# Does weather or climate have "astrological" causes ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 4, 2010, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312 "2010-03-04T18:33:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/21 "2010-03-06T21:37:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Nonsense. For example, if the Sun is in Aries I can reliably predict that the climate in the northern hemisphere is going to get steadily warmer over the next few months. There is nothing unscientific in that. The position in the zodiac is an indicator of the seasons. The manifest fact that astrological meteorology works so well at this rather gross level, and, was thus of enormous practical value to early agricultural societies, is surely what led people to try to extend the technique beyond its proper remit, and seek to make much more specific predictions based on more detailed observations. Actually, it doesn’t work well at all, when considered over sufficiently long timescales. I’ve seen speculation that this sort of reliance on sidereal calender indicators is one of the reasons the ancient Egyptian civilizations fell into decline: Over hundreds or thousands of years (depending on how much precision you need), the sidereal year falls out of synch with the tropical year, which is what’s really relevant to the weather. And over spans of tens of thousands of years, there’s no correlation at all between what sign the Sun is in and what the weather’s like. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/22 "2010-03-06T22:33:46Z")
The first degree of Aries is the equinox point, when the sun “crosses the equator”. First day of Spring, in more common terms. **njtt** has it right. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/23 "2010-03-06T22:36:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > See, Cosmic Rays are a real thing. > > However, when the moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars we are well out of science and into hocus-pocus. But on the plus side, peace will rule the planets and love will steer the stars 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/24 "2010-03-06T22:43:21Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Nonsense. For example, if the Sun is in Aries I can reliably predict that the climate in the northern hemisphere is going to get steadily warmer over the next few months. There is nothing unscientific in that. The position in the zodiac is an indicator of the seasons. What does that have to do with weather having astrological causes? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/25 "2010-03-06T23:10:45Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What does that have to do with weather having astrological causes? Heh heh he is describing summer? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/26 "2010-03-06T23:13:17Z")
> [@](#): > > The first degree of Aries is the equinox point, when the sun “crosses the equator”. First day of Spring, in more common terms. njtt has it right. Except that the vernal equinox point is currently in Pisces, and will shift into Aquarius sometime this century (this is what the “age of Aquarius” refers to). “First degree of Aries” is an antiquated term which no longer has any accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/27 "2010-03-06T23:29:43Z")
> [@](#): > > (2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; Just occurred to me they used “effect” when they meant “affect”. Astrological, thermological and now can’t even get grade school grammar sorted out. Wonder if “interrelativity” is even a real word (not seeing it in the dictionary). With that they messed up 12.5% of all the words in that sentence and that is being generous and including “the” and “a” and “of” (and so on). Gets worse just counting the more meaty words. What a mess…scary to see government in action. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/28 "2010-03-07T03:19:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > With that they messed up 12.5% of all the words in that sentence and that is being generous and including “the” and “a” and “of” (and so on). Gets worse just counting the more meaty words. > > What a mess…scary to see government in action. And, that’s just one sentence. The rest of them…particularly those that attempt to address the science…are perhaps even worse. For example, it says, > [@](#): > > During the Little Climatic Optimum, Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed and raised dairy cattle. Today, ninety percent of Greenland is covered by massive ice sheets, in many places more than two miles thick So, are they trying to imply that those 2 miles thick ice sheets are a new addition that just formed since the time of Erik the Red? That’s one hell of a cold snap and might also be important news to those who have drilled into the ice sheets to investigate the climate going back more than 100,000 years. Oh…and then there is the obligatory mention of the [Oregon petition](http://www.oism.org/pproject/) (just in case someone was playing Climate Skeptic Bingo) which, interestingly, has morphed into “a petition to President Obama”, for which the first signatures were gathered around 1997. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/29 "2010-03-07T03:40:34Z")
If it’s any consolation, according to a reader commenting on the USAToday website, the original resolution containing all that stuff was passed by the S.D. State **House** only. It was a subsequently amended in the S.D. State Senate to say: > [@](#): > > A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for a balanced approach for instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change. > WHEREAS, evidence relating to global climatic change is complex and subject to varying scientific interpretations; and > WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and > WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena: > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that all instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change be presented in a balanced and objective manner and be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances. And, this was the version passed by the Senate and subsequently re-passed by the House. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312/30 "2010-03-07T03:51:33Z")
One of my favorite science bloggers calls it like it is: \*\* South Duh-kota, hang your head in shame\*\* [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/south\_duh-kota\_hang\_your\_head.php](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/south_duh-kota_hang_your_head.php) > [@](#): > > The South Dakota senate has been wrestling over an important resolution, HCR 1009. Here’s the original text. It will look rather familiar to anyone who has seen creationist bills roll through a legislature. I also noticed how close that resolution sounded like a creationist bill. I don’t think it is a coincidence that there are creationists also involved with the climate change denier efforts. Sadly for the OP title, the The South Dakota senate has amended the resolution to remove the astrology; however, the stupid remains. (I like how the quotes from creationists, climate change deniers and other anti-science types are framed in that site by [Monty Python’s Gumbys](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumbys).) > [@](#): > > I wish it had been preserved in all its naked inanity, but somebody must have noticed how bad it was, and the resolution that passed has been amended. It’s still the same story, but the more obviously idiotic key words have been removed. > > > [@](#): > > > > A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Calling for a balanced approach for instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change. > > > > ``` > > WHEREAS, evidence relating to global climatic change is complex and subject to varying scientific interpretations; and > > > > WHEREAS, there are a variety of climatological and meteorological dynamics that can affect world weather phenomena, and the significance and interrelativity of these factors remain unresolved; and > > > > WHEREAS, the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena: > > > > NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that all instruction in the public schools relating to global climatic change be presented in a balanced and objective manner and be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances." > > > > ``` > > They missed the irony of passing a political resolution protesting the politicization of a scientific issue, however. It’s still just a gang of conservative politicians trying to force equal consideration for discredited alternative nonsense in the public schools. > > I’m still wondering if any South Dakota teachers will be presenting the astrological evidence against climate change in their classrooms, though. On edit: I see that \*\*jshore \*\*already mentioned the amendment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-weather-or-climate-have-astrological-causes/531312.md?page=1)