if you read physics more carefully, you’d understand that excess heat will easily irradiate back into space, so Algorean science is a branch of social sciences. the volcanoes make a bit of difference. while actual heat radiation from sun is very constant. it is only the X-rays and visual spots that make a difference into that solar minimum. i think we need to point to a good textbook, as many people have no idea about how things are in reality as opposed to man-made cliches !

OK, take one of the largest rice exporters out of the market and the rice importers have shortages. Take many farmers out of the US market and the US production drops. We have plenty of rice, though, due to the lack of exports… California rice was not impacted, being a short grain or mid grain types. Only the long grain from “back east” was a problem. The oriental markets were hit by panic buying from oriental restaurants…

Doesn’t have much to do with global warming (other than to point out that the US production hit was not weather related…).

As a weather side bar: Skiing resorts in South America are reporting great snow this winter (i.e. right now…)!

Oh, and the solar cycle was predicted some time ago; the predicted sunspot minima is already named for the predictor, so it can not be named the AlGore Minima… BUT we can start taking about the “AlGore Cold Period”!

;-)

At the same time, I have runner beans (that like cool weather – the scarlet type that they grow in England) growing great. They usually sulk in mid summer…

I’ve been shorting oil / energy over the summer (no AC demand!) but expect to put on a big long position in natural gas (XTO, UNG, CHK) as soon as the price crosses the 25 day moving average to the upside. Probably about end of August early September? I’ll be watching grains too, but no position yet.

The first guy to notice commodity and economic cycles moving with sun spot cycles (at least, and write about it!) was William Stanley Jevons about 1878. He is an important economist who created the idea of “marginal utility” (a fundamental concept in economics) and built an early calculating engine.

He is also known for his work on the coal shortage in England which resulted in Jevon’s Paradox: Increasing efficiency does NOT reduce coal consumption! The increased efficiency for any ONE use results in more uses and more users and total consumption goes UP not down! So much for CAFE standards and efficiency improvements reducing oil demand…

BTW, improved efficiency is still a very good thing. You get more stuff done for more people for a given amount of resource. It just does not reduce total demand for coal (or one presumes, oil…). The real solution is more supply or less demand (from higher prices). The law of supply and demand.

I do wish folks would look at what is already known before running off the cliff of conclusion. Oh Well. Don’t complain about them, make money off of them. Mild summers will mean lower fuel demand and good buying opportunities while severe winters will mean stronger run ups in fuels. It is likely that food harvests will also be down. Short food processors and go long basic commodities (as their graphs give the timing…).

I have bookmarked these words and I sense some of them will end up in the worldwide lexicon of AGW realists.

To D. Dodd I will only point out that gas warmed by absorption of longwave radiation does *not* lose energy upon the ensuing expansion, although its temperatures does decrease, since it gains potential energy along with height. On your hypothesis, even increasing solar energy wouldn’t be able to warm the atmosphere, since that would equally result in expansion! Clearly, increasing incoming radiation, whatever the source, tends to warm the system. “Greenhouse” gasses have that effect, because they absorb outgoing longwave radiation from the Earth, which would otherwise escape to space, and re-emit it in a random direction. Sometimes that random direction is directly outward, in which case there is no effect, but usually it is either downward or obliquely into the atmosphere, in which case the net temperature of the surface and the atmosphere is slightly increased. The magnitude and secondary effects of this process are not yet well known, nor is the potentially mitigating effect of changes in the solar cycle, but the basic physics of changing atmospheric temperature as a result of changing atmospheric composition are relatively simple. Now, leftist politicians have latched on to this bit of science to sell scaremongering scenarios of molten ice caps and the like, without any proof. But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! As usual, there’s a kernel of truth behind the propaganda, and it may even be one that warrants action. Please let me know, or check out Seinfeld & Pandis, if you have any questions. (It’s good to question the conventional wisdom.)

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/24/news/companies/rice_issues/?postversion=2008042414

Regarding the Guardian’s 8 billion figure, they’ve revised the figure down to 3 billion (let’s hope that the revised figure was derived more scientifically than the former), but still failed to come to grips with the real issues. Or deliberately skirted them.

The Guardian doesn’t mention the normal, long-term supply fluctuation; just the _predicted_ one of a 3.5% reduction. Nor how much of the rice produced goes to waste before reaching the table.

The 50% increase in price is akin to that of oil. Largely due to speculation and profiteering. As a result, tiny negative changes in supply produce enormous, positive price responses. -3.5% => +50%

OTOH; it takes a large positive increase in availability for a small reduction in price. If not also an increase in price to hedge “instability of supply”.

Methinks that the machine is broken.

A very small number of the three billion would be at risk if their portions of rice were reduced by 3.5%. It’s the speculation that results in their portions being 33% smaller. I guess one could call that making a killing on the commodities market.

Sometimes the humour here is just so delicious and spot on.

Bit like chocolate drops on my wife’s mouth-watering brownies….

What would cause the small predictors to think big.
If either the magnetic field at the sun’s poles increases in strength or geomagnetic activity increases before March, 2008.”

Hmmmm, it looks like a small cycle. Good thing the sun has absolutely no effect on climate.