Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot: “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”

Visible to the naked eye as the Seven Sisters, the Pleiades are the most famous of many surviving clusters of stars that formed together at the same time. The Pleiades were born during the time of the dinosaurs, and the most massive of the siblings would have exploded over a period of 40 million years. Their supernova remnants generated cosmic rays. From the catalogue of known star clusters, Henrik Svensmark has calculated the variation in cosmic rays over the past 500 million years, without needing to know the precise shape of the Milky Way Galaxy. Armed with that astronomical history, he digs deep into the histories of the climate and of life on Earth. Image ESA/NASA/Hubble

Note: I’m going to leave this as a sticky “top post” for a day or so. new stories appear below.

Nigel Calder asks us to republish this post for maximum exposure. He writes:

Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, it’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release at http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive

By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.

In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.

Here are the main results:

  • The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
  • The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
  • Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
  • As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.

Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.

An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.

By implication, supernovae also determine the amount of oxygen available for animals like you and me to breathe. So the inherently simple cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis now has far-reaching consequences, which I’ve tried to sum up in this diagram.

Cosmic rays in action. The main findings in the new Svensmark paper concern the uppermost stellar band, the green band of living things and, on the right, atmospheric chemistry. Although solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays is important to us on short timescales, its effects are smaller and briefer than the major long-term changes controlled by the rate of formation of big stars in our vicinity, and their self-destruction as supernovae. Although copyrighted, this figure may be reproduced with due acknowledgement in the context of Henrik Svensmark's work.

By way of explanation

The text of “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” is available via  ftp://ftp2.space.dtu.dk/pub/Svensmark/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf The paper is highly technical, as befits a professional journal, so to non-expert eyes even the illustrations may be a little puzzling. So I’ve enlisted the aid of Liz Calder to explain the way one of the most striking graphs, Svensmark’s Figure 20, was put together. That graph shows how, over the past 440 million years, the changing rates of supernova explosions relatively close to the Earth have strongly influenced the biodiversity of marine invertebrate animals, from trilobites of ancient times to lobsters of today. Svensmark’s published caption ends: “Evidently marine biodiversity is largely explained by a combination of sea-level and astrophysical activity.” To follow his argument you need to see how Figure 20 draws on information in Figure 19. That tells of the total diversity of the sea creatures in the fossil record, fluctuating between times of rapid evolution and times of recession.

The count is by genera, which are groups of similar animals. Here it’s shown freehand by Liz in Sketch A. Sketch B is from another part of Figure 19, telling how the long-term global sea-level changed during the same period. The broad correspondence isn’t surprising because a high sea-level floods continental margins and gives the marine invertebrates more extensive and varied habitats. But it obviously isn’t the whole story. For a start, there’s a conspicuous spike in diversity about 270 million years ago that contradicts the declining sea-level. Svensmark knew that there was a strong peak in the supernova rate around that time. So he looked to see what would happen to the wiggles over the whole 440 million years if he “normalized” the biodiversity to remove the influence of sea-level. That simple operation is shown in Sketch C, where the 270-million-year spike becomes broader and taller. Sketch D shows Svensmark’s reckoning of the changing rates of nearby supernovae during the same period. Let me stress that these are all freehand sketches to explain the operations, not to convey the data. In the published paper, the graphs as in C and D are drawn precisely and superimposed for comparison.

This is Svensmark's Figure 20, with axes re-labelled with simpler words for the RAS press release. Biodiversity (the normalized marine invertebrate genera count) is in blue, with vertical bars indicating possible errors. The supernova rates are in black.

There are many fascinating particulars that I might use to illustrate the significance of Svensmark’s findings. To choose the Gorgon’s story that follows is not entirely arbitrary, because this brings in another of those top results, about supernovae and bio-productivity.

The great dying at the end of the Permian

Out of breath, poor gorgon? Gasping for some supernovae? Named after scary creatures of Greek myth, the Gorgonopsia of the Late Permian Period included this fossil species Sauroctonus progressus, 3 metres long. Like many of its therapsid cousins, near relatives of our own ancestors, it died out during the Permo-Triassic Event. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgonopsia

Luckiest among our ancestors was a mammal-like reptile, or therapsid, that scraped through the Permo-Triassic Event, the worst catastrophe in the history of animal life. The climax was 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian Period. Nearly all animal species in the sea went extinct, along with most on land. The event ended the era of “old life”, the Palaeozoic, and ushered in the Mesozoic Era, when our ancestors would become small mammals trying to keep clear of the dinosaurs. So what put to death our previously flourishing Gorgon-faced cousins of the Late Permian? According to Henrik Svensmark, the Galaxy let the reptiles down.

Forget old suggestions (by myself included) that the impact of a comet or asteroid was to blame, like the one that did for the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic. The greatest dying was less sudden than that. Similarly the impressive evidence for an eruption 250 million years ago – a flood basalt event that smothered Siberia with noxious volcanic rocks covering an area half the size of Australia – tells of only a belated regional coup de grâce. It’s more to the point that oxygen was in short supply – geologists speak of a “superanoxic ocean”. And there was far more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now.

“Well there you go,” some people will say. “We told you CO2 is bad for you.” That, of course, overlooks the fact that the notorious gas keeps us alive. The recenty increased CO2 shares with the plant breeders the credit for feeding the growing human population. Plants and photosynthetic microbes covet CO2 to grow. So in the late Permian its high concentration was a symptom of a big shortfall in life’s productivity, due to few supernovae, ice-free conditions, and a lack of weather to circulate the nutrients. And as photosynthesis is also badly needed to turn H2O into O2, the doomed animals were left gasping for oxygen, with little more than half of what we’re lucky to breathe today.

When Svensmark comments briefly on the Permo-Triassic Event in his new paper,Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth,” he does so in the context of the finding that high rates of nearby supernovae promote life’s productivity by chilling the planet, and so improving the circulation of nutrients needed by the photosynthetic organisms.

Here’s a sketch (above) from Figure 22 in the paper, simplified to make it easier to read. Heavy carbon, 13C, is an indicator of how much photosynthesis was going on. Plumb in the middle is a downward pointing green dagger that marks the Permo-Triassic Event. And in the local supernova rate (black curve) Svensmark notes that the Late Permian saw the largest fall in the local supernova rate seen in the past 500 million years. This was when the Solar System had left the hyperactive Norma Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy behind it and entered the quiet space beyond. “Fatal consequences would ensue for marine life,” Svensmark writes, “if a rapid warming led to nutrient exhaustion … occurring too quickly for species to adapt.”

One size doesn’t fit all, and a fuller story of Late Permian biodiversity becomes subtler and even more persuasive. About 6 million years before the culminating mass extinction of 251 million years ago, a lesser one occurred at the end of the Guadalupian stage. This earlier extinction was linked with a brief resurgence in the supernova rate and a global cooling that interrupted the mid-Permian warming. In contrast with the end of the Permian, bio-productivity was high. The chief victims of this die-off were warm-water creatures including gigantic bivalves and rugose corals.

Why it’s tagged as “astrobiology”

So what, you may wonder, is the most life-enhancing supernova rate? Without wanting to sound like Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss, it’s probably not very far from the average rate for the past few hundred million years, nor very different from what we have now. Biodiversity and bio-productivity are both generous at present.

Svensmark has commented (not in the paper itself) on a closely related question – where’s the best place to live in the Galaxy?

“Too many supernovae can threaten life with extinction. Although they came before the time range of the present paper, very severe episodes called Snowball Earth have been blamed on bursts of rapid star formation. I’ve tagged the paper as ‘Astrobiology’ because we may be very lucky in our location in the Galaxy. Other regions may be inhospitable for advanced forms of life because of too many supernovae or too few.”

Astronomers searching for life elsewhere speak of a Goldilocks Zone in planetary systems. A planet fit for life should be neither too near to nor too far from the parent star. We’re there in the Solar System, sure enough. We may also be in a similar Goldilocks Zone of the Milky Way, and other galaxies with too many or too few supernovae may be unfit for life. Add to that the huge planetary collision that created the Earth’s disproportionately large Moon and provided the orbital stability and active geology on which life relies, and you may suspect that, astronomically at least, Dr Pangloss was right — “Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”

Don’t fret about the diehards

If this blog has sometimes seemed too cocky about the Svensmark hypothesis, it’s because I’ve known what was in the pipeline, from theories, observations and experiments, long before publication. Since 1996 the hypothesis has brought new successes year by year and has resisted umpteen attempts to falsify it.

New additions at the level of microphysics include a previously unknown reaction of sulphuric acid, as in a recent preprint. On a vastly different scale, Svensmark’s present supernova paper gives us better knowledge of the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy.

A mark of a good hypothesis is that it looks better and better as time passes. With the triumph of plate tectonics, diehard opponents were left redfaced and blustering. In 1960 you’d not get a job in an American geology department if you believed in continental drift, but by 1970 you’d not get the job if you didn’t. That’s what a paradigm shift means in practice and it will happen sometime soon with cosmic rays in climate physics.

Plate tectonics was never much of a political issue, except in the Communist bloc. There, the immobility of continents was doctrinally imposed by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. An analagous diehard doctrine in climate physics went global two decades ago, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was conceived to insist that natural causes of climate change are minor compared with human impacts.

Don’t fret about the diehards. The glory of empirical science is this: no matter how many years, decades, or sometimes centuries it may take, in the end the story will come out right.

===============================================================

For those who would doubt our cosmic connections, Svenmark’s work and Calder’s article reminds me to remind you of this well known quote:

The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff. – Carl Sagan

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

434 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard verney
April 25, 2012 1:58 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 24, 2012 at 7:34 pm
///////////////////
Yes, but the reason why the IPCC claim that CO2 is a significant driver rests upon the ‘we can’t think of any other explanation for the temperature changes during the 20th century other than CO2’
If there are other explanations for those temperature changes, the claim that CO2 may be a significant driver loses force.
It could well be the case that a doubling of CO2 has little if any affect.

sophocles
April 25, 2012 2:17 am

albertalad said:
“…– no one has ever answered my questions on ice ages and warm intergalactic periods”
=============================================================================
umm—do you mean “interglacial periods?”
Prof Shaviv at Jerusalem University has published some research which you may find informative in this area at:
http://www.sciencebits.com/iceages

J.Hansford
April 25, 2012 2:30 am

I like many aspects of Svendsmark’s new paper and hypothesis, but mainly because it confirms my own bias towards that kind of thinking….. a stance which of course isn’t scientific, but I am not a scientist, so I have the luxury of indulging myself…. However, I am also a born skeptic so I will watch with interest to see what valid arguments are presented against this new hypothesis and whether it can stand up to questioning and indeed grow stronger by it…. and of course if it doesn’t, then science still gains insights into what doesn’t have effects on our planet, life, climate and everything.
Watching the process of good science is so damn interesting.

J.Hansford
April 25, 2012 2:42 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 24, 2012 at 11:53 am
[…]
If Mann wrote this, people here would be hooting and hollaring.
==================================================================
I wasn’t aware that Svendsmark was hiding his data and methodology……. If so. Then he deserves the same condemnation and derision that is directed at Mann.
If Svendsmark is open about his science Steven, then why would we be “hooting and hollering”? …. Surely we would be respectfully directing his attention to mistakes and oversights….Hmmm?

sophocles
April 25, 2012 2:57 am

Willis said:
Really? If so … why have most of the ice ages occurred in the last three million years? And when I look at Frisch (2000), it’s listed as “Frisch P., 2000, American Scientist, 88, 52″.
====================================================================
The present ice AGE started about 2.5 My ago. It has had a number of GLACIATIONS and a number of interglacial warmings. Don’t confuse a galaciation as being an “ice age.” It isn’t—it’s part of an ice age, as an interglacial warming is too.
You could check Shaviv’s paper at
http://www.sciencebits.com/iceages

Bengt A
April 25, 2012 3:05 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 24, 2012 at 4:08 pm
The idea that supernovae regulates mutations and thereby indirectly evolution is furthermore not new at all.
Who is claiming that this is a new idea? Svensmark is referring to it as the consensus explanation to how cosmic rays affects biodiversity and offers his own new complimentary explanation that there is an effect of cosmic rays on biodiversity via climate change (s.18). You still don’t seem to have grasped the core arguments within this paper.

April 25, 2012 3:19 am

[snip . . OT, and covered extensively already . . kbmod]

April 25, 2012 3:25 am

ferd berple says:
April 24, 2012 at 8:10 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 24, 2012 at 7:28 am
I would take exception to equating the solar cycle change with that of a magnetic reversal. The latter having a much larger effect.
That suggests that changes in the earth’s magnetic field affects climate in non-trivial ways. Something not allowed for in the climate models.
See my modest contribution
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
http://tinyurl.com/c9o7q9

izen
April 25, 2012 3:50 am

Legatus says: April 24, 2012 at 8:13 pm
“The logic gap you are missing is:
If increasing GCRs increase cloudiness and cooling, then…
Decreasing GCR’s may decrease cloudiness and create more warmth.
The warmth currently attributed to manmade CO2 may be largely because of decreased GCR’s instead.
Therefor the question of GCRs is central to the idea of climate change.
Absolutly central.”
Except that the measured level of both GCRs and cloud cover during the recent decades of warming show no trend.
Interesting that the analysis of the supernova rate from outside the Sun’s galactic orbit, which shows regularity, and inside the galactic orbit, which is irregular supports the solar system being very close to the co-rotation rate where the orbital velocity and the speed of the spiral density waves that form the galactic arms are the same. Svensmark uses the Reid2009 estimate for the speed of the solar galactic orbit which is generally considered on the high side. Using a more mainstream value and given the estimate of the spiral arm rotation rate the relative velocity is negligible.
Any variation in GCR comes from the outer portion of the arms going by, not the inner.
One problem with the timing is that the best reconstructions of the galactic structure have our galaxy as a barred spiral with four, asymmetric spiral arms. Svensmark uses a old estimate of the galactic structure and position/spacing of the arms. The asymmetry means the period would alternate between long and short gaps between peaks. Not an even cycle.
So what we have is a possible means by which GCRs may vary by a factor 2 over a period of 120Myr. Or possibly 80Myr of some other period depending which open cluster catalogue is used. That MAY have some influence on something on the Earth, but probably not through a direct cosmic ray effect. GCRs vary much more as a result of geomagnetic changes, and the past history of magnetic reversals and partial magnetic excursions like the Lachamp event impose much greater variation on the GCR level for far longer than any supernova.
I cannot see how this speculative association of open cluster age variation in the local region and climate on the sub-millennial timescale has ANY connection.

Barefoot boy from Brooklyn
April 25, 2012 4:32 am

Although I find Svensmark’s theory provocative and, to me also, hopeful, I really wish people would withhold judgement just a few weeks, if not years or millennia. His theory is going to be attacked at so many points it is going to make your head spin. For one additional thing, his measurement of biodiversity is not going to make it through a gauntlet of objections, the jury is still out on the whole ionization-to-cloud-formation mechanism, and other problems are being pointed out here. Not that there are not good counter-objections to those problems, just that it is not going to be sorted out in our lifetimes; well, not in mine anyway. If the current anthropogenic theories are to be taken down, they will be through the failure of their models to make good predictions, I don’t see how that will bear much relationship to the debate and verification procedure regarding Svensmark, as earth-shaking and appealing as it may be to me and others. On the other hand, I probably shouldn’t be concerned about taking down current theories, either. The article is an important landmark on the journey towards truth.

W. Sander
April 25, 2012 4:35 am

Just now we get corresponding results from thew ICE Cube Neutrino Observatory, direct from the South Pole: http://icecube.wisc.edu/news/view/52. They prove that gamma ray bursts are not the origin of cosmic rays. So there is room for new theories. An Svensmark offers one which seems to be a very good one. Two threads are meeting. And there is a third one too: The Cern-Results of the CLoud-Experiment from August 2011.
But: if you take all three threads together, you are in the realm of political incorrectness.

Barefoot boy from Brooklyn
April 25, 2012 4:38 am

I meant that his measurement of biodiversity is going to have to make it through a gauntlet, not that his measurement is doomed to fail.

April 25, 2012 5:11 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 24, 2012 at 11:08 pm
no point sources of cosmic rays should be visible at TeV energy scales
Again, this is at very high energies [of the order of 1000 times that of the bulk of the cosmic rays] and while not at the highest ones still orders of magnitude larger than the GCRs that Svensmark has in mind and hence orders of magnitudes more rare and thus irrelevant.
W. Sander says:
April 25, 2012 at 4:35 am
Just now we get corresponding results from thew ICE Cube Neutrino Observatory, direct from the South Pole: http://icecube.wisc.edu/news/view/52. They prove that gamma ray bursts are not the origin of cosmic rays.
Same confusion as Willis’s: This finding is about the rare very high-energy cosmic rays, not the ones Svensmark has in mind.
Bengt A says:
April 25, 2012 at 3:05 am
new complimentary explanation that there is an effect of cosmic rays on biodiversity via climate change (s.18). You still don’t seem to have grasped the core arguments within this paper.
The ‘core argument’ has to wait until page 18 to be presented, so seems incidental. Svensmark also offers the intriguing idea that CO2 is important in warming the Earth [page 19]:
“if a cooling reduces the loss of CO2 to geochemical weathering, that could lead to a buildup of CO2 if other sinks and sources of CO2 remain constant, and so dampen or reverse the cooling”.

Craig Little
April 25, 2012 5:14 am

When does the movie come out to educate the masses that there are alternative possibilities to AGW? I’m serious. If people can’t see it on the big screen they won’t believe it. Please give the politicians and university staff tickets for advance screenings. Thanks in advance to whoever does this first.

Henry Clark
April 25, 2012 5:25 am

Adrian Kerton says:
April 25, 2012 at 3:25 am
See my modest contribution
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
http://tinyurl.com/c9o7q9

Glancing at your paper, you might enjoy looking at this:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
For a sample extract, it argues “solar storms induce strong electric currents, acting as an electro-magnetic brake on the vortex itself, as reflected in the negative correlation between solar activity and geomagnetic field in the HB area.” There are graphs and much more discussion.
But Vukcevic, the author, is a poster here, previously active in this very comment thread (probably reading this within the next few hours), so I’m not the one to comment further on it.
A couple other notes though:
1) I’ll be frank this is a fast comment, and I have not examined your paper and its references beyond a rather quick look at the moment. However, doing a brief search for the reference #27, finding Glatzmaier 2002 online at http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/pub/glatzmaier_annrev_2002.pdf , it doesn’t appear to me to be blatantly ruling out external mechanisms on short timescales, the kind of timescales relevant to variation in solar activity within the 20th century. So, when your paper said “the possibility of some external mechanism that affects both the position of the poles and global temperatures cannot be discounted,” indeed I would particularly look into that…
2) With regard to the part on page 6 about cosmic ray flux history versus temperatures, see this, such as figure 2:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf
Anyway, I think your paper is interesting. Investigation of what the above is suggesting might help further avenues of research, for future papers to synthesize still more sources of data together, which could be awesome.

RangerRick
April 25, 2012 5:29 am

Wasn’t the relatively close supernova that created the Crab Nebula recorded in the middle of the 11th century? Wasn’t it shortly after this event that the Vikings were driven off Greenland and the Earths tempurature plummeted? Is this just coincidence? or could the two be connect with Dr. Svensmark’s theory. Interesting to say the least……

Steve from Rockwood
April 25, 2012 5:44 am

This is going to take awhile to chew through but if the super novae Goldilocks theory is true then suddenly there are far fewer civilizations present in our Universe.

Jurgen
April 25, 2012 5:48 am

Climate and weather
and in between
How it all goes
remains to be seen
As part of the cosmos
we go by its rules
But drinking a coffee
also adds some joules
Macro and micro
do play their part
So it may be the sun
or it may be a fart

April 25, 2012 5:50 am

Bengt A says:
April 25, 2012 at 3:05 am
new complimentary explanation that there is an effect of cosmic rays on biodiversity via climate change (s.18). You still don’t seem to have grasped the core arguments within this paper.
It seems to me that the core argument is that Svensmark is using biodiversity as support for his [actually Ney’s] idea that cosmic rays influence the climate [together with CO2 as he also states].

Steve from Rockwood
April 25, 2012 5:53 am

sophocles says:
April 25, 2012 at 2:57 am
Willis said:
Really? If so … why have most of the ice ages occurred in the last three million years? And when I look at Frisch (2000), it’s listed as “Frisch P., 2000, American Scientist, 88, 52″.
====================================================================
The present ice AGE started about 2.5 My ago. It has had a number of GLACIATIONS and a number of interglacial warmings. Don’t confuse a galaciation as being an “ice age.” It isn’t—it’s part of an ice age, as an interglacial warming is too.
You could check Shaviv’s paper at
http://www.sciencebits.com/iceages
——————————————————–
Link is broken.

Bengt A
April 25, 2012 6:06 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:11 am
The ‘core argument’ has to wait until page 18 to be presented, so seems incidental.
In my experience most researchers put their conclusions at the end of the paper.
There seems to be some confusion about what Svensmark is really saying in this paper. In my opinion the most interesting statements are these (maybe someone beg to differ?):
• A link between Super novae and climate on earth could help to refine our understanding of the structure of The Milky Way. ”… mismatches with climate might encourage a reexamination of some astrophysical data. And a foretaste of other
clues for astrophysicists comes from evidence presented in Sect. 6 that short-lived falls in sea level recorded by seismic stratigraphy promise high-resolution dating of supernova events closest to the Earth..” (s.18)

• Galactic Cosmic Rays impact on the atmosphere of the earth can be a complementary explanation of earths climatological history through geological time. ” More promising is the innovation here concerning a likely link between major short-lived falls in sea level and the nearest supernovae. The proposition that intense GCR fluxes from close supernovae caused glaciations and associated eustatic regressions in sea level finds a persuasive match in the computed high temporal resolution of GCR variation based on statistics of nearby supernovae.” (s.18)
• Galactic Cosmic Rays seems to affect biodiversity via climate change over geological time. ”On the other hand, GCR seem to exert a strong though indirect evolutionary influence by varying the climate.” (s.18)

April 25, 2012 6:33 am

Bengt A says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:06 am
There seems to be some confusion about what Svensmark is really saying in this paper.
As I read it, Svensmark is looking for supporting evidence for the faltering notion that cosmic rays control the climate. Faltering because solar activity at present is on par with that of a century ago, while the climate is not. So, he is claiming that since supernovae are the cause of high biodiversity [nothing new] and of cosmic rays in the 10-20 Gev range [again nothing new] that the causal relationship is via climate, hence supporting Ney’s contention that our climate is controlled by GCRs. But such alleged causation is not needed as there are others explanations for the relationships.

durango12
April 25, 2012 6:41 am

One wonders whether the relatively distant Crab Nebula supernova explosion of 1054 might have played a role in the Little Ice Age that is denied by the alarmists.

April 25, 2012 6:45 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
Faltering because solar activity at present is on par with that of a century ago, while the climate is not.
Henry says
I have a problem with that statement,
clearly we don’t know what happened a century ago with climate
(unless you can bring me calbration certificates of thermometers that are 100 years old?)
In addition I now found that earth has alread dropped by 0.2 degrees K since the beginning of this century.
With the method I used I don’t rely much on calibration because I looked at the differences in temperature compared to its average measured over a certain time period…
I have 44 measuring points all over and I sampled in such a way that I balanced my table by latitude as well as 70/30 sea /land as much as possible. Longitude is not important as the earth rotates every 24 hour. Perhaps the only bias was in chosing weather stations that have a complete record or where the record was almost complete.
It is true that I am currently (still) the only one who is making the claim that global cooling has already started and that we dropped by 0.2 degrees C from 2000. – I fear there are perhaps too few scientists interested in climate change that finished their studies in Statistics….
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

tallbloke
April 25, 2012 6:49 am

Willis says:
In any case, if there’s one supernova every thirty years, where is the signature in the temperature record? For Svensmark’s theory to hold, shouldn’t we see a big dip in temperature after each and every supernova?

_______________________________________
Supernova 1604, also known as Kepler’s Supernova, Kepler’s Nova or Kepler’s Star, was a supernova that occurred in the Milky Way, in the constellation Ophiuchus. As of Feb 2012, it is the last supernova to have been unquestionably observed in our own galaxy, occurring no farther than 6 kiloparsecs or about 20,000 light-years from Earth. Visible to the naked eye, it was brighter at its peak than any other star in the night sky, and all the planets (other than Venus), with apparent magnitude −2.5. It was visible during the day for over three weeks.
Johannes Kepler’s original drawing depicting the location of the stella nova, marked with an N (8 grid squares down, 4 over from the left).
The supernova was
first observed in northern Italy on October 9, 1604.[2] Johannes Kepler began observing it on October 17.[3] It was subsequently named after him because of his book on the subject entitled De Stella nova in pede Serpentarii (“On the new star in Ophiuchus’s foot”, Prague 1606).
__________________________________
What happened to the Earth’s climate in the decades following 1604?
“a big dip in temperature “

1 9 10 11 12 13 18
Verified by MonsterInsights