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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
434 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 27, 2012 11:53 am

Willis
I’ve followed all your links in your reply, and the links behind those, right to the end so I now understand the whole root-system that threw up your “sport” focussing on Jelbring whom I only mentioned in passing, and not even to say whether or not I actually agreed with his paper. Please note, he is a professor. Now you noted elsewhere the presence of professors on the thread – Robert Brown being one of course – with the implication that their word should not just be instantly dismissed – with which I agree.
My comments for now are “Hare and Tortoise”.
And my offer is still open. I do however think you were unnecessarily rude and unscientific in your reply, despite your claims that I am the unscientific one. But I still think you are a genius when it comes to questioning material in already-accepted stuff, like Levitus and Shakun. And your speed, wow! Just that your abilities are not always on the mark, and new science is where your blind spots show most.
cheers
LS

rgbatduke
April 27, 2012 1:13 pm

Cher Lucy,
Just realize that my not to be instantly dismissed word on Jelbring is that his work should instantly be dismissed…;-)
As should any other work that asserts a hypothesis that overtly violates the second law of thermodynamics and ignores the dynamical open system nature of adiabatic lapse rates, etc. As I have pointed out in considerable detail on other threads.
However, I also do very much oppose rudeness — necessary or otherwise — in list replies. I’m pretty good at some parts of physics, but am a child in comparison with Lief in his primary domain of astrophysics, for example. So there I require constant correction because I can build wonderful mental models and so on but base them, sadly, on an incorrect understanding of the underlying facts, theories, and evidence. Fortunately, Lief is very gentle and systematic in providing that correction without making me feel bad (memories of Saturday Night Live, “Jane, you ignorant slut…” come to mind:-)
So might we all be to each other. It is quite possible to be rigorous and firm in our discussions of (and sometimes shredding of) individual’s work without ad hominem or ad feminem attacks on their person, their character, their motives. It is sometimes unavoidable to point out their ignorance, but even this should be done in charity. Thus do we all learn.
So while Jelbring may be mistaken — as I, myself, am often enough mistaken — I have no doubt that he is sincere in his errors. Indeed, I think most climate scientists are quite sincere in their errors. It is a sure sign of the political nature — not scientific — of the debate that there is so much incivility in it. Scientists actually almost never call each other names in public or accuse each other of being “deniers” of Newton’s Laws or Quantum Theory or the like, nor do they threaten to prosecute or persecute their rivals for being wrong or opposing their pet theories. Yet these things are far from unknown in climate science — in both directions.
So sad.
rgb

Editor
April 27, 2012 3:52 pm

Lucy Skywalker says:
April 27, 2012 at 11:53 am

Willis
I’ve followed all your links in your reply, and the links behind those, right to the end so I now understand the whole root-system that threw up your “sport” focussing on Jelbring whom I only mentioned in passing, and not even to say whether or not I actually agreed with his paper.

My apologies, Lucy. My problem was that when you said that Jelbring was part of ” a tradition even older than that of Arrhenius and Callendar, that has recently produced a whole spate of work, practical experiments and data fitting theoretical maths and physics”, that sounds a whole lot like praise to me. You had said:

And it’s not just N&Z talking about pressure-induced atmospheric temperature, there is a tradition even older than that of Arrhenius and Callendar, that has recently produced a whole spate of work, practical experiments and data fitting theoretical maths and physics. Graeff, following Loschmidt. Now not just Jellbring and Gilbert but also Sorokhtin. And a growing number of climate skeptics, many of whom have diverted currently to Tallbloke’s threads.

If that’s not praise for Jelbring, then you you need to reconsider your choice of words …
You also say

Please note, he is a professor. Now you noted elsewhere the presence of professors on the thread – Robert Brown being one of course – with the implication that their word should not just be instantly dismissed – with which I agree.

Hey, I didn’t “instantly dismiss” Jelbring. I dismissed him at great length, and with a host of citations and details.
Finally, my focus on Jelbring is not “sport”. As you protest, he is a professor at a university, so his totally jive hypothesis is more likely to garner attention from those who may not understand the issues. As a result, it is important to show that he doesn’t have a clue about gravity and climate …
w.

Spector
April 27, 2012 8:30 pm

Here is an impressive video presentation on the Svensmark Theory:
“Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery”
“Uploaded by rwesser1 on Jul 24, 2011”
61 likes, 5 dislikes, 4,943 Views, 52:46 min.
“Henrik Svensmark’s documentary on climate change and cosmic rays.”

It should be noted that increased cloud formation also implies more active transport of heat from the surface by convection because cloud formation releases the heat of vaporization, which will, in turn, allow a rising column of air to rise to even higher altitudes.

April 27, 2012 8:56 pm

rgbatduke says:
April 27, 2012 at 10:19 am
but apparently there is a very large scale process related (perhaps) to the smaller scale process that goes on in stars and planets that produces not only magnetic fields, but fields with intriguing structure and symmetry in galaxies.
Yes there are similar processes at work in addition to the magnetic field coming from stars. Magnetic fields are almost indestructible in dilute plasmas.
GCR rates thus modulate within the galactic plane, fine, but is that modulation correlated with SN rates within the galaxy on the right time scales?
I would think so, in the sense that the GCR flux is a time-average [over millions of years] of the SN-rate. Should we have a very close SN, that might give us a local enhancement, but we have not had any for a long time.
and if charged particles are helically following the field lines one would expect the modulation of the GCR rate to be predominantly related to the local magnetic field strength, not a global modulation of supernova rates in the galaxy.
In addition to filamentary, the field is also tangled, twisted, and turbulent, so really works as a very large set of magnetic ‘mirrors’ that scatter the GCRs rather than guide them in any organized way.
making the rate of supernovae in any given galaxy far, far smaller. There is still a serious problem in statistics and estimates of plausible signal to noise here.
The GCRs we see are produced by ~a quarter million supernovae, so will not vary much.
As a matter of curiosity, does the local galactic magnetic field temporally vary on a directly measurable scale in the vicinity of the Sun (measurably over the baseline of instrumentation available to measure it)?
No temporal variation is known.
i>Is there secular variation of GCR rates from non-solar sources over that same time frame?
We don’t know, but I don’t think so from the arguments given above.
I think that I recall from Svensmark’s first paper that he was more inclined to correlate climate cycles with the bobbing of the sun up and down in the galactic plane, moving it in and out of domains of greater or lesser GCR rates, but if the GCRs are associated with localized filamentary structures in the galactic magnetic field, might they not modulate on a much shorter (and much more random) time scale?
I don’t think so. It is an observable fact that no spatial variation has been found across the sky, and that in my book translates into no temporal variation on time scales of interest. But there is a lot of uncertainty when trying to extrapolate from no observed variation to significant changes in space and time.

April 27, 2012 10:09 pm

rgbatduke says:
April 27, 2012 at 10:19 am
Is there secular variation of GCR rates from non-solar sources over that same time frame?
There is a very strong modulation by the [only approximately known] variation of the geomagnetic field, a modulation that is much larger [10X] than the solar modulation. Svensmark tries to circumvent that by claiming that only GCRs with energy higher than 10 GeV are effective climate modulators. These GeV GCRs are modulated less by the Earth’s field, but by the same token also less by the Sun, so the problem is still there.

tallbloke
April 28, 2012 12:43 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm
rgbatduke says:
April 27, 2012 at 10:19 am
Is there secular variation of GCR rates from non-solar sources over that same time frame?
There is a very strong modulation by the [only approximately known] variation of the geomagnetic field

On the timescale of a few hundred years, there is local variation in the geomagnetic field which is much greater than the global variation. So we might expect effects on a regional basis. Given that some 35% countries by area show a decline in temperature over the C20th rather than an increase, this might support the hypothesis, though with the caveat that there may be other regional factors to consider.

April 28, 2012 1:12 am

Willis: Finally, my focus on Jelbring is not “sport”.
My apologies. I was using an entirely different meaning of “sport” as in “vigorous new shoot (usually a tree) thrown up in unexpected place from vigorous root system.” No allusion to the other kind was meant. I assumed you would know the botanical version.
Willis and Robert, thanks to you both for your considered responses. Much appreciated.
I have been studying this Second Law of Thermodynamics. Currently there appear to be a number of serious and capable physicists and at least one capable physicist engineer challenging at least some aspects of it. My mention of Jellbring was in that context. I’m preparing an article but a deep challenge requires a thorough and context-sensitive investigation of both the science and the history and the people involved, and IMHO a lot of work on courtesy. I cannot produce an article at even a fraction of your speed, Willis!

Editor
April 28, 2012 1:34 am

Lucy, my apologies for my misunderstanding. As usual, you are more genteel and kind in your response than I deserve. Good luck with your studies, times spent studying is never wasted.
All the best,
w.

tallbloke
April 28, 2012 3:46 am

rgbatduke says:
April 27, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Just realize that my not to be instantly dismissed word on Jelbring is that his work should instantly be dismissed…;-)
As should any other work that asserts a hypothesis that overtly violates the second law of thermodynamics and ignores the dynamical open system nature of adiabatic lapse rates, etc. As I have pointed out in considerable detail on other threads.

Hi Robert, two points:
1) The Loschmidt paradox is still unresolved after 120 years so the question of second law violation or non-violation is still an open one. The experimental evidence from Graeff supports Loschmidt and I urge replication at a certified lab.
“Experimentum summas judex” – Experiment makes the judgement
– Albert Einstein –
2) The gedanken experiment Jelbring set up is not addressed by ” the dynamical open system nature of adiabatic lapse rates” because in Jelbring’s gedanken experiment the system is not open. This is why Willis’ thread on the topic also missed the mark.

April 28, 2012 4:55 am

tallbloke says:
April 28, 2012 at 12:43 am
On the timescale of a few hundred years, there is local variation in the geomagnetic field which is much greater than the global variation.
Well, the ‘much’ is a bit overblown, but let that slide, because for the cosmic ray variation it is the global field that matters most. This is because the cosmic rays approach the Earth from afar and therefore only see basically the global dipole. All local variations decrease rapidly with height leaving only the lowest order variations standing. On the other hand, the external field in the magnetosphere is also important, so the computation becomes very complicated.

April 28, 2012 5:37 am

tallbloke says:
April 28, 2012 at 3:46 am
The Loschmidt paradox is still unresolved after 120 years
The Big Bang takes care of that. Of course, if you are a Big Bang denier, then you set yourself up for the ‘paradox’.

tallbloke
April 28, 2012 6:09 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 28, 2012 at 5:37 am
tallbloke says:
April 28, 2012 at 3:46 am
The Loschmidt paradox is still unresolved after 120 years
The Big Bang takes care of that. Of course, if you are a Big Bang d*nier, then you set yourself up for the ‘paradox’.

The big bang theory is dead, but its zombie still staggers around trying to strangle all opponents. It’s coterie of gatekeepers and guardians can ban dissidents from using the big telescopes, but still the evidence accumulates as enterprising youngsters find better ways to use the smaller ones to confirm the crucial experiment and add further empirical evidence to it.
Interesting that you use the ‘D’ word with impugnity here on WUWT. Anthony used to frown on that. You have defined yourself now.

April 28, 2012 8:13 am

tallbloke says:
April 28, 2012 at 6:09 am
The big bang theory is dead
BB is more alive than ever. Modern precision cosmology defines a golden age for astrophysics. Humanity can be proud of that accomplishment.
You have defined yourself now.
There are times where that word is appropriate. This is one one them. I have defined myself as my fellow astrophysicists leading the way forward out of the age of superstition, ignorance, and pseudoscience. You have defined yourself as well-mired in that swamp and you tarnish ‘the Best Science Blog’ with your nonsense.

April 28, 2012 4:41 pm

Spector says:
April 27, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Here is an impressive video presentation on the Svensmark Theory:
“Svensmark: The Cloud Mystery”
“Uploaded by rwesser1 on Jul 24, 2011″
61 likes, 5 dislikes, 4,943 Views, 52:46 min
I watched this video embedded in Spector’s comment, this morning, and I so very much enjoyed it. I found that it helped me greatly to understand Dr. Svensmark’s theory and his research. . . and his struggle to overcome the PCness that resists any opposing voices in the climate change forum. I posted an article on my own blog embedding this video, and I am passing it to as many of my contacts and acquaintances as possible.
You may disagree with Dr. Svensmark’s theory, but the video is fascinating in its own right for the understated way in which the opposition to other voices is documented.
I very highly recommend watching this video.

Editor
April 28, 2012 6:08 pm

Willis – you say “Svensmark has made what are to me a number of dubious choices, such as the choice of the WEBDA database, that he has neither justified nor explained“. Not so, he does just that in para 3. You might not like it, you might not think he does it well, you might disagree with his decision, but he does it. Steven Mosher criticises differently, saying that Svensmark should have used every available dataset separately. Given the inherent lack of precision in data on ancient times, I would have thought that Svensmark’s approach was quite reasonable – he looks at all four, he finds that WEBDA is a close match to the average of the other three, so he goes with WEBDA. If the precise wiggles in WEBDA are of crucial significance, then there is merit in SM’s criticism, but I haven’t worked right through the paper yet in order to judge. There’s a lot of it…

Editor
April 28, 2012 6:44 pm

Mike Jonas says:
April 28, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Willis – you say “Svensmark has made what are to me a number of dubious choices, such as the choice of the WEBDA database, that he has neither justified nor explained“. Not so, he does just that in para 3. You might not like it, you might not think he does it well, you might disagree with his decision, but he does it.

Svensmark says:

Figure 4 show the WEBDA result (red curve) together with the widely used Dias et al. (2002, 2010) catalogue (green curve) and the Kharchenko et al. (2005) catalogue (blue curve). Although there are differences, the main features are similar and the average of the three data sets (black curve) follows the WEBDA results closely.

Thanks, Mike. Perhaps things are different where you live, but saying that they look “similar” is neither a justification nor an explanation on my planet. It is handwaving.
w.

Pierre
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 28, 2012 8:58 pm

If the “justification” by Svensmark is dubious (which Willis admits), then the explanation fails. Correct? The hand-waving is done in the Svensmark paper. Would you accept this sort of “similarity” in a AGW article? No–you demand perfection in their arguments.

rgbatduke
April 29, 2012 7:54 am

I have been studying this Second Law of Thermodynamics. Currently there appear to be a number of serious and capable physicists and at least one capable physicist engineer challenging at least some aspects of it.
Dearest Lucy,
There are various ways of describing the second law, but if I were you I would — literally — not bet against it. Your odds of winning the lottery a dozen times in a row are far, far greater than the odds of observing a macroscopic violation of the second law.
I would be most interested in knowing the actual names of “serious and capable” physicists who challenge the second law. My own favorite quote on the subject is this:
The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme
position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that
your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s
equations then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found
to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do
bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the
second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing
for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World
(1915), chapter 4.
Once you understand why entropy always increases, you will understand why no competent physicist to my knowledge would ever challenge the second law on a macroscopic scale in a system with many degrees of freedom. It simply describes the evolution in time of a complicated system from less probable to more probable states. And when I say “less”, and “more” I mean almost infinitely — the probability that the entropy of the Universe (or any isolated subset thereof with more than a very few bodies) will spontaneously decrease is a number so small that, while it isn’t quite zero, it lives just around the corner from zero and their kids attend the same schools, that sort of thing. Numbers so small that you could spend a lifetime just writing out the zeros before the first nonzero digit in the probability.
There are very simple experiments you can do to learn about entropy. Put some salt in a (closed, sealed) glass of water. Stir it. The salt dissolves. Stir all you want to — the salt will not ever turn back to salt and precipitate out. It isn’t quite as good (because the particles aren’t identical) but put some salt and pepper in a sealed jar and shake it. Shake all you want, once the salt and pepper have mixed they won’t unmix. Take a deck of cards and sort it out into all red cards and all black cards (we won’t even care about value). Do a fair shuffle of the deck. The red and black cards mix. You can shuffle the deck over and over again and not see it ever sort out into all red followed by all black again.
The latter is probably the easiest to understand. There are many, many card orderings with red and black cards mixed. There are far, far fewer that have all of the cards sorted out red first then black. If you start in one of them, and have almost any “interaction” with the deck that results in the cards moving around and swapping places, after a bit the chances are near unity that if you take a peek at the deck at any given instant, red and black will be all mixed up, not sorted.
That’s it, the second law in a nutshell. So when people postulate exotic results that can only be true if the second law is violated, ask yourself — what are the odds? Because in general the odds are far, far larger that you’ll pick up a deck of cards at random, shuffle it three or four times, and deal out all of the cards in perfect suit order, low card to high card, than they are that you’ll observe a macroscopic violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
rgb

Jurgen
April 29, 2012 8:21 am

Leif has been the only one reacting to a question of me in this tread, and this shows I think both my question was a bit OT and Leif’s patience and generosity in sharing information.
On the other hand, there have been more sidesteps here, say regarding thermodynamics, big bang and things. So I think I may share an informative link here. It’s a lecture of Renate Loll on the quantum origin of space and time. I found this jewel looking for the use of dimensions in quantum mechanics. It is very basic and directed to a general audience. As her approach depends on the use of computers it is instructional and relevant to a central topic on WUWT, the limitations and pitfalls with the use of computer models. To avoid them in her approach the “input ingredients” are kept as limited and simple as possible. Ockham would smile here.

rgbatduke
April 29, 2012 8:27 am

Hi Robert, two points:
1) The Loschmidt paradox is still unresolved after 120 years so the question of second law violation or non-violation is still an open one. The experimental evidence from Graeff supports Loschmidt and I urge replication at a certified lab.
“Experimentum summas judex” – Experiment makes the judgement
– Albert Einstein –
2) The gedanken experiment Jelbring set up is not addressed by ” the dynamical open system nature of adiabatic lapse rates” because in Jelbring’s gedanken experiment the system is not open. This is why Willis’ thread on the topic also missed the mark.

Dearest Tallbloke,
In my opinion, the question of second law violation is not open, and see absolutely no “paradox”. Indeed, it is rather trivial to formally prove that there is no paradox, because the Universe itself is necessarily in a zero entropy state and remains there at all times, classically or quantum mechanically. However, to properly address universal entropy in the first place it is necessary to first understand Jaynes’ derivation of statistical mechanics from the Cox axioms and Shannon’s theorem, and to be able to address it in any partitioned subvolume of spacetime it is also necessary for you to work through the Nakajima-Zwanzig formalism and understand the Generalized Master Equation, and then apply either Keynes’ “principle of indifference” (old form) or Jaynes’ “maximum entropy” principle (same thing, new form) to formulate the quantum statistical mechanics of open systems.
On the other hand, even without doing all that, you could read over my previous post working through the first few steps in understanding it as they might be presented in an undergrad intro course in thermodynamics. In the end, what matters is the odds — the probabilities. It is not impossible for the second law to be violated. It is very, very, very (iterate for the lifetime of the Universe repeating “very”) very improbable for a macroscopic, persistent violation of the second law to be observed in any nontrivial system. Working through the detailed algebra that proves this (and fully understanding the result) is one of the most painful and difficult experiences of a physics Ph.D.’s education, and sadly, a very few never quite make it, but I assure you that it is so and that you can understand it yourself at least semi-heuristically if you try.
Jelbring’s gedanken experiment is absolute nonsense no matter how you slice it or dice it. It is simply wrong from the beginning to the end. Both Willis and I spent a rather long and patient time demonstrating that. Adiabatic lapse rates only exist in open turbulent systems being warmed at the bottom. Thermal gradients are invariably associated with the flow of heat, unless you literally block all possible channels for the transmission and sharing of energy.
Finally, as Lief observes, the Big Bang does explain the temporal entropic asymmetry (which is, bear in mind, itself a matter of perspective). What explains the Big Bang, what determined the microscopic details of the initial state, whether those details were inherited from a still earlier or still larger Universe are all open, and very difficult indeed, questions. Whether or not there exists “true randomness” in the Universe (including in the context of quantum theory) is similarly an open question, and in the end, the same question.
But even without true randomness, even ignoring the “big” question about the entropy of the Universe itself, citing Loschmidt does not in any way explain how an adiabatically isolated gas could end up in a thermodynamically stable state with a stationary thermal gradient.
rgb

Paul Tanksley
April 30, 2012 8:39 am

PaulT .. says.. Note how this ties in with Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “GODFORSAKEN” !!

Spector
May 1, 2012 12:42 am

I note that Piers Corbyn, in his 22 minute, Weather Action Meeting 27/4/12, is saying that this paper and the theory behind it are flawed. He points out that the eleven year solar cycle does not show up in temperature the record but a twenty-two year cycle does and he thinks that Svensmark is using a deceptive average of the solar magnetic intensity to hide this mismatch. (Of course, when combined with the Earth’s magnetic field, there really is a 22 year magnetic period–with one opposing 11-year cycle and one assisting 11-year cycle. ) Corbyn apparently thinks that publication of this ‘defective’ paper might be some ‘warmist’ plot to discredit opposition to the carbon-dioxide climate driver theory.
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn01IJo1JjE

May 1, 2012 4:08 am

Spector says:
May 1, 2012 at 12:42 am
I note that Piers Corbyn, in his 22 minute, Weather Action Meeting 27/4/12, is saying that this paper and the theory behind it are flawed.
Corbyn predicted strong tornadic activity in the US the past week. Instead we got a large snow storm, no tornadoes. So perhaps Corbyn should not be taken too seriously.

tallbloke
May 1, 2012 4:31 am

Leif Svalgaard says:
April 28, 2012 at 8:13 am
There are times where that word [denier] is appropriate.

Not in scientific debate there isn’t. It’s an ugly slur with fascist connotations and you invoke Godwins law by using it. No excuses are viable. It’s just appalling behaviour, end of.
I have defined myself as my fellow astrophysicists leading the way forward out of the age of superstition, ignorance, and pseudoscience. You have defined yourself as well-mired in that swamp and you tarnish ‘the Best Science Blog’ with your nonsense.
Haughty pride goes before a fall. Your attacks against those whose research leads in directions you disapprove of shows nothing more than the narrowness of your perspective. It reflects more on you than the people you attack.
There is more in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.

tallbloke
May 1, 2012 4:48 am

rgbatduke says:
April 29, 2012 at 8:27 am
Jelbring’s gedanken experiment is absolute nonsense no matter how you slice it or dice it. It is simply wrong from the beginning to the end. Both Willis and I spent a rather long and patient time demonstrating that. Adiabatic lapse rates only exist in open turbulent systems being warmed at the bottom. Thermal gradients are invariably associated with the flow of heat, unless you literally block all possible channels for the transmission and sharing of energy.

Neither you nor Willis actually addressed Jelbring’s gedanken experiment, as I pointed out previously. You view thermodynamics in terms of heat. Along with modst of the rest of the physics and engineering world I view it in terms of energy. A given volume of air in a gravitational field contains kinetic and potential energy. The lower you are in the field, the less potential energy is part of the total. If the total energy is even throughout, then there is more kinetic energy lower down and more potential energy higher up.
What explains the Big Bang, what determined the microscopic details of the initial state, whether those details were inherited from a still earlier or still larger Universe are all open, and very difficult indeed, questions. Whether or not there exists “true randomness” in the Universe (including in the context of quantum theory) is similarly an open question, and in the end, the same question.
The discovery by astronomers of large scale quantum structure in the universe is a big problem for big bangers. So are Halton Arps anomalous redshift galaxies. The establishment got away for long enough with the tiny probability that the quasar in the blob of gas at the end of the tendril of gas joining it to the parent galaxy was a chance alignment of two objects at different distances, and refusing to publish Arps study with the appropriate wavelength images, and banning him from using the telescope. But since the two Spanish researchers found two more quasars in the tendril in 2002 also with different redshifts, that possibility has diminished essentially to zero. There are plenty of other falsifying discoveries, once you look under the rug where they got swept.
But even without true randomness, even ignoring the “big” question about the entropy of the Universe itself, citing Loschmidt does not in any way explain how an adiabatically isolated gas could end up in a thermodynamically stable state with a stationary thermal gradient.
You should take a read of the Loschmidt thread on my website Robert. Some pretty high powered physicists and maths experts had an excellent discussion there.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/the-loschmidt-gravito-thermal-effect-old-controversy-new-relevance/
Cheers
TB.