Fake news, false propaganda and public opinion manipulations are going on since ages. There is virtually no area where these tactics have not been used. But when it comes to global warming hoax, these tactics have taken shape of even mass scale brainwashing of public. Wherever critical thinkers challenged the obvious lie of gloabl warming due to CO2, these thinkers were labelled as conspiracy theorists, skeptics, etc. Nevertheless, public spirited individuals and many scientists kept on telling the truth. Because of these wonderful human beings we are in a position to discuss about the ways and methods to save our environment and the future of our planet earth. Unfortunately, even the United Nations (UN) got swayed away by this false propaganda and it wasted many precious decades upon incorrect, inappropriate and even dangerous options like GeoEngineering and Solar GeoEngineering.
There are many reasons for warming and cooling of earth and scientists have closely observed periods of Solar Minimum and Solar Maximum for ages. We are not discussing these reasons for warming of earth here as the scope of this article is to analyse whether sunlight or solar radiation can create global warming or not?
Why this point and subject is important at all? Because if sun is creating global warming, then the global warming hoax created against CO2 emissions by road transports would be busted. That is why it is of paramount importance that solar radiation or sun heat must be removed from the equation of global warming.
There is no uniformity of opinion in this regard. The proponents of CO2 induced global warming are denying effect of sun while many other scientists are simply not convinced. They belive sun is the true source of global warming/cooling and they have validly proven this fact using data and analysis of Solar minimum and Solar Maximum periods of many centuries.
The Solar Minimum period witnessed global cooling while Solar maximum period witnessed global warming. Those who believe that global warming is a hoax frequently cite these scientific opinions and literature. Irrespective of what pro and anti global warming people say, we have analyse the situation and position on our own.
On the face of it the argument that fossil fuels generated CO2 is responsible for global warming is absurd and against common sense. Even this argument has been twisted and misrepresented multiple times and has lost its appeal due to dishonesty and suppression of other factors and facts.
For instance, the lie that 97% climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by CO2 has done more damage that proving the point. The truth is that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. In fact, the scientists who were claimed to be part of this 97% lies openly rejected this false assumption. Even the very greenhouse gases that are frequiently blamed for global warming consist of other gases too besides CO2.
So what the most dedicated 1.6% supporter of global warming are saying is that along with various gases, CO2 is one of the gas that has produced at least 50% of global warming. The remaining 50% cannot be attributed to solar radiation by the proponents of global warming otherwise the very foundation of CO2 being the culprit would collapse.
“Variations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earth’s climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his ‘Token Conservative’ blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the planet as well as cause its salvation.”
Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change. Because when sunspot numbers rise and fall, there is more going on than simply changes in solar brightness. Periods of reduced sunspot activity correspond to periods of reduced magnetic activity on the sun, and reduced outflows of charges particles from the sun (the so-called solar wind). The solar wind whizzes past the Earth and deflects cosmic rays from deep space from hitting our atmosphere. A recent proposal from Danish scientists suggest that when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere, they create tiny aerosol particles that lead to increased cloud formation and less sunlight hitting the Earth. So it’s a double whammy, fewer sunspots mean a dimmer sun, which also means more cosmic rays into the atmosphere and more cloud cover which further cools the Earth. And vice-versa when there is more solar activity.
Computer models of the climate do not take these indirect effects of solar activity into account when calculating the change in global climate. And while human activity counts for only 5% of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere each year, the sun accounts for ALL the energy striking the Earth and driving its dynamic and enormously complex ocean currents and atmosphere.
For many years, solar scientists considered variation in solar irradiance to be too small to cause significant climate changes. However, Svensmark has proposed a new concept of how the sun may impact Earth’s climate (Svensmark and Calder, 2007; Svensmark and Friis-Christensen, 1997; Svensmark et al., 2007). Svensmark recognised the importance of cloud generation as a result of ionization in the atmosphere caused by cosmic rays. Clouds highly reflect incoming sunlight and tend to cool the Earth. The amount of cosmic radiation is greatly affected by the sun’s magnetic field, so during times of weak solar magnetic field, more cosmic radiation reaches the Earth. Thus, perhaps variation in the intensity of the solar magnetic field may play an important role in climate change.
Man-made carbon dioxide is cited as a cause to produce global warming. However, in an article entitled “Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming?” Larry Vardiman presented several major reasons why carbon dioxide is probably not the primary cause. But if carbon dioxide is not the cause, then what is? Evidence is accumulating that cosmic rays associated with fluctuations in the sun’s electromagnetic field may be what drives global warming. A new theory called cosmoclimatology that proposes a natural mechanism for climate fluctuations has been developed by Henrik Svensmark, Head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center.
Edward L. Maunder reported in 1904 that the number of spots on the sun has an 11-year cycle. Sunspots can be observed in real time online at www.spaceweather.com. Figure below shows a 400-year record of the monthly number of sunspots. Note the low number of sunspots in the period from 1645 to 1715. This period is called the Maunder Minimum and coincides with the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of temperature during the last 1,000 years.
In 1995, Henrik Svensmark discovered a startling connection between the cosmic ray flux from space and cloud cover. He found that when the sun is more active-more sunspots, a stronger magnetic field, larger auroras, stronger solar winds, etc.-fewer cosmic rays strike the earth and cloud cover is reduced, resulting in warmer temperatures.
For the 22-year period from 1983 to 2005, the average amount of low-level cloud follows the flux of cosmic rays very closely. In fact, Svensmark claims that the correlation coefficient is 0.92, a very high correlation for this type of data. In addition, when looking at various longer periods of record using proxy data for these two variables, he also found good correlations and similar trends. In particular, he suggested that during the Little Ice Age when the sun was inactive, cosmic ray flux from space was high, cloud amount was greater, and global temperatures were cooler. As the sun became more active after 1750, cosmic ray flux decreased, cloud amount decreased, and global temperatures warmed. Svensmark proposed that the global warming we’ve experienced for the past 150 years is a direct result of an increase in solar activity and attendant warming.
A potential change in cloud cover of 3-4 percent caused by changes in cosmic ray flux is sufficient to explain global temperature changes of several degrees due to the change in the reflectivity of clouds. The reason the variation in direct radiation from the sun was rejected earlier is because it has been found to vary only by a few tenths of a percent. This is insufficient to explain observed global warming.
These statistical correlations are intriguing, but many critics are skeptical of Svensmark’s theory until he can explain the mechanism by which cosmic rays create more clouds. This led him to design a laboratory experiment to demonstrate that cosmic rays produce more cloud nuclei on which cloud droplets can form. In 2007, Svensmark et al published the results of an experiment which confirmed his theory that cosmic rays increase the number of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). [ See Svensmark, H. et al. 2007. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 463 (2078): 385-396.]
Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology is now complete. He has discovered a complete chain of events that explains the variations in global temperature that have puzzled climatologists for so many years, and that has now led to an explanation for the recent global warming episode. It starts with cosmic rays coming to earth from exploding supernovas and collisions of remnants of stars with nebula in space. Many of these cosmic rays are shielded from striking the earth by the electromagnetic activity of the sun. When the sun is active, the solar wind prevents cosmic rays from entering the earth’s atmosphere by sweeping them around the earth. When the sun is inactive, more of them penetrate the atmosphere. Upon reaching the lower atmosphere where more sulphur dioxide, water vapor, and ozone is present, the cosmic rays ionize the air, releasing electrons that aid in the formation of more CCN and form more dense clouds. This increase in low-cloud amount reflects more solar energy to space, cooling the planet. Variations in electromagnetic activity of the sun and fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity from space result in the periodic warming and cooling of the earth.
Solar-modulated cosmic ray processes successfully explain the recent global warming episode. It would be prudent for the political leadership in the U. S. and the world/UN to look more closely at Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology for an explanation of global warming before restructuring our entire economic system to eliminate carbon dioxide. If, in fact, Svensmark is correct, reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide will have little impact, anyway.
Disastrous Earth 
You must be logged in to post a comment.