[P2P-F] Fwd: Effects of low sunspot levels on evaporation (and by that on rain/dew/climate and health/economy)

Tue Jul 5 20:05:00 CEST 2011

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gijs Graafland | Planck Foundation <graafland.gb at planck.org>
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: michelsub2004 at gmail.com

 [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_resources/maunderminimum_strip2.gif.

For a NASA forecast chart of sunspots maximums see:
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2006/05/10/10may_longrange_resources/predictions3_strip.jpg.

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_threat_from_solar_storms)
. 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.html).

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110706/f9c76621/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27478 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110706/f9c76621/attachment.jpeg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5661 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110706/f9c76621/attachment-0001.jpeg 