<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Gijs Graafland | Planck Foundation</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://graafland.gb">graafland.gb</a>@<a href="http://planck.org">planck.org</a>></span><br>
Date: Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:24 PM<br>Subject: Effects of low sunspot levels on evaporation (and by that on rain/dew/climate and health/economy)<br>To: <a href="mailto:michelsub2004@gmail.com">michelsub2004@gmail.com</a><br>
<br><br>
<div>
<a href="http://www.planck.org" target="_blank"><img alt="Planck Foundation" src="cid:planck.jpg" border="0"></a>
<font style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;" color="#000000" face="verdana, geneva, sans-serif">
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Michel,
<br><br>
As you probably know is the number of sunspots in the current suncycle (number 24) lower
than the weakest suncycle in the past century:
<br><br>
Some interesting quotations on the weaking of current suncycles are:
<br><br>
"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."
<br><br>
"Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78 in 1928."
<br><br>
"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)."
<br><br>
"In the 17th century the sun plunged into a 70-year period of spotlessness
known as the Maunder Minimum that still baffles scientists."
<br><br>
"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)."
<br><br>
For a NASA historical chart of sunspot maximums see:
<a href="http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/05/29/29may_noaaprediction_resources/maunderminimum_strip2.gif" target="_blank">
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/05/29/29may_noaaprediction_resources/maunderminimum_strip2.gif</a><a>.
<br><br>
For a NASA forecast chart of sunspots maximums see:
</a><a href="http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2006/05/10/10may_longrange_resources/predictions3_strip.jpg" target="_blank">
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2006/05/10/10may_longrange_resources/predictions3_strip.jpg</a>.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
See for several interesting diagrams:
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up" target="_blank">
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-dalton-minimum-repeat-is-shaping-up</a>.
NASA also has some information on it:
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html" target="_blank">
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solar-minima.html</a>. And of
course Wikipedia:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot</a>.
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer</a>).
<br><br>
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:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl</a><a>.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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
</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency</a>.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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 n�mero uno (also by the geocold based night condensation
systems, which can compensate water supply in areas where a rain deficit is).
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
"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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Herschel</a>)
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water</a>).
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
To make things even more interesting: every each 8 minutes the earth connects
back to the sun by a flux event (see
<a href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes" target="_blank">
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes</a>).
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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 <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/05/17/us_official_growing_threat_from_solar_storms" target="_blank">
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2011/05/17/us_official_growing_threat_from_solar_storms</a>)
. 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.
<br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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
<a href="http://www.vimeo.com/search/videos/search:savory" target="_blank">
http://www.vimeo.com/search/videos/search:savory</a>.
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).
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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 �ber 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 <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html" target="_blank">
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html</a>).
<br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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
<a href="http://i.usatoday.net/news/graphics/2010/2010-09-09-summer-heat/summerx.jpg" target="_blank">
http://i.usatoday.net/news/graphics/2010/2010-09-09-summer-heat/summerx.jpg</a>.
<br><br>
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
<a href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09jun_bigsurprise" target="_blank">
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/09jun_bigsurprise</a>.
<br><br>
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).
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
If you have available XML datafeeds on solar activity / Wolf numbers
(historical, actual and forecasts: see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_number" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_number</a>) 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.
<br><br>
Gijs
<br><br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote></blockquote></font>
<p align="right">
<a href="http://www.planck.org/publications" target="_blank"><img alt="Planck Foundation" src="cid:planck-3d.jpg" border="0"></a>
</p>
<br>
</div>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>