It appears “global warming” is now the most potent force in the universe, according to a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. An actual scientific paper preprint published in the Cornell University science archive makes the connection to black holes in the title, and includes “climate change” in the abstract.
Sigh. It isn’t even past coffee on Sunday morning and already we have our winner. This one… is weapons grade stupidity. I would not believe that a scientist from a prominent research institute could utter such a statement had I not read it in a prominent science magazine. It’s another “Vinerism” in the making: Children just aren’t going to know what black holes are.
It immediately reminded me of the famous line uttered by Tom Cruise in the movie a A Few Good Men:
“Should we or should we not follow the advice of the galactically stupid!
But then again, this is The New Scientist. Read on, emphasis mine.
…
Something must have limited the growth of these black holes. Now Takamitsu Tanaka at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, and colleagues have a climate-based explanation.
…
Black holes need cool gas to grow so this would have slowed down the growth of other black holes in smaller protogalaxies, even as the growth of black holes in the most massive protogalaxies continued apace (arxiv.org/abs/1205.6467v1).
“This global warming process could have basically quenched the latecomers,” says Tanaka. “The early ones end up being the monsters and they prevent the overgrowth of the rest.”
Tanaka probably should have said the “galactic warming process”, and maybe he did, and this could is a misquote by the unnamed author of the article at TNS. UPDATE: This line from the abstract tends to suggest it was a deliberate statement from the scientist:
Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.
Either way, it shows how global warming on the brain tends to create an environment for such ridiculous comparisons to make it to press.
I decided I should make a screencap of the paper abstract, becuase I have a feeling it will disappear:
Next I suppose we’ll be reading comparisons of the “global warming process” to problems at the atomic interaction level, such as maybe the sun is now producing fewer neutrinos or some such rot. Don’t laugh, it could happen.
Read The New Scientist article here.
Unfortunately, comments are only allowed from subscribers, so if there are any subscribers out there, please leave a comment pointing out this idiotic comparison. Better yet, write a letter to the editor of the magazine.
In the meantime, feel free to use this motivational poster:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
*blink* *blink*
So now our CO2 emissions control one of the more powerful forces in the universe?
There is nothing CO2 can’t do.
Isn’t New Scientist the same taboid that gave AR4 the scoop on Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035?
I think its pretty obvious to Mr. Tanaka that Mentos makes up most of the missing mass of the galaxy. If we look at earth’s CO2 as a big bottle of soda, dropping the galactic Mentos is playing obvious havoc with super nova/black hole creation.
While I am not sure this explanation would satisfy Max Planck, I think the mentos theory will appeal to Doug Plank, the hard-hitting ex-defensive back of the Chicago Bears.
To be fair, Tanaka might have made the comparison facetiously and New Scientist, being New Scientist, took it seriously.
Astounding – but slightly OT; my QOTW would be: …this is commonly referred to as ‘research’. There will be plenty of opportunities to use that one again.
It has to be a misquote. The journalist at NS screwed up.
At this point, the phrase “galactic warming process” exists nowhere but on this site.
“This global warming process could have basically quenched the latecomers” is quickly propagating around the Net.
I am more inclined to believe that the journalist misquoted…the journalist has “global warming” on the brain.
Tanaka HAD to have been misquoted, and abetted by sloppy and ignorant editing.
Great QotW, though!!!
PS. Limiting comments to subscribers means limiting intelligent discourse and transparent interchange. Is this where a Science magazine wants to go? Non subscribers will remain so if the publication removes “hooks” like comment submissions, that would have repeatedly attracted them.
Looks like editorial sloppiness also translates into managerial ineptitude!
I would not call him stupid, he managed to drop THE “scientific” buzz word into the mix in a totally unrelated area and probably got more attention for it.
….better yet…..cancel your subscription.
I think you’re being a bit harsh. Japanese researcher working in Germany reported by a journalist who doesn’t understand English in a magazine that doesn’t understand science….
All hail CO2 – if our planet’s CO2 can control one of the most powerful forces in the Universe, I know where my prayers are going!
Poor editing at New Scientist IMHO…
Leon0112 says:
June 10, 2012 at 7:27 am
It has to be a misquote.
It is.
In this instance, it’s “Should we or should we not follow the advice of the infinitely-in-multiple-dimensions stupid!”
Grantsmanship.
Phrases to put in your paper if you want to be published.
Phrases to put in your grant proposal if you want to actually get the grant.
Could it be a few astrophysicists have picked up on how to get wider recognition and seemingly unending grants by having the right conclusion? A type of cancer spreading among scientists?
I guess astrophysicists can speak with as much certainty about stuff that don’t really know, just like climate change scientists. Basically, this guy is making a WAG, but still speaks with total authority.
While it is out of my league…I didn’t know that black holes needed cool gas to grow. I thought they only needed available mass. Who would of thought that massive gravity wells were so selective in their accretion.
Also, I would think that the local ‘climate’ of a massive protogalaxy would be far hotter than the climate of a smaller one.
Shows you what I know.
I’m also voting for “This is what is commonly referred to as research”.
Such delicious irony.
“Next I suppose we’ll be reading comparisons of the “global warming process” to problems at the atomic interaction level, such as maybe the sun is now producing fewer neutrinos or some such rot. Don’t laugh, it could happen.”
No we won’t; for that would open up the question of whether the sun influences our climate. Such a link must always be denied by the IPCC climate scientists and their media. The sun is taboo.
Steve says:
June 10, 2012 at 7:59 am
Grantsmanship.
Phrases to put in your paper if you want to be published.
Phrases to put in your grant proposal if you want to actually get the grant.
________________
Agreed…
with an eye to the present state of the scientific/political world, I don’t believe for a minute that Takamitsu Tanaka was misquoted.
I think you all are a little unfair. New Scientist is really a dating site. The magazine is only a cover so there i really no need for them to be to scientific.
http://dating.newscientist.com/s/a/17833
“Misquating Tanaka”
Actual quote from actual paper.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.6467v1
Our calculations paint a self-consistent picture of black-hole-made climate change, in which the first miniquasars – among them the ancestors of the z 6 quasar SMBHs – globally warm the IGM and suppress the formation and growth of subsequent generations of BHs.
I’m a New Scientist subscriber, so I left a comment.
There is a reason Lubos calls them “Nude Socialist.”