Global Warming, what again?
 

I just noticed we have science under technology on the front page. That makes no sense but anyway...

I don't know if this study came out while I was on vacation but it went below my radar screen. It seems that University of Ottawa geology professor Dr. Jan Veizer and astrophysicist Dr. Nir J. Shaviv have connected their work across specialties, casting doubt on the increased carbon dioxide = global warming theory.

By analyzing the fossilized remains of seashells, Veizer has been able to reconstruct the Earth's temperature record for the past half-billion years, the period during which there have been hard-shelled sea creatures. Surprisingly, this record displays a repeating cycle of temperature increases and decreases every 135 million years, a period that corresponds with no known terrestrial phenomena. Independently, Shaviv had determined galactic cosmic rays striking the Earth have been varying with about the same periodicity over an even longer time frame. Once Veizer and Shaviv made the connection, they wondered whether they were looking at a reflection of some sort of regular celestial phenomenon in the climate history of the Earth.

Indeed, it appears they were. Our solar system passes through the bright arms of the Milky Way Galaxy with approximately the same regularity as the long-term temperature changes Veizer had discovered. And because interstellar matter bunches up in the galaxy's arms, we see the birth of large, very bright, but short-lived stars that end their lives as supernovas while still inside the arms, giving off powerful bursts of galactic cosmic rays.


Read the whole article, it makes sense. The big question I have is whether or not he missuses "less" when talking about clouds. I'm thinking it should be fewer clouds/less cloud cover.

Of course, those who for political reasons want global warming to be man's fault will find the article absurd, while folks who for political reasons, like myself, don't want global warming to be man's fault will embrace it. :) I think the first thing we need to do as individuals is to identify our own motivations, after which a hardnosed look at the science, while ignoring to loaded rhetoric, is called for. Don't support anthropomorphic global warming theory because it makes you feel morally superior and don't oppose it because because you fear the political response of others.

Great find, Griff. It probably went under your radar because of the lack of reporting.
I couldn't find any place in the article where "less" was used questionably. Can you point me to it?

-When we are out of the arms and galactic cosmic ray strength is low, there are less clouds and the Earth is warmer.

Can I have a ruling on this?

Fewer clouds.

Seconded. New business?

A real easy tip-off is that "less" should basically never be preceeded with "are".

You use "less" when talking about something that cannot be quantified. "There is less soda than there used to be." is a proper English sentence. "There is less sand here than in California."

But if you're talking about specific objects instead of one big general thing - "There are less sand particles here than in California" - uh, no. So that's when you use "fewer". "There are fewer sand particles here than in California."

I commonly made this mistake up until about two years ago, until I thought about it, and now I catch other people doing it all the time while completely avoiding it myself. It's really a simple re-training of the brain.

Fewer dogs, less dog shit.

Fewer vs less is one of those things which I naturally detect and find annoying but I usually don't say anything since I'm so sloppy with other aspects of writing, like throwing commas around like rice at a wedding. These kinds of errors chip away at your credibility, which is especially important when what you're writing is highly technical and you want to be perceived as an expert.

Well they are Canadians, after all.;)

If these are the same guys I read about in the WSJ last Monday, then they have some credibility problems. One, the paper was very subjective and short on specific numbers. Two, they refused to provide raw data to peers for analysis. Three, they refuse to answer questions beyond saying their paper speaks for itself.

In the meantime, this is the data that were being discussed so subjectively. Notice how temperature rises are associated with CO2 levels, and the sharp and unpresidented temperature change only in the past 100 years:

OK, so the CO2 follows along with the temperture changes. At least at Antartica.
And I see several temperature changes as or more precipitous as the current one. Higher peaks too.

Right. In the big chart, the CO2 _follows_ the temperature changes. And the peak is not only not unprecedented, it appears that we're about due for one anyway.

But there are less of them then we.

Yep, I'm a grammar Nazi as well. :D

As a quick rule along with Dave's, use "fewer" with countable nouns (ie people, cars, clouds), and use "less" with uncountable things (ie love, conceptual money, Canadians).

Actually, it looks to me that the temperature change follows the CO2 change. Look where the upswings start for CO2. It is already on the increase when the temperture curve starts going up. And as far as I can tell, it is the CO2 spike that is unprecedented, not the temperature (is that what you meant, tw?).

And in any case, there's really no point at all in debating it.

As the chart clearly shows, we would have to return to pre-industrial age levels of consumption in order to prevent this phenomenon. If that were to be implemented, billions upon billions of people would die of poverty, as the earth can't support this many people without things like transportation and the modern energy grid.