---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gijs Graafland | Planck Foundation <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:24 PM Subject: Effects of low sunspot levels on evaporation (and by that on rain/dew/climate and health/economy) To: [email protected] [image: Planck Foundation] <http://www.planck.org> Michel, As you probably know is the number of sunspots in the current suncycle (number 24) lower than the weakest suncycle in the past century: Some interesting quotations on the weaking of current suncycles are: "Current prediction for the next sunspot cycle maximum gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 62 in July of 2013. We are currently over two years into Cycle 24. The predicted size would make this the lowest sunspot cycle in nearly 200 years." "Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78 in 1928." "The current suncycle (24 with 62 sunspots as peak number) is even less active than the less active recorded of the last century (suncycle 16 with 78 sunspots as peak number)." "In the 17th century the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists." "2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the year's 366 days (73% of the days no sunspots). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Maybe not. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower. As of March 31st, there were no sunspots on 78 of the year's 90 days (87% of the days no sunspots)." For a NASA historical chart of sunspot maximums see: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/05/29/29may_noaaprediction_r.... For a NASA forecast chart of sunspots maximums see: http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2006/05/10/10may_longrange_resour.... Sunspot activity has start to increase out of hibernation since early 2011. Still we need to explore the consequences of solar minimums. We don't know the delay time between sunspots appearances and rain volume yet. Maybe this is longer than we think right now; 1913 was the last time there was such a deep solar minimum and the drought effects of that deep solar minimum came to the surface in both agriculture and economy quite some years later. As sunspots have sizes and thus a general number count delivers no overall intensity data at all. Galileo could only see the big ones with his only 16 times enlarging optical device. Current telescope equipment even can see the 'micro' sized weak sunspots. Therefore just a sunspot count has become an inflationary value, driven by telescope technology enhancement. This counting of mini sunspots as regular sunspots is often called 'sunspot gate' by those who advocate the influence of sunspots on earth's climate. The current counting of micro sunspots as regular sunspots delivers not good/corrupt data. This not good data is used by those who say there's no link between climate and sunspots. The values of the sun's magnetic fields is certainly a more objective: As sunspots only form in local magnetic fields in the sun that are stronger than 1500 gauss (as they are magnetic short-circuiting) and get bigger as local gauss values increase. When the sun moves towards a solar minimum, the magnetic fields of the poles of the sun strengthens, as there are less equatorial magnetic tensions (an in: sunspots). This is happening right now. See for several interesting diagrams: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up. NASA also has some information on it: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html. And of course Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot. By the way: I like Wikipedia very much. Regardless the ban of the reactionary scientific community on it. Crowd sourcing is just a new powerful development the science world has difficulties to adopt to. But crowd sourcing is just the next step in science that could speed up interdisciplinary interaction between different branches of science. The main driver of climate changes is our position in the universe and the radiation this gives to the sun (strength) and the earth (magma currents that influence ocean currents): we can do nothing to change the position of our planet and solar system in the universe, yet we can smart adapt technology/economy towards this natural changes. So low sunspot numbers mean a less active sun (deep solar minimum). This maybe not affect photosynthesis directly by less intense light (as the lower sun intensity is maybe compensated by less clouds: on the sunspot/cloud relation there are opposite views), but sunspots are effecting the evaporation of ocean water and thus the amount of rain. This results in severe less water for agriculture and therefore to less growth and (more severe) blowing away of the dry fertile top soil layers, which gives a decade of high food prices. But if in solar minimums, due to less water in the atmosphere, clouds are not 'maturing' and by this don't rain down, than solar minimums will also effect photosynthesis and the consequences of that effect would not be nice (but we can workaround them by greenhouses). An extreme example of this (in combo with a huge volcano eruption) was the summer of 1816 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer). Proof of this can be found in history: the dust bowls of the thirties of the last century are well known: the agricultural disaster in the USA in the twenties and the thirties of the last century. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl. Based on my research, the conclusion that the Great Depression was more triggered by an (solar minimum driven) agricultural collapse in the twenties in the USA than everybody expects is valid. Lots of farming immigrants returned to their homelands in Europe. Not only the losers, also the big/strong names before the drought. Everybody takes food for granted, but that’s a huge misconception. The increasing dust storms are explainable: a) less evaporation equals less rain equals dryer soils (and by that wind has more impact), b) less evaporation equals less dew equals dryer soils (and by that wind has more impact) and c) low moisturized air has less mass and is thereby easier in acceleration and thereby more unstable (as it much easier and travels thereby longer). Less solar activity means less wind generation by less temperature/airpressure differences), as the sun is the main driver of winds (the magnetosphere/ionosphere and magmastreams are maybe other wind drivers). By the way: Less rain and dew also cause more bush fires and smoke due to these fires. Both CERN and the Danish are researching cloud formation (cosmic dust/radiation as possible trigger for atmospheric condensation). Artificial electro based cloud formation will developed: ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) science will deliver for sure a technology of stealing other nation's rain and by that delivers huge international regional tensions. For more on ELF see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency. ELF also can be used very peaceful: as it also can be used to perform deep underground research for finding new water/oil/gas/coal/minerals reserves. This peaceful use of ELF could deliver mankind a lot of economic tall wind by reducing scarcity of some items. Still we need to stop trowing everything away and design/realize recycling sytems, as resources will become certainly much more expensive. As some recycle systems are rather poluting, just using less stuff longer is a more environmental friendly attitude. Less rain/dew certainly will increase regional tensions between water deficit nations. The importance of mutual interest -tensions preventing- water diplomacy will rise severely, but the pressure on these diplomats will be increased certainly. This drought will be the maximal in by continental climate characterized regions. The less rain/dew consequence of lower sunspot numbers certainly will be hijacked by the politicized CO2 consensus propagandizing 'science' movement/agenda. The fact that real science organized scepticism is, is something those political driven ‘consensus focused’ scientists don’t want to see: that’s not in the interest of both their political agenda and budget funding. Proclamation of consensus is practicing science limitation: a science targeting/limiting instead of expanding act. Consensus is the most anti-scientific attitude ever. Consensus is about politics and believes. Politics, believes and budgets are and will be the three main eroders of science. The CO2 narrow focused scientists don't understand even the most fundamental geo physical facets (like the continuous journey of both poles due a not very perfect spin of the globe, or the northern/southern hemisphere climate mirroring). Unfortunately low sunspot numbers always results in less global rain/dew and thereby (in not water abundant areas) an agricultural system in dire straits, bankrupting farmers in dry areas, high global food prices and much civil food price driven unrest. Irrigation projects in water deficit nations should be governmental priority número uno (also by the geocold based night condensation systems, which can compensate water supply in areas where a rain deficit is). The sunspots/foodprices link is absolutely not new science (only the sunspot/rain link is): William Herschel (1738-1822) attempted already in 1801 to correlate the annual number of sunspots to the price of grain in London. The only change maybe will be a research focus towards less rain due to fewer sunspots. "As part of his attempts to determine if there was a link between solar activity and the terrestrial climate, Herschel also collected records of the price of wheat, as direct meteorological measurements were not available for a sufficient period. He theorized that the price of wheat would be linked to the harvest and hence to the weather over the year. This attempt was unsuccessful due to the lack of previous solar observations against which to compare the wheat prices, but similar techniques were used later with success." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel) The main consequence will be severe lower agricultural exports of water deficit nations: as agricultural export can be described as embedded soil space and water supply export. The science of this 'virtual/embedded water' export is developed by Professor John Anthony Allan from King’s College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water). The global food market will be tightened and also will face national food export restrictions. By both of these developments the food prices will be driven to severe higher levels. Beside more food price driven civil unrest, also hunger driven population migration flows are possible. Due less air humidity (and maybe to less clouds) the warmth of summers will be less tempered (hot summers) and the cold of the winters will be lees tempered too (cold winters). Less evaporation of ocean water means less temperature influence by air humidity and dew on the continents. Michel, we don't know the evaporation volume of the oceans yet, nor the evaporation ratio of the oceans in relation to sunspot level, we also don't know the capacity of the global atmospheric water cycle, nor the 'system delay' of less evaporation, nor the 'system factors'. But it's sure their is some global atmospheric water cycle 'system delay' within the global evaporation/rain cycle, as historical the global drought is at it's maximum after a solar minimum (as the new water supply isn't arrived yet, the sun gains power again and cloud coverage is still low: three cumulative factors that deepen together the drought level). We know for sure that due to too low sunspot levels their will be less evaporation and so less rain and due to increasing cosmic dust due to low sunspot levels that the rain that falls, will fall on other locations than by sunspot maxima. Another rational to analyze consequence of lower sunspot numbers (as in: a lower sun activity) is a weakening of the earth's magnetosphere and ionosphere. As result of this more cosmic dust enters our atmosphere and cloud formation of evaporated water gets speed up by this dust. This decreases the rain volume on the continents as more clouds already are generated and rained down above the oceans. Less sunspots equal less evaporation (less water input into the atmospheric water volume). Less sunspots also equal earlier rain down of the atmospheric water volume (earlier water output of the atmospheric water volume). Sunspots and rain are much interconnected. Not regular floods generating massive rains are just caused by more cosmic dust due a weaker magnetosphere and ionosphere due fewer sunspots. To make things even more interesting: every each 8 minutes the earth connects back to the sun by a flux event (see http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes). More and more we can conclude that our scientific vision on both the earth and the universe is too much mass/gravity focused and that we need to turn back from this wrong detour in science as the mass/gravity based theory has too much loose ends. The full energy based unified theory has no loose ends yet and certainly should be considered more as more obvious explanation/foundation for one theory that covers it all. Tuning back from wrong detours delivers always a better scientific foundation to explore science/physics further. Something that the everything (even mass) is only organized power theory can deliver for sure. Like our energy model switches from molecules to electrons, science should also consider abandoning the mass/gravity theory. By means of IT we all have learned to think in more virtual models in the last decades. In science we should do the same right now, as we’re ready to take the next step. All this is why we need to abolish the narrow visionized CO2 believe as soon as possible: we need to understand the whole picture of global climate with all its aspects and parameters as soon as possible: that would be in the interest of mankind (like better regional water management) certainly. When one sub section of science take the lead due to several windfalls, you know tunnel vision (better said: scientific 'cancer') is inevitable, as that one sub section of science goes wild in growth, at the cost of other branches of science and a comprehenive vision is not longer possible. In Holland the governmental met organization has put on their website a line where is stated that influence of the sun on the climate is zero. Such statements certainly can be defined as scientific cancer (which occurs as one facet pushes back all other facets). When some who uses the words science and concensus in one line you know its a politician and not a scientist. In politics they always and only search for consensus, in science we search for knowledge, we dig deeper, we try multiple point approaches: science is organized skepsis, that moves science further, concencus focused politicians repress science severely. Science is about 'the more you know the more you realize the less you know'. Stating you know everything already is certainly politics and is even anti-scientific. After science has to defeat the traditional bounderies of church structures, science now must defeat Al Gore's political/artifical boundaries. Al Gore doesn't (aka don't want to) understand these lines at all. Al Gore never even has gone on a short holiday break to the land of science. The last science needs are new artificial boundaries defined by a new pope. That is a real artifical problem, we just can address by letting science (and not politics) take the lead. As long we're caught in the rigid/politicized/fearmongering CO2 believe, we will not discover very much of both earth and universe and there interaction, as we voluntary are blinded by this CO2 believe. We need certainly much more wider views than the narrow CO2 window gives us. We need a much more comprehensive science/research approach on both the earth and the universe than the limited and politicized CO2 mantra/blinder. The only hockey stick graphs that have been proven to be right are a) the hockey stick graph of the bank account of Al Gore plus the other people involved in emission exchanges/trade, b) the hockey stick graph of climate research budgets and c) the hockey stick graph of the climate industry. All these three parties are mainly specialized in fear mongering and offer non solutions what ever, beside very much non transparent global CO2 trade, global CO2 taxes and global governance. We know since the Worldcom and Enron scandals that virtual 'assets' are very vulnerable to fraud. We know since the 'food for oil' program that all big budgets are vulnerable to fraud. We also know that democracy and distance are reversely proportional: democratic global governance is a contradiction in terms: the bigger the distance in democracy, the lower democratic qualities of the policies are. On top of all this: the only real achievement of CO2 fear mongering was delivering a nuclear fission renaissance (that by the way very quick ended with the Fukushima tragedy), this time subsidized by carbon trade. The nuclear fission business model has always been and will be based on privatizing gains and socializing costs. As result of the CO2 movement, the nuclear fission industry even gets carbon free bonuses to increasing there already strong parasitic energy business model. No other business sector/model is allowed to operate without insurance, nor to be able to push the costs of their security, risks and wastes towards (financial not very healthy) governments. The CO2 fear mongering fabricated science practicing scientists, proclamating journalists and legislating politicians soon will be facing the dead end of their streets. They will become very unpopular as they have lost their main characteristic (credibility) and will have a general image of proven to be more dedicated to political games than to science and reporting. We can say all this very frankly Michel, as we are not for profit and have no affiliation at all with the carbon (oil/coal/gas) industry and are working very hard on stimulation of development of non carbon renewable energy systems and the needed finance models for massive roll-out. For example: We work on third generation quantum dot based solar technology, geothermal models that could replace nuclear power plants, deserttech models that deliver both energy and water, a science/exposure/market/finance model to realize all these new installations voluminous and Energy focused/narrowed Quantitative Easing (acting as a stabilizing hedge by in value increasing energy towards the financial system with it's declining values) as financial driver to get this energy/water technology transition done in 5 till 10 years in each nation. A new energy future can't be build/based on CO2 lies that are build on quick sand, that's not sustainable. This will back fire enormously on the creditability everyone who's is involved in research of this imaginary/fabricated problem and eats of it too towards those who feed them to do so. Governments will feel deeply deceived by this and when something backfires it always hurt all sides involved (economy, society, governments, science and the green movement). We as the world has a water problem and an energy problem. And we need to address those two, relaxed and wisely. If you want to drive further on the road of fear mongering: try the variable earth size theory (with it's huge ocean water surplus problems), or the sudden huge solar flares that -by EMP- knock out all digital equipment theory, solar flares which have the most effects if they occur after periods of weak solar activity, as the ionosphere due long periods of weak solar wind is much weaker than normal and by that delivers less protection (see http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/05/17/us_official_growing_t...) . Both these theories top every current fear mongering in consequences, making the proclaimed CO2 narratives to just a quiet/relaxed Sunday's walk in the park. The graphics for illustrating this fear mongering 2.0 are for rent by Al Gore, but they will not change anything at all, as they aren't designed to realize change, but only for fear mongering. Let's address issues we can change very easy, everywhere and by everyone: let's being involved in realizing these actual instant needed changes for a) our rain/river/waste/dew water management and/or b) a migration towards renewable energy. We think this choice between delivering fear mongering or creating actual solutions is easy. What we all need is everywhere usable models. This is what we're working on, and I hope you too. Changing the world can be simple: just stop commuting (find a job closer to home and get in return each day 2 extra hours), install some solar panels on your roof (and get energy independent by own production of clean/warfree/decentral/renewable energy) and install a roof water storage facility (a simple roof water collection bin can do the job). For nations with a desertification problem the lectures of Allan Savory at Trinity College gives a very easy to implement solution for this problem. These videos can be found on http://www.vimeo.com/search/videos/search:savory. Other easy to implant solutions for desertification are leaving some trees in the fields (reducing evaporation during the day) or digging field ditches (that generates by condensation due temperature differences water supply at night). If we move from molecule based energy towards electron based energy, the energy corporations will follow us and do this too: away from carbo hydro towards power generation by geothermal (as nuclear fission is no valid option anymore since the Fukushima tragedy), powerlines will replace oil/gas/coal carriers. The air quality in our cities will get a second big improvement, the first was the move from coal towards natural gas, the second will be the move away from oil towards renewable sun/wind/geothermal. Not changing the world is really more difficult than achieving change: it will deliver certainly more/longer energy/water driven wars and higher taxes to fund all those wars. Intensive energy users shouldn't complain on the war actions of their governments: they are just carried out for their energy needs. We must not expect much changes from the government, we just can change a lot ourselves. Governments are severely overrated in terms of their power to change things for the better. Vote with your money spending: there's nothing more effective than such direct economic democracy. Why this green talk? Because Al Gore has hijacked the green movement with his CO2 bla bla and it's needed to deliver alternative for his emission CO2 rights/trade focused -negative for all, good for some- economic model. There are so much better solutions/directions than the once that Al tries to sell us. Michel, we also don't need black/dark Malthusian visions. Malthusians with their overpopulation fetish are the less creative / black visionized people on earth: Their only solution is a) the dead of people or b) establish dictatorial governments. Quoting an über Malthusian (Prince Philip of the UK): "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." Malthusianism and it's fixation on death as solution is no solution at all, it's a signal of not having/seeing/endorsing answers and certainly not being creative at all. Malthus his theory on overpopulation has been proven to be wrong for already more than 200 years. People are innovative, that's something Malthus and his followers don't understand. We've proven to be more creative in pushing the Malthusian borders than static/negative economists like Malthus expected. See the TED talks of Hans Rosling on global population growth (the latest one is http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.h...). Sustainable prosperity for everyone is something we can realize together by just doing it for ourselves. By it's sustainable specifications it will contribute also to everyone. On what moral ground we can deny other people the life and lifestyle we appreciate? Malthusianism has unfortunately a severe brown political color (as in: deciding on other people's right for life). Can a world population of 9 billion people fly by plane several times a year? No, that's the only lifestyle change we must accept as impossible (due the energy price flying will be exclusive again). Yes, we will work closer to home, we will produce closer to markets and we will eat less meat (but there will be delicious meat replacers), but for the rest the future can be better as today, if we deal smartly with all new realities. By the way: after the population peak of 2050 the global population number will shrink automatically due smaller families. We see this development already happening in Russia and Japan. Shrinking societies will be not very strong/vital societies (as young demographics equals working power). Young demographics equals future perspectives. In the global wealthy regions economic growth (with as main goal building wealth levels) will be replaced by economic matureness (with as main goal preserving as much of wealth levels as possible). This change will not be caused by left wing politics, by just by right wing plain economics in a globalized world. Wealthy nations slowed down in creation of value adding due their wealth: wealth has an internal brake system of taking it too much easy and too much for granted. Wealth is expensive and needs severe value creation as foundation. Wealthy regions have faced their limits of credit driven consumption without severe value creation, they've hit the ceiling and have a severe headache due to this right now. Wealthy nations also are paying now a hidden (but severe) cost of their former superiority/colonialism: they think groundless (due to this former state of mind) that the rest of the world are more stupid and they are more clever. This misconception is the reason why there's another headache on the way for them. For both headaches nobody can be blamed, they're selfmade and will really hurt. Most wealth still is still based on credit and feed by colonialism/imperialism and those trains are bound to derail due to globalization. The old Western World lives still in an imaginary dream world and still is short-sighted due to its own old spectacles. Let's not even start to talk about the bad (too old) demographics the Western World faces, the crippled financial system these older demographics are totally depending on, the increasing cost of health care, nor about the spoilt attitude that can't compete at all with the ambiance of the emerging markets: four more severe headaches to come. In wealthy nations we need to prevent the collapse of our financial system (characterized by declining values) by hedging them with our energy system (characterized by increasing values), as otherwise the financial system will collapse in the transition of economic growth into economic matureness. This as our financial system is based on growth (the money for interest payments is only created by growth). Lower sunspot numbers have also a direct link to health. As it rains less, there is an increasing general dust level in the air. The increase of near surface dust due to less rain/dew and air humidity. These will cause damage serious damage to engines and accelerates paint damage, but most important: it threatens the health/wellbeing of those people with more sensitive respiration systems, which also has an increasing impact on the household and/or national cost of healthcare. An example: Due to less rain in several cities of Holland the micro dust yearly maximum quantity has been already reached at the end of May, while there are still 7 months to go to the end of the year. The effects of dust clouds for modern societies with its high tech metropolises and are not known yet. The summers of 1934 and 1936 (which were part of the first more active suncycles after a solar minimum) was the hottest summer of the last century: increasing solar activity that was not moderated by clouds/humidity due a lack of atmospheric water due to the solar minimum of the first two decades of that century and due less incoming cosmic dust due by increasing sunspots stronger magnetosphere and ionosphere less cloud formation. See http://i.usatoday.net/news/graphics/2010/2010-09-09-summer-heat/summerx.jpg. Physic influences from the universe are total absent in our global perspective. NASA's Voyager recent discovered huge magnetic forces at the edges of our solar system. The NASA publication on this can be found at http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09jun_bigsurprise. One thing is clear: due suncycles in the next decade the food prices will rise severely, not only due to population growth and due to more meat focused diet changes driven by more purchase power, but mainly due to less agricultural production due less rain/dew. This food crunch (together with the energy crunch) will deliver inflation with stagflation characteristics. This on top of the energy price rise driven inflation due to the expected energy crunch (PeakEnergy) and general resources scarcity (PeakX or PeakEverything). Anyway: a) cosmophysical sciences and geophysical sciences meet economic sciences and monetary sciences and that's interesting and b) we need to combine energy technology with water technology (there are already several renewable technologies available for combining those two) to ensure food supply in the 21st century. We need change, real change, not just the talk. We need quantum dot based PV technology (which makes it possible to make each manmade object a solar panel functional coating), geothermal models, deserttech models, a science/exposure/market/finance model to realize all these and for Energy focused/narrowed Quantitative Easing to finance the actual realization of a fast/quick national energy transition (as continuation of energy import equals wealth export). We need science, a lot of it, interdisciplinary science we need even more. And we need low tech easy solutions. The most simple to realize is a rain water collecting container on each roof water output, which could provide water for houses with gardens. We all need scientific data in open XML feeds. Why? a) XML data feeds can't be falsified, nor politicized and b) XML data feeds can that build bridges between the different disciplines of science, making cross science to a booming development. XML data feeds will both increase science and purify science. In all this CO2 negative talk we as global society are completely forgotten that CO2 the basis for photosynthesis is and the basis of our food chain. CO2 is the atmospheric need for flora, as O2 is for fauna and mankind. Everything always is or goes/works towards stable balance positions. We also overestimate the influence of ourselves due a rather mankind narcistic/centric view on everything. Manmade nuclear events can destroy parts of the world, for the rest the influence of mankind on global scale is just marginal, although it can be on local/regional scale quite bad. We live too much in cities and by that we have forgotten we're surrounded by immense rural areas. Climate Change is real. Climate change has influenced mankind from the start of the earliest human civilizations. It has built and destroyed all former civilisations. The trick is now not in fighting a bogus war on CO2 as the cause, but putting all our efforts in adjusting our models for food, water and energy in a way that we can handle climate change. We are putting all our chips on the wrong card. Climate is driven by ocean currents, ocean currents are driven by earth's rotation and magma flows; magma flows are driven by the earth's core activity; the earth's core activity is driven by cosmic radiation (neutrinos play a significant role in this) and by cosmic gravity (just like the tide is driven by the moon). For the sun the same influence applies: delivering the sun's level of activity aka the number of sunspots. In short: the journey / the location of our solar system in the universe delivers our climate and by that climate change. We can't can't change/influence climate change, we can change our handling of it by adjusting our food, water and energy models. Than and for the first time in history we will not be hurt to the bone by climate changes. Michel, I hope you will dig further into sunspots and their influence on the global economy and by that on everyday's live and will write articles on these subjects (less evaporation, less rain, less dew, higher food prices, more inflation, more turbulent wind, dust storms, more civil unrest and more migration flows). I'm just no more than an interdisciplinary science analyst, who tries to connect the separate dots of the separated scientific branches by research into comprehensive and easy to use/implement models. If you have available XML datafeeds on solar activity / Wolf numbers (historical, actual and forecasts: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_number) that economists could use in their foodprices/inflation analyses/forecasts, please let me know. XML data feeds will become more important than quotes/references, as they enable interdisciplinary science based on facts. Media are interested in this data too: a weekly suncycle update (in a bit more graphical version) will be a regular item in each newspaper within one year from now. Just like the normal weather update, the dollar/yen and dollar/euro exchange rates, plus the oil and gas prices are regular news items in each newspaper/newssite of the world today, a weekly suncycle update will become such a regular newsitem too. Gijs PS We also like support for our growing earth theory (based on the same observations of Wegener, but now the thickness of the ocean crust and heat/density relation and recent gravity research added), our full energy 'particles' based quantum theory (there is no matter at all, matter/mass/everything is only/just organized energy), our models for of the use of physics in agriculture (as new wave additional to chemics and genetics), our virtual -magnetic- building nuclear fusion model (based on high voltages and laser beam crosspoint accumulation), our thesis that huge solar flares can knock out unprotected electronics and by that totally paralyze modern day economies overnight and our geothermal energy model research (a energy source that could replace nuclear energy easy, as it limitless and endless). So if you research one of those: let's share information. [image: Planck Foundation] <http://www.planck.org/publications> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens