
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.

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.

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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Wow. This reads like real Nobel prize-winning work, not crap like IPCC voodoo science and Al Gore. Can we start [SNIP: Sam, it is too early in the morning for this. How about just giving the article two thumbs up, five stars, etc. without baying for blood… -REP].
HenryP says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:45 am
clearly we don’t know what happened a century ago with climate
But Svensmark claims to know the climate the past billion years…
tallbloke says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:49 am
Supernova 1604, also known as Kepler’s Supernova, Kepler’s Nova or Kepler’s Star, was a supernova that occurred in the Milky Way, […]
What happened to the Earth’s climate in the decades following 1604?
“a big dip in temperature “
Typical for the pseudo-science going around. The cosmic rays generated by that supernova [and Tycho’s in 1572] will not arrive for another several million years.
durango12 says:
April 25, 2012 at 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.
I doubt it, Kepler’s Nova in 1604 is a more likely candidate for that, but it might have played a role in the undoubtedly cold period in the latter half of the C11th. The Thames froze for seven weeks in 1061. In England severe winters were noted in 1020, 1032/33, 1043/44, 1047, 1061, 1063, 1067/68, 1073/74, 1076/77, 1085/86, and 1092/93.
WOW Anthony update time!! Cern wieghs in!
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1435746/files/SPSC-SR-101.pdf
rresults:
“In view of the CLOUD results, the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours and water alone. Secondly, CLOUD has found that cosmic ray ionisation can substantially enhance nucleation of sulphuric acid/ammonia particles—by up to a factor of 10. Ion-enhancement is particularly pronounced in the cool temperatures of the mid-troposphere and above, where CLOUD has found that sulphuric acid and water vapour can nucleate without the need for additional vapours. ”
Well Svensmark is defenitely upp for the Nobelprize. And salbys article will put IPCC out of its misary
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:03 am
The cosmic rays generated by that supernova [and Tycho’s in 1572] will not arrive for another several million years.
Of course. My mistake, thanks for the reminder on the different velocities of photons and protons.
tallbloke says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:08 am
I doubt it, Kepler’s Nova in 1604 is a more likely candidate for that, but it might have played a role in the undoubtedly cold period in the latter half of the C11th.
The nonsense continues…
tallbloke says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:11 am
Of course. My mistake, thanks for the reminder on the different velocities of photons and protons.
It is not so much the difference in speed [the protons move close to light speed anyway], but the fact that the protons are charged and thus bump around in the tangled galactic magnetic fields for millions of years before arriving near us.
L
@- Leif Svalgaard says: April 25, 2012 at 7:16 am
“It is not so much the difference in speed [the protons move close to light speed anyway], but the fact that the protons are charged and thus bump around in the tangled galactic magnetic fields for millions of years before arriving near us.”
Does that delay have any effect in spreading the GCRs from the close cluster supernovas over several million years?
Would it further smooth out the variations in GCRs so that the peaks modelled by Svensmark would be flattened?
izen says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:48 am
Does that delay have any effect in spreading the GCRs from the close cluster supernovas over several million years? Would it further smooth out the variations in GCRs so that the peaks modelled by Svensmark would be flattened?
A little bit, but the peaks are on a time scale of a hundred million years so not much.
“Cosmic climate” has a ring… as Earth’s paltry little G2 system swings in conjunction with galactic arms, we’d like to see an animation depicting episodic SNs pulsing in rhythm with our Milky Way’s ultra long-term “respiration,” the alternate expansion-contraction common to all complex dual-dynamic systems compressing major nuclei (super Black Holes) at their variable centers.
Tying our celestial dust-mote’s climatic circumstances to phenomena on a 100,000 LY scale [a typical mid-size galaxy’s diameter] is certainly a visionary exercise. Meantime, the idea that such exo-factors have not contributed to Earth’s post-Proterozoic climate regimes seems quite far-fetched.
Slabadang says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:10 am
WOW Anthony update time!! Cern wieghs in!
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1435746/files/SPSC-SR-101.pdf
————————————————————————————————-
Many thanks for the link, not sure if you noticed but there is a “Version 2” of the report. I do not know what, if any, the changes maybe. Time difference is only 8 mins.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1435746/files/SPSC-SR-101.pdf?version=2
Both can be seen at:-
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1435746/files/?docname=SPSC-SR-101&version=all
Ok so when can we stop destroying our energy future based on false science? I’m tired of waiting and what Progressives are doing to our economy.
Adrian Kerton says:
April 25, 2012 at 3:25 am
Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
http://tinyurl.com/c9o7q9
Which suggests strongly that the IPCC “we can’t think of any other reason” rational for choosing CO2 as the climate driver is a logical fallacy. “We can’t find anyone else that could have committed the crime, so you must be the guilty party.”
It is well established that large changes in the magnetic field coincide with large changes in climate. The earth’s magnetic field is changing quite rapidly. This suggests strongly that changes in the field could be responsible for a large portion of the climate change currently attributed to CO2. If this is the case then CO2 sensitivity must be lower than current estimates.
ferd berple says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
It is well established that large changes in the magnetic field coincide with large changes in climate.
“It is not what we know that gets us in trouble, but what we know, that ain’t”
ferd berple says: April 25, 2012 at 7:53 am
”It is well established that large changes in the magnetic field coincide with large changes in climate.”
I have seen the opposite claim, that the Lachamps PME for example has no significant climate signal associated with it.
Perhaps you could provide a link to clear evidence of large climate changes caused by geomagnetic changes?
Just had a weird thought about the Svensmark Theory. Astrologers may have been right all along — the stars DO influence our lives.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:16 am
tallbloke says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:11 am
Of course. My mistake, thanks for the reminder on the different velocities of photons and protons.
It is not so much the difference in speed [the protons move close to light speed anyway], but the fact that the protons are charged and thus bump around in the tangled galactic magnetic fields for millions of years before arriving near us.
Apart from the ones travelling down ‘flux tubes’ straight towards us of course. 😉
“When plasma moves through a dust or gas, the cloud becomes ionized and electric currents flow. The currents generate magnetic fields that confine themselves into coherent filaments known as Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents squeeze galactic plasma into thin filaments that remain collimated over great distances. Astronomical observations reveal that the material from some galactic jets travels more than 30,000 light-years.
The charged particles that compose the currents spiral along the magnetic fields, appearing as electrical vortices. Surprisingly, Felix Aharonian of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies suggested that “..there could be a ‘tube’ of magnetic field lines extending between the source and our solar system, funnelling the cosmic rays towards us.”
Heretical ‘pseudo-science’ as far as you are concerned I’m sure.
Hannes Alfven was a pretty smart guy though…
Jeremy says: April 24, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Allan MacRae,
All your points about CAGW having lost the scientific debate are solid. However, the problem is that the propaganda war has already been won by Greens!
________
Perhaps you are right (regarding the “war”) for the moment Jeremy, but I think the tide is turning.
The science is inexorably grinding towards a new conclusion – whether it be “low sensitivity to CO2 ” or “temperature drives CO2, not the reverse”
Regions like Western Europe, California and Ontario that have fully embraced CAGW nonsense have driven up their energy costs, and cannot afford it.
The global economic crisis is NOT over, it is temporarily in remission. We will soon need to focus on real problems, not fictitious ones.
Finally, I think Earth has entered a natural cooling cycle – even the most ardent warmists will have a difficult time explaining that reality (mind you they can always change their tune: “cooling IS warming” – it’s already starting, btw.)
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. “
Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942
tallbloke says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:12 am
The charged particles that compose the currents spiral along the magnetic fields, appearing as electrical vortices. Surprisingly, Felix Aharonian of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies suggested that “..there could be a ‘tube’ of magnetic field lines extending between the source and our solar system, funnelling the cosmic rays towards us.”
Heretical ‘pseudo-science’ as far as you are concerned I’m sure.
Hannes Alfven was a pretty smart guy though…
Appealing to authority, again?
Pseudo-science is not heretical, just wrong.
Think of the probability that a thin flux tube from 20,000 ly away snakes it way to just our tiny solar system. Anyway, the cosmic ray sky in the GeV range is uniform and isotropic, no point sources to be seen, so no funnels.
Willis,
“I’d have to see a citation for that claim, William. Svensmark takes the reverse tack, saying that the star clusters begin to generate supernovas about three million years after their formation …
w.”
As an aside, I believe the more commonly accepted time frame for the life of the massive type star or star system needed to go supernova after its birth is more like 10 million years. Not very long in the scheme of stellar lives but about it for a young, very massive hot star to go supernova from everything I have read.
Thanks for the above pointers to further investigations, I’m still looking for a cause to explain the corr. One of the papers I came across in my research was by Shaviv and Veizer,
In 2002, Shaviv hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way’s spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. In his later work, co-authored by Jan Veizer, a low upper limit was placed on the climatic effect of CO2.
Willis Eschenbach says:April 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Steve Keohane says:April 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm (Edit)
Willis Eschenbach says: April 24, 2012 at 2:40 pm
” […]
But a recent paper “Relative sea-level fall since the last interglacial stage: Are coasts uplifting worldwide?“, evaluated some 890 of the paleo-shorelines worldwide. They say:
The results show that most coastal segments have risen relative to sea-level with a mean uplift rate higher than 0.2 mm/yr, i.e. more than four times faster than the estimated eustatic drop in sea level.”
After reading it, I don’t understand the relevance of the paper you linked to WRT it showing an argument against what Svensmark is saying. The paper talks about >0.2mm/ year uplift, so for 12K years you get almost 8 feet, relative to the sea level rise of ~300 feet since then. I don’t see how the former affects an assessment of the latter. We’re talking 0.2 vs. 7.62 mm/yr. Is it simply that it might supply that error in estimating a date for a layer of geographic deposition?
Svensmark is talking about millions of years … over which time 0.2 mm per year adds up. Here’s his Figure 19, which purports to show the correlation between sea level and biodiversity:
Over a million years, 0.2 mm/year is 200 metres …
w.
Thanks Willis. I don’t see this working at either scale. There may be some influence, and the elegance of the theory is seductive, but it looks like there should be some confounding with other influence(s). This seems similar to parsing out 1.3°F over decades with daily swings of 20-60°F. Comparing that to Δ~300 feet between glaciations, trying to find what would be .2mm/yr, assuming a constant or average flux of GCRs, seems like the old needle in a haystack.
tallbloke says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:12 am
there could be a ‘tube’ of magnetic field lines extending between the source and our solar system, funnelling the cosmic rays towards us.”
Furthermore, the cosmic rays are not produced by the supernovae explosion itself, but be subsequent acceleration of particles by the debris over the next several thousand years, so there will be none just a few years after the explosion, funnel or not.
Well, it is over my head for sure, so I’ll avoid discussing the hypothesis and address the idea that this trumps those claiming climate change impacted by human activity.
The controversy surrounding climate change is being exploited by those industries most affected by any regulations to reduce industrial emissions. Of course those industries will work to keep the controversy alive in order to stall those regulations.
My issue is that the steps suggest to address climate change are the same ones that would reduce the toxic and particulate emissions that degrade the air we breathe, the water we drink and the soil we grow our food in. These are both immediate and undeniable.
It is a given that the Barons are more concerned about their profits than they are the life quality of everyone else, especially those living nearby and more directly affected.
If we fix the problems in evidence then we will have plenty of time to ponder the cosmic impacts on our climate. If we don’t there’s a good change that the next climactic change will have no one to witness.