Dead Sea etc

      Wind Energy Cons

      1) Low Persistent Noise – There have been a large number of complaints about the persistent level of low level nosie from the whirring of the blades of a wind turbine.There have been cases reported about animals on farms getting affected by wind turbine noise.

      2) Loss of Scenery – The sight of giant 200 metres tall towers has drawn objections from neighbours about wind power leading to loss of scenery and beauty.The Cape Wind Energy project off the shore of Massachusetts has been delayed by over 10 years as it has drawn serious objections from the owners of coastal homes about loss in their property values

      3) Land usage – Wind Turbines can sometimes use large amounts of land if not properly planned and built.The construction of roads to access the wind farms etc also takes up some land.

      4) Intermittent Nature – Wind Power is intermittent in nature as it generates energy only when the wind blows.This problem can be solved with energy storage however this leads to additional costs.

  4. paul wenum June 8, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    Thanks Neil. Excellent. I have read similiar cons in the last few years as well. Someday, someone will develop, patent something that is of value to everyone and still make a profit and not cost the user their life savings. Have yet to see a solar, wind, ethonl project that is not heavily subsidized or makes a profit. Not self sustaining, If not, they would not exist.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 8, 2011 at 7:54 pm #

      If you read carefully you’ll see that what I posted was actually the “cons” listed by someone who is a proponent of wind, and solar. Because of that it is kind of “cons light”. I posted it because it does list the major problems with these technologie, downplayed though they may be.

      • Rob N. Hood July 17, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

        OF COURSE!!! And there’s no down side to all the fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources! Thanks so much for clearing that up Neil! You are truly a genius!

  5. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 8, 2011 at 7:59 pm #
    “CHARLESTON TOWNSHIP — Producing 225,592 kilowatt hours of electricity in its first year of operation, a solar farm in eastern Kalamazoo Coun­ty that went online in early 2010 has exceeded expectations.

    Also exceeding expecta­tions is the property tax, said Sam Field, a Kalamazoo attor­ney and one of the owners of Kalamazoo Solar.

    The $27,689 tax bill for the Charleston Township prop­erty means that the owners are losing money, even when being paid a premium price of 45 cents a kilowatt hour by Consumers Energy, he said.

    “That Michigan property tax burden works out to a cost of 12.3 cents per kilowatt hour,” Field said. “That amount is more than the retail value of the electricity.”-“

  6. Rob N. Hood June 9, 2011 at 5:40 am #

    Tit for tat. Big deal. Just as you criticise computer models for saying whatever anyone wants them to, the same can be said of your cherry-picked articles. Renewables are the future.

  7. NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 9, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Fresh cherries, yum!!!!
    “Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

    The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.”
    “The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for May, 2011 was just about the same as last month: up slightly to +0.13 deg. C”
    “The latest global temperature measurements are available for both satellite data [3] and for the Hadley CRU temperature data [2], so I thought it would be interesting to compare these with the predictions made in 1990 by the first IPCC report. There is now sufficient data to test whether the GCM modeling of greenhouse gases used by the IPCC really matches up to reality.”
    Figure 1: 1990 IPCC predictions compared to actual measurements 2011

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 10, 2011 at 5:16 am #

      Dan: I hope this comment isn’t awaiting moderation for a week, like the last one I had posted more than two URL’s. Thanks!

      • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 10, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

        Wow that was fast! Thanks Dan.

  8. Rob N. Hood June 10, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    yraarrr… retract those claws…!

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm #


    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 10, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

      Quick RNH, change the subject!!!!

  9. paul wenum June 10, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    Thanks Neil, good read.

    • NEIL F. AGWD/BSD June 11, 2011 at 9:32 am #

      Just picking cherries.

  10. paul wenum June 11, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    Like cherries. Keep picking them.

  11. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    I will try to leave you alone, in your glory. As Homer Simpson once said- “Let the baby have his bottle.” Good advice actually.

  12. Hal Groar June 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Umm…cherrryssss…and they are good for you too!

  13. Rob N. Hood June 12, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    Wow- all that time away, and then Hal has to weigh in by expressing… a less than serious opinion. And you think I’m illegitimate?

    • Jerk A. Knot June 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

      OOOOOO another Buzz saw you walked into Bobbie Boy… I would think that you would have learned that Neil has real data to refute your conjecture.. Yust making it up as you go….. How is that working for ya….

      • Rob N. Hood June 15, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

        “Real data”, right… my face is so (not) red. Don’t hurt yourselves patting yourselves on the backs… for no apparent reasons. Buzz saw…. wow. More hyperbole and delusion from the Right- what a surprise…

  14. Hal Groar June 13, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    I am away…ran into a buzz saw in the family and am dealing with it. I checked in for a little Robbie wisdom to keep all the jets firing. Rob you never fail me!

    • Rob N. Hood June 17, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

      You are welcome little Hal.

  15. paul wenum June 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    He never will Hal. It is what it is.

  16. Rob N. Hood June 29, 2011 at 2:04 pm #

    The right-wing growth formula for the economy is the same as the old one that hasn’t produced a glimmer of hope for regular folks for ten years (actually since the 80’s). We should be awash in jobs and investment opportunities if that formula really worked. But crooks and robbers have been at the helm in our investment sector and political hacks have watched as industrial giants walk off with huge profits made possible with their approval and in which they often share. CEOs amass fortunes that suggest they are competent captains of industry and finance rather than simply the beneficiaries of political largess and a tax code that creates a discriminatory free-market bonanza to indulge them.

  17. paul wenum June 29, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    By the way, most of the left wing are millionaires/billionaires. Pray tell what hope/inspiration they bring to you. Soros et al is one example of many. Tell us uninformed idiots you profess us to be as to why they are exempt from your rants. We are impatiently awaiting your caustic nonsensical comments as usual.

  18. Rob N. Hood June 30, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    I don’t exempt those “on the Left” who are rich and don’t believe in what I believe for the betterment of this country, and who may not vote the way I do. There are many however who do vote the way I do and who do beleive they should be paying more in taxes and have publically said so. You are one- dimensional and extremely biased. And why would you be “impatient” too await my nonsensical comments???? As usual you make little to no sense yourself- as I have articulated for a very long time now. If nothing else I figured you and yours would at least be shamed into thinking harder about such statements, in terms of making more logic and being less hypoctitical.

    Also, elsewhere, Jerk I believe it was, maybe it was Neil (same thing really) actually asked if I knew the meaning of the word- hypocritical (it must have been Neil since he fancies himself an expert of all things including English etc etc etc). He was inferrring that I did not know the meaning of the word/concept. That is a very telling statement actually. That is- he himself apparently does not understand that word or concept, if he believes that I do no. This is also what I have pointed out in detail many times, proving my point, at this stage that he doesn’t understand it especially when it relates directly to himself (which btw is not uncommon to most people, of course. See- I am actually trying to cut him some slack…?). However, since it is very difficult to make a point to someone who is at an apparent complete loss regarding the actual topic in question (hypocrisy) I am equally at a loss as to move forward from there. Same with the concept of logic and being rational. Thus the complete dead end I find myself here. It has been an interesting experiment for me, at least, and I should not be surprised by the results. But I am, a little bit, and I still wonder to myself why.

  19. paul wenum June 30, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    As my deceased brother-in-law and author of numerous books said for years about people such as [personal comment deleted by moderator – please see site discussion rules]

    • Rob N. Hood July 17, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

      tsk tsk Mr. Perfect…. I wish you hadn’t been edited, your true colors are showing.

  20. Joe July 3, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    I see logic stated always on this site. Does not seem to be the case from what I’m reading . All my freinds says climate is changing and we will roast in the next 20 years and I don’t belive it Am I wrong?

  21. Rob N. Hood July 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    tsk tsk Paul… once the hypocrite always the hypocrite… And Joe, what I’ve discovered here is that logic is in the eye of the beholder.

  22. Joe July 4, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    Mr. Hodd, that means that my freinds are correct?

  23. Rob N. Hood July 7, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    Yes, Joe… of course your highly educated and extremely intelligent “friends” are correct… Plus, I am part of an evil commie plot to overthrow America, and you busted me out.

  24. Joe July 7, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    Sounds like it I guess. Just a simple Joe asking a question. .

  25. Rob N. Hood July 8, 2011 at 9:07 am #

    So humble, how refreshing.

  26. Joe July 8, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Therefore you are correct? I’m confused by your comments. Please explain.

  27. Rob N. Hood July 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    It’s plain English, sorry to confuse you. (You’ve never read sarcasm before?) Sorry, but after many months on this site it’s about all I can offer to counter-point the nonsense that passes (?) for logic and reasoning here.

  28. Joe July 9, 2011 at 10:08 pm #

    Really, give me reasons.

  29. Rob N. Hood July 10, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    Been there done that. No point anymore, not that there ever was. And I’m referring to reasonING. Not just reasons, which you either genuninely confused or are acting confused to be cute. Neither explanation interests me, sorry.

  30. Joe July 10, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    In other words you cannot answer. Is that what you are saying?

  31. Rob N. Hood July 11, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    Sure Joe or Paul, whatever you say.

  32. Joe July 11, 2011 at 9:27 pm #

    I believe Neil addressed the Sun issue in a previous post. Suggest that you read it. As to this Paul guy, disregard him. You are dealing with me.

  33. Rob N. Hood July 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    The Sun “issue”? Other than it’s the most powerful (by far) energy source we will ever have, what is the “issue”?

  34. Joe July 16, 2011 at 12:41 am #

    Suggest you read previous posts.

  35. Rob N. Hood July 16, 2011 at 5:10 pm #

    Uhh, duh, gee tanks Joe for steering me so gosh darn well, utterwise I’d be lost…

  36. Joe July 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    You are lost my friend and unfortunately you don’t even know it.

  37. Rob N. Hood July 17, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Of course you are smarter than me Joe…! That’s what makes you radicals so great. You’re smarter than everyone… at least everyone who isn’t a radical extremist.

  38. Joe July 17, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Look at your ranting posts. Maybe you are on to something?

  39. May 14, 2013 at 8:55 am #

    He also blamed uncertainty over payments to people installing pv cell weight heat systems,
    including the feed-in tariffs FIT s scheme and the proposed pv cell weight
    heat incentive RHI. It takes, from our standpoint.
    If any portion of this presentation is rebroadcast, retransmitted or redistributed at a later
    date, Green Plains will not be a problem in 2012.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.