Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog



A SolarTheory of Global Warming Casts Doubt on Man-Made Global Warming
Raymond Richman, 8/31/2011

No doubt the ban-carbon-emissions-lobby will find arguments that belittle the CLOUD research at CERN, Europe's leading nuclear research center, the results of which were published last week in Nature magazine. But one thing is certain, the CLOUD experiment has confirmed that there is an alternative theory to the current theory that man-made-carbon emissions cause global warming. Al Gore, former v-p of the United States, embraced and fostered the theory and made repeated statements that the global warming science was settled. He made a movie which created widespread fear of global warming which he alleged was the result of the industrial world’s emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. From 2007 on, he knew that there was an alternative theory. That was the year in which a Danish scientist, Henrik Svensmark, affiliated with the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Institute, published a paper describing his theory that climatic changes on Earth were the result of solar activity through the latter’s effects on cosmic rays bombarding the earth.

Svensmark theorized that cosmic rays causes clouds to form, cooling the earth, or impeding the formation of clouds leading to global warming.  When the sun experiences  strong magnetic activity, it diverts the cosmic rays heading for the earth preventing the formation of clouds and when there is a weak magnetic effect, cosmic rays bombard the earth’s atmosphere, seeding the clouds and facilitating cloud formations. When the sun’s magnetic activity is weak, cosmic rays cause clouds to form and cool the earth. When the sun’s magnetic activity is strong, the reduction in cosmic rays bombarding the earth’s atmosphere creates global warming.

Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder published a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate change (2007)  in which they asserted that Svensmark’s theory accounted for most of the global warming and that man-made emissions played a marginal role.  The book was ignored by the press in Europe and the U.S. According to Wikipedia, they wrote:

"During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds—and a warmer world." 

A documentary film on Svensmark's theory, The Cloud Mystery, was produced by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen and premiered in January 2008 on Danish TV 2 and is available on the internet. Eugene Parker, professor Emeritus of Physics, Astronomy, and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, endorses Prof. Svenmark’s work and appears in the documentary.  

Nigel Calder alleges that the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change refused to support Svensmark’s research. The IPCC unscientifically commits itself to the anthropogenic theory of global warming, global warming by carbon emissions from man’s uses of fossil fuels. The IPCC not only employed physical scientists but social scientists and laymen. Not exactly a science enterprise! The proponents succeeded in getting the world’s leaders to develop an international policy to reduce carbon emissions and to seek alternative fuels. Hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions, have been spent worldwide on sources of alternative energy, bio-fuels, wind and solar, all of which are inefficient and costly compared with fossil fuels.

Pres. Obama, no scientist he,  is a believer in the theory. He is quoted as saying,  “There is no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our plant in jeopardy;. It’s happening.”  He is not alone. The U.K.’s Climate Change Secretary Ed Mellband, in response to a parliamentary question stated that the science (sic!) of global warming was setttled. Only Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic, stated the doctrine of man-made global warming was a hoax, it is “part of environmentalism not of science.” He also warned in a speech at the Global Warming Foundation’s Inaugural lecture in January, 2010 of the “threat that the global warming frenzy presents to freedom and democracy.”  And the CLOUD experiment now confirms the likely validity of Svensmark’s theory.

Jasper Kirkby, who was on the staff at CERN, the leading nuclear research institution, was influenced by Svensmark’s theory and in a lecture still available on the internet traced the periods of global warming and cooling, and concluded that natural causes cause global warming and cooling, with carbon emissions playing a small role. He finally got the backing to conduct the CLOUD experiment at CERN, to test how, if at all, cosmic rays affect global warming and cooling. The results published last week showed that cosmic rays enhance aerosol formation (nucleation) that seeds clouds by a factor of 10. When clouds increase, they cause global cooling, reflecting away from the earth the sun’s rays, and when clouds diminish they cause global warming by allowing the sun’s rays to warm the earth.

The CLOUD experiment was held up for years because the CERN directors did not want to create a possible challenge to manmade global warming theory, the great orthodoxy promoted by not only the world’s leftists but by statisticians, economists, and other social scientists.    

Following is a paragraph from the summary which avoids mentioning Prof. Svensmark’s research.

"Secondly, we have found that natural rates of atmospheric ionization caused by cosmic rays can substantially enhance nucleation under the conditions we studied – by up to a factor of 10.          Ion]enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid]troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. This result leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could also influence climate. However, it is premature to conclude that cosmic rays have a significant influence on climate until the additional nucleating vapours have been identified, their ion enhancement measured, and the ultimate effects on clouds have been confirmed."

Notwithstanding the careful language designed to avoid a head-on collision with anthroprogenic global warming theory, the experiment established that Prof. Svensmark’s theory is plausible and has greater scientific predictability than man-made global warming theory. In fact, the former explains the global cooling in recent decades while the cool decades contradict anthropogenic global warming theory.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:


Comment by JG Wollaston, 9/2/2011:

Another fringe theory that you present as central dogma. You have completely misrepresented the CLOUD study. You leave out mentioning the Lockwood criticism, which found that Svensmark's finding were of "such poor quality" that nothing, certainly not any assertion regarding global warming, could be supported.

As usual, your religion obscures everything.

Response to this comment by Raymond Richman, 9/2/2011:
What dogma are you referring to? All I said is that the CLOUD study shows that there is another theory of climate change out there. That is Svenmark's theory that I described in my article. You don't mention it. Inferes 
Response to this comment by Raymond Richman, 9/2/2011:
What dogma are you referring to? All I said is that the CLOUD study shows that there is another theory of climate change out there. That is Svenmark's theory that I described in my article. You don't mention his theory.  
Response to this comment by Raymond Richman, 9/2/2011:
I did not present any theory as dogma. I did not misrepresent the CLOUD study. I said that its description of the effects of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere is conistent with Svensmark's theory.


Comment by Brad Arnold, 9/2/2011:

Like I'm going to take advice on global warming from an organization called "Ideal Taxes."  If you really cared about lowering taxes, you would take the following to heart instead of pushing an anti-science agenda:

There is a new clean energy technology that is 1/10th the cost of dirty coal.

Don’t believe me? Watch this video by a Nobel prize winner in physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/

Still don’t believe me? It convinced the Swedish Skeptics Society: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece

LENR using nickel. Incredibly: Ni+H+KCO3(heated under pressure)=Cu+lots of heat.

Still don’t believe me? A major US corporation has bought the rights to sell the 1 megawatt Rossi E-Cat, and it will be announced late October in the US, with the unit hitting the market in November. How can any fossil fuel compete with such cheap energy (and clean to boot!).

By the way, here is a current survey of all the companies that are bringing LENR to commercialization: http://www.cleantechblog.com/2011/08/the-new-breed-of-energy-catalyzers-ready-for-commercialization.html

Response to this comment by Karol, 9/2/2011:
As far as I know, there is no such thing as a free lunch in physics or chemistry. None of the components occure naturally, all have to be "made" and this process cost something (energy and money). And why not to produce gold out of nickel instead of copper?  BTW, last ice age ended some 15,000 years ago, the hot/ice cycle is about 150,000 years so where do the climate could be heading now?
Response to this comment by Raymond Richman, 9/2/2011:
I describedthe theory of an eminent astrophysicist Henri Svensmark. Are you saying he is unqualified?
Response to this comment by Brad Arnold, 9/3/2011:
The science of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere serving as a greenhouse gas was well established by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, so there is no valid argument that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause global warming. It has become well established that other gases, such as methane, in the atmosphere also are greenhouse gases. BTW, LENR Ni-H is not a "free lunch."  Neither is hot fusion.  Using LENR a gram of nickel yields 1.7 billion calories, which makes it 10,000 times more energy dense as coal or oil (but 100 times less energy dense as uranium 235).  Are you saying fission is a "free lunch?" When my wife and I visited Alaska, the tour guide described how the early explorers died from a vitamin deficiency, when they could have saved themselves by simply eating a local plant that proliferated in the area.  If only the explorers had known.Today, we have a similar situation.  (Partial formula) Ni + H (heated under pressure) = Cu + lots of heat!!  Unbelievable, but here we have been oxidizing carbon fuel for energy and polluting our air with carbon dioxide big time when all along nickel could be used in a low energy nuclear reaction.
Response to this comment by Brad Arnold, 9/3/2011:
One last thing.  Here are two US government reports you might find interesting: Defense Intelligence Agency DIA-08-0911-003 Nov '09 "Technological Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance." Also, here is a detailed description of the device and formula from a US government contract that demonstrates way over unity energy return using LENR Ni-H: www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GernertNnascenthyd.pdf I can't resist also including another successful over unity experiment explained in repeatable detail: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=230087767008023


Comment by humble harv, 9/2/2011:


Comment by Hippy Ray, 9/2/2011:

Cosmic Rays....cool....we can all go home now...right?

Response to this comment by knuts, 9/2/2011:
right but when we smoke out our ass cause the sun is hot the carbon we burn wont make a difference




  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Archive
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012
    Jul 2012
    Jun 2012
    May 2012
    Apr 2012
    Mar 2012
    Feb 2012
    Jan 2012
    Dec 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August

    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Categories:
    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation

    Real Estate Taxation
    Trade Miscellaneous

    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • TradeReform.org
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


    Wikipedia:

  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance. [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the ostrich and eagles attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect ones assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]