Here, the Bad Astronomer demolishes the ludicrous, but strangely popular, claim that our Sun is actually part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy, not the Milky Way.
And so, uh, global warming is fake.
Or something.
(Ten points to anybody who posts a comment featuring an astrologer's point of view on this amazing Sagittarius revelation.)
29 June 2007 at 3:00 am
Is that ten points on Baez's crackpot scale?
29 June 2007 at 4:28 am
Global warming isn't "fake". But it isn't due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, either, at least if you look at the evidence. It's almost certainly primarily due to solar variability.
29 June 2007 at 10:12 am
Oyyyy... twoflower, please, Please, PLEASE do some research before you say things like that. The evidence DOES NOT SUPPORT solar variability as the major cause of global warming.
Solar variability does have an effect on the temperature of our planet... however it is measurable and the measurements don't show anywhere near enough change in solar output to cause the warming we are seeing.
I could get into a huge post on this topic... but I won't. Instead I'll point you to a good startig point for getting enough information to come to a well informed conclusion on the topic. Start here : http://www.realclimate.org but by all means, don't stop there. This is a complicated topic but the information is out there - get the facts, it's important.
29 June 2007 at 10:24 am
> It’s almost certainly primarily due to solar variability.
Ho-hum. Without wishing to get into a full-on global warming debate, I'll just save Dan the trouble of debunking this one: an increase in solar activity should produce a *warming* of the stratosphere; greenhouse warming should produce a *cooling* of the stratosphere. Cooling in the lower stratosphere has been observed since at least 1960 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-12.htm). (Reduction of stratospheric ozone also has a cooling influence, but substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s).
So, whilst the sun may well have an effect, I don't believe there are any climate scientists who believe that golobal warming is anything like "primarily" due to solar variability. The Duke University duo are probably the ones who most believe in the solar variability as an effect; and even their numbers give it as 25–35% of the total temp rise between 1980 and 2000, with greenhouse hases still being the primary cause. Most scientists calculate the numbers as nowhere near as large as even that -- see the most recent study on the matter in Nature in 2006: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf.
29 June 2007 at 9:30 pm
So this would be why Mars and Neptune are both "suffering" global warming.
29 June 2007 at 10:00 pm
> this would be why Mars and Neptune are both
> “suffering” global warming
What, the denialists are saying Neptune now? Usually it's Jupiter, bold claims about the temperature of which are usually made in complete ignorance of what keeps that planet hot.
But hey, sure, why not Neptune too, while we're making shit up? Drudge and Limbaugh have probably named every orbital body from here to Vulcan at some point.
In an amazing coincidence, Phil Plait has also addressed these claims.
Here's another good Climate Change Bullshit Roundup.
30 June 2007 at 11:05 am
It's like municipal darwinism, except on a Really Quite Large scale.
1 July 2007 at 5:51 am
I find it funny that everyone is saying that "the sience is settled, the debate is over" for a feild of science in it infancy. there area a few new papers every week publishe in this feild that question what we actualy know about climate change, from how much latent heat is stored in the oceans to what effect the subtropical forrests actualy have to the net co2 production ofthe planet. that and the fact that catostrofic man-made global warming has only ever been witnesse in computer modles. given the current state of understanding (and coresponding fudge factors) in climate modeling, the fact that atmospheric feedbacks *sign* (let alone magnitude) is stil under debate. that is not to say that the world is not warming. climate changes, this much is obvious. look at the midevile climate optimum. that was even warmer than it is today. hell, look at the history, there were vinyards as far north as great britan. then there is the "little ice age" which, to best estimates, we are currently coming out of. then take into account manmade co2 production vs. natral co2 production. a very highball estimate is 2% manmade. granted that a 2% buildup over time could yeild significant results, but i think that the assumption that nature cant handle a 2% increse in anything (especialy given how much nature fluctuates on her own) is a bit naive. also consider that the sun is the primary sorce of heat for the planet, so its variability would seem to be the best place to start when looking for root cause of and global temperature shift. i guess my point is you cant difinitvly state that man is reponcible for something we dont compleatly understand, especialy when there are a lot of other credible theorys on the table. if you still think "the science is settled" look at any decent skeptics site (i recomend http://www.junkscienc.com, i know you dont like that site dan, but an arguments validity is not based on where its funding came from. a good place to start is http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html. logicaly he makes some good points on why man is not the cause of global warming. points that have not yet been addressed, as this is a fledgling feild of science. to state that the argument itself is invalid because of who he is is an ad hominem logical fallicy) i was giong to go back and spell check, but at this point im way too lazy. . .
1 July 2007 at 5:54 am
damn, should have spellchecked. that first link should be http://www.junkscience.com. dont know if i can edit it now. . .
1 July 2007 at 6:25 am
> an arguments validity is not based on where its funding
> came from
No.
But someone who accepts huge bags of cash from Rupert Murdoch is still very, very likely to be a big fat lying whore.
Rupert is not stupid. He does not give money to people who do not say what he wants said. Arguments to the contrary are arguments in favour of the unstinting factual accuracy of Fox News.
Good luck with that, anthony!
(Not that the rest of you need it mentioned, but for anthony's benefit: The position that the world's climatologists, in general, have not thought of a large number of important objections to the reality of global climate change that are obvious to someone who cannot locate his shift key is, if you ask me, bloody stupid.)