Global Warming, what again?

[Griff]

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.