IMPACTwarming we’ve experienced <strong>for</strong> the past 150 years is a direct result of anincrease in solar activity and attendant warming.A potential change in cloud cover of 3-4 percent caused by changesin cosmic ray flux is sufficient to explain global temperature changes ofseveral degrees due to the change in the reflectivity of clouds. The reasonthe variation in direct radiation from the sun was rejected earlier is becauseit has been found to vary only by a few tenths of a percent. This isinsufficient to explain observed global warming.Experiments on Cloud Condensation NucleiThese statistical correlations are intriguing, but manycritics are skeptical of Svensmark’s theory until hecan explain the mechanism by which cosmic rayscreate more clouds. This led him to design alaboratory experiment to demonstrate thatcosmic rays produce more cloud nucleion which cloud droplets can <strong>for</strong>m. In2007, Svensmark et al published the resultsof an experiment which confirmedhis theory that cosmic rays increase thenumber of cloud condensation nuclei(CCN). 7Most CCN that nucleate clouddroplets in water clouds near the earth’s surfaceare composed of compounds of sulfuricacid derived from water vapor, sulphur dioxide,and ozone found in the atmosphere over the ocean.Svensmark built a cloud chamber containing these gasesto see if CCN can be multiplied when cosmic rays are introducedinto this mixture. He found that the cosmic rays ionize molecules in theair, releasing electrons that in turn attach themselves to oxygen moleculesand collect other water and sulfur dioxide molecules to <strong>for</strong>m clusters.This process occurs extremely rapidly and many times <strong>for</strong> each electron.The electrons function as a catalyst to <strong>for</strong>m clusters of molecules thatgrow and produce sulfuric acid CCN. When the air is lifted by normalmeteorological processes, these additional CCN <strong>for</strong>m more dense andwidespread clouds because of their greater number.In addition to the results Svensmark obtained from the experimentabove, which he called SKY, he anticipates confirmation of his results in amore complete experiment called CLOUD to be conducted at the CERNlaboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. The experiment at CERN was delayednumerous times, but has now been funded and approved <strong>for</strong> 2010.ConclusionsIt would be prudent<strong>for</strong> the political leadership in theU. S. and the world to look moreclosely at Svensmark’s theoryof cosmoclimatology <strong>for</strong> anexplanation of global warmingbe<strong>for</strong>e restructuring our entireeconomic system to eliminatecarbon dioxide.Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology is now complete. Hehas discovered a complete chain of events that explains the variations inglobal temperature that have puzzled climatologists <strong>for</strong> so many years,and that has now led to an explanation <strong>for</strong> the recent global warmingepisode. It starts with cosmic rays coming to earth from exploding supernovasand collisions of remnants of stars with nebula in space. Manyof these cosmic rays are shielded from striking the earth by the electromagneticactivity of the sun. When the sun is active, the solar windprevents cosmic rays from entering the earth’s atmosphere by sweepingthem around the earth. When the sun is inactive, more ofthem penetrate the atmosphere. Upon reaching thelower atmosphere where more sulphur dioxide,water vapor, and ozone is present, the cosmicrays ionize the air, releasing electrons that aidin the <strong>for</strong>mation of more CCN and <strong>for</strong>mmore dense clouds. This increase in lowcloudamount reflects more solar energyto space, cooling the planet. Variations inelectromagnetic activity of the sun andfluctuations in cosmic ray intensity fromspace result in the periodic warming andcooling of the earth.Solar-modulated cosmic ray processessuccessfully explain the recent globalwarming episode. It would be prudent <strong>for</strong> thepolitical leadership in the U. S. and the world to lookmore closely at Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatology<strong>for</strong> an explanation of global warming be<strong>for</strong>e restructuring our entireeconomic system to eliminate carbon dioxide. If, in fact, Svensmark iscorrect, reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide will have littleimpact, anyway.References1. Vardiman, L. 2008. Does Carbon Dioxide Drive Global Warming? <strong>Acts</strong> & <strong>Facts</strong>. 37 (10): 10.2. Svensmark, H. and N. Calder. 2007. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change. Cambridge,England: Icon Books Limited.3. Maunder, E. W. 1904. Note on the Distribution of Sun-Spots in Heliographic Latitude, 1874-1902. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 64: 747-761.4. Eddy, J. A. 1976. The Maunder Minimum. Science. 192 (4245):1189-1202.5. Robert A. Rohde, www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png.6. Svensmark, H. 2007. Cosmoclimatology: A New TheoryEmerges. Astronomy & Geophysics. 48 (1): 1.19.7. Svensmark, H. et al. 2007. Experimental evidence <strong>for</strong> the roleof ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions.Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 463 (2078): 385-396.Dr. Vardiman is Chair of the Department of Astro/Geophysics.12 ACTS&FACTS • NOVEMBER 2008
BACK TO GENESISThe Contrasting Religions of<strong>Creation</strong> and EvolutionJ O H N D . M O R R I S , P h .D.The often-asked question“Do you believe in evolution?”expects the answer“Of course!” Don’t onlyignorant yokels have any doubt? Butpolls consistently reveal that a greatmajority of Americans do not believein the evolution of all life <strong>for</strong>msfrom a common ancestor. Why isn’tevolution something you can know<strong>for</strong> sure, not just something in whichyou can believe?As always, it helps to defineterms. First, evolution is the “descentfrom a common ancestor” model,the idea that all of life came from more primitive<strong>for</strong>ms. Humankind came from an ape-likeancestor that came up through the mammalsfrom an original rodent-like creature. All mammalscame from early reptiles and amphibians,which all came from fish. And the fish camefrom some marine invertebrate like a snail orstarfish, which had still earlier evolved fromsingle-celled life.Thus, a more revealing question mightbe “Do you believe your ancestors were fish,as evolution teaches?” Or, “Are you a mutatedrodent-like creature?” Fewer people wouldbe inclined to answer, “Yes!” Despite severalgenerations now of aggressive evolution-onlyteaching in the public school classroom, mostpeople just know that they didn’t come from afish or a rodent or a starfish. They can chooseto believe they have an animal ancestry, butfew do. It just isn’t believable. Thankfully, itisn’t the only alternative explanation <strong>for</strong> origins,and the other is not only more believable,it’s more appealing.Dr. Michael Ruse, perhaps the mosteloquent spokesman <strong>for</strong> evolution today, hasadmitted:Evolution is promoted by its practitionersas more than mere science. Evolution ispromulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—afull-fledged alternative to Christianity,with meaning and morality. I am anardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian,but I must admit that in this one complaint…theliteralists are absolutely right.Evolution is a religion. This was true ofevolution in the beginning, and it is trueof evolution still today. 1Christianity has its God and its revealedtruth. It tells us our origins, who we are, wherewe came from, the meaning of life, and wherewe’re going after we die. It tells us how to live andhow to make life decisions along the way. Createdin the image of God, we have great worthin His eyes, and great standing be<strong>for</strong>e Him as weappropriate His gift of redemption, a great destinyto per<strong>for</strong>m on earth, and life with our lovingand righteous Creator/Savior after death.Evolution answers these samequestions differently. We are andcome from the universe’s chemicalsthat have self-organized into unlikely<strong>for</strong>ms over eons of time. Single-celledlife trans<strong>for</strong>med itself intohigher <strong>for</strong>ms until finally the humananimal came along. As higheranimals, we have incorporated animalbehavior into societal normsand even “religious” beliefs. Theonly true meaning to life is survivaland reproduction, and life’s highestgoal is to pass on one’s genes moreefficiently than others. After life, wesimply cease to exist.As Dr. Ruse explains, “Evolution is a religion,”and not a science at all. It might be bestunderstood as a worldview, a way of thinkingand making sense of the world aroundus. Some, such as Eugenie Scott, have calledthis worldview “philosophical materialism,” areligious claim of naturalism that holds thatnature is all there is. There is no supernaturalBeing who has ever interfered with the naturalorder of things. Surely this is a religious claimregarding all of reality.And surely it’s not the only or the bestsuch claim. As constitutional attorney WendellBird has pointed out: “Evolution is at least asreligious as creation, and creation is at least asscientific as evolution.” <strong>Creation</strong> is also morebelievable.Reference1. Ruse, Michael. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.National Post, May 13, 2000, B-3.Dr. Morris is President of the <strong>Institute</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Creation</strong> <strong>Research</strong>.NOVEMBER 2008 • ACTS&FACTS13