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
Jeremy
April 24, 2012 8:51 am

…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…

Let’s please be cautious and not fall into the same trap as those we wish to see step down from their untenable positions of belief.

April 24, 2012 8:58 am

Salby and Svensmark need to get together and go on a worldwide tour…

John F. Hultquist
April 24, 2012 8:58 am

John Coleman says:
April 24, 2012 at 8:20 am
You just introduced “ice ages and interglacial periods into a discussion of a theory about something else – or so it seems to me. The Milankovitch cycles, updated:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-defense-of-milankovitch-by-gerard.html
. . . make a lot of sense. Time overlaps with the forces of the current Svensmark theory may be expected.

Editor
April 24, 2012 9:00 am

Nigel Calder notes:

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.

I suppose that’s better than his bitter alternative:

And there would have been less time for so many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts to be taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.

I haven’t read the paper yet, but at first glance it looks interesting. It’s not quite as impressive as the paper that traced the changes in seafloor sediments with distance from the mid-Atlantic ridge which convinced me that plate tectonics was real, but we’ll see how many people join Calder’s marching band.

rgbatduke
April 24, 2012 9:07 am

So, is it asserted that the recent return to ice age conditions (starting, gradually, 3 mya or thereabouts) was caused by a sudden increase in the number of “nearby” supernovae? Is it asserted that a truly nearby nova, e.g. the one that created the crab nebula and neutron star in 1054 (a mere 6500 LY away) modulated and/or continues to modulate the climate?
I’m afraid that I have to go along with Lief here and be deeply skeptical of this result for the time being. If it explains ice ages it should explain the most recent ice age, the one we are in now. Bear in mind that the current warm interglacial conditions are not the most stable and persistent climate state for the Earth at the moment, and that the modulators that trigger bistable oscillation warm to cold phase have absolutely nothing to do with supernova rates.
It should, however, be trivially simple to do a direct count of supernova remnants in near space and at least approximately date them to determine whether or not they are a plausible explanation for the beginning of the Pliestocene. I’d be far more inclined to consider (relatively) recent past numbers as being meaningful than to consider inferences about the very distant past indeed to be meaningful.
It should also be noted that there are competing hypotheses that explain ice ages, such as Erlich’s quite recent paper on solar diffusion waves (which I independently proposed a few days ago — in far less detail — after reading and thinking some about the fusion core and planetary tides). Erlich’s work purports to find reason to associate the process with the right frequencies to explain Pliestocene climate bistability, however, although it fails to establish a comprehensive link or fill in all the details of the causal mechanism. Longer term explanations such as oscillations in the hydrogen-helium burning fractions in the Sun with a proposed period on the order of several hundred million years is yet another one that has “some agreement” with extinction and evolution boundaries and some alignment with ice ages versus warm periods. However all of these correlations tend to be noisy because at the same time these things were going on, Pangea was breaking up, continents were sliding around, volcanism was dumping variable amounts of this and that into the air, the oceans were changing their depth over vast stretches, the land-based biosphere was exploding, the moon was receding (and tides altering), the Sun was bobbing up and down in the galactic plane, asteroids were crashing down, and there are probably a half-dozen other important modulators modulating this or that and changing e.g. global circulation patterns nearly discretely in geological time.
So at the moment, before conferring the Nobel Prize, perhaps we should sit back and try to disprove the hypothesis, or stack it up against competing hypotheses, or see if it always works or was just sometimes coincident with major events, and above all, to examine the evidentiary basis for its primary assertions for things like “nearby supernova rates” on the order of a billion years ago. I teach astronomy off and on, and have a bit of an idea of how things are dated and distances established, but I’m not sure I have a clear idea as to how one would determine near-Sun supernova rates 500 milllion years ago with any sort of precision.
rgb

Ian W
April 24, 2012 9:09 am

An interesting note is that the Pleiades is a very indistinct star cluster even on a dark clear night. Not particularly impressive. Yet the Pleiades seem to feature in almost every ‘ancient’ text and several ‘religions’ worldwide. This was a puzzle – but perhaps the ancients new something that we did not.

Scottish Sceptic
April 24, 2012 9:15 am

Jeremy says:April 24, 2012 at 8:51 am
Let’s please be cautious and not fall into the same trap as those we wish to see step down from their untenable positions of belief.
Jeremy, the key point is that this paper was published by hard science. For years people like Svensmark have been prevented from getting on which proper, measured science by eco-nutters like Mann and Hansen who run global warming “science” like some men’s club.
But in one fell swoop, Svensmark has found a way around these nutters: the world is just a planet like any other. When considering things on a global scale, it is as valid to view it from the earth surface outward as it is to view it from the aspect of the whole of space looking inward.
Just be changing the perspective … the subject remains the same, but the referee suddenly becomes real science.
Suddenly the log jam of eco-non-science & “global warming” has been broken and climate “science” now has a real competitor … over which they have no control.

April 24, 2012 9:17 am

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

Sherlock
April 24, 2012 9:17 am

I keep wondering if these revelations we are seeing about how CO2 does not control every phenomenon on Earth will finally give the climate pseudo-scientists and their political and media enablers the wiggle room they need to bail out of the big con they have been working – time is running out!

Jim G
April 24, 2012 9:21 am

So we can determine over a 400mm year period when, how energetic and the orientation in space relative to the earth supernovae blasts were as well as the condition and orientation of the suns sheltering effect relative to these bombardments at these various estimated times? My mind is open but this seems a little thin as the be all answer to the variations in life on our planet. Not that cosmic rays might not have some possibly significant effect but there are simply too many other variables which may also be in the soup as well as the potential for inaccuracies over such a long period of time. Like the CO2 as the main driver of climate this seems somewhat lacking the sniff test. And yes, correlations can, indeed, be spurious.

Bill Marsh
April 24, 2012 9:27 am

Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:
So are there any stars near Sol that are candidates to go supernova soon?
==========================
Don’t know, how close is Betelgeuse and, more importantly, is it ‘close enough’?

Berta Lane
April 24, 2012 9:27 am

So Spinoza was right: we DO live in the best of all possible worlds!

Ian W
April 24, 2012 9:27 am

Paul Westhaver says:
April 24, 2012 at 8:26 am
Ok so I read the paper…. all of it… even the “tricky” math. Referring to the FTP paper conclusions…
“the speculations about episodic effects of e.g. a closerthan-
usual SN (Fields & Ellis 1999) or variations in the interstellar
medium (Frisch 2000) have demonstrated no persistent influence
on life and climate.”
OK
There was a lot of babble in this paper.

You may be making the mistake of considering ‘no persistent influence’ is the same as no influence – an internittent apparently random major influence would also be described as ‘no persistent influence’.
From an evolutionary perspective a persistent influence can be protected against by nature evolving to best fit with that peristent input – an intermittent major influence cannot be coped with by normal evolution.

Sun Spot
April 24, 2012 9:28 am

A Cosmic game of hockey, how will the team react ?

Matthew R Marler
April 24, 2012 9:35 am

Let’s give it some few years more before we jump on the bandwagon, shall we? Some time for, perhaps, energetic skeptical review? And, perhaps, confirmation by future events that may or may not turn out as predicted?
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.
On that I disagree. Just because we are ignorant is no excuse to celebrate a new mega-theory based on mutually supportive coincidences. A megatheory as grand as this requires much more evaluation: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary justification. This is a solid hit for Svensmark, but the game has many innings to go.

EW-3
April 24, 2012 9:36 am

It’s as if we’ve returned to the point where the average person thought the world was flat, but a handful of people knew the truth. Trying to convince the masses of this will be like trying to convince the masses the earth is round.
To someone living in a large urban area surrounded by the sights and sounds (and smells) of human creation it’s going to be difficult to get them to believe that “tiny” distant objects can have such profound influence over us. Might be hard for their egos.
But to be fair, it still looks like the sun revolves around the earth when I look up on a sunny day. It’s difficult to imagine the ground I am standing on is in fact spinning out from beneath my feet 😉

MarkW
April 24, 2012 9:38 am

Hell_Is_Like_Newark says:
April 24, 2012 at 8:06 am
So are there any stars near Sol that are candidates to go supernova soon?

I believe the nearest is Betelguese (sp?) which is in it’s red giant phase. It’s close enough that it will be spectacular, far enough away that it won’t threaten life on earth. Though if Dr. Svensmark is correct, it will probably cool things off for a few decades.
I postulated a few months ago about a possible link between the supernova that formed the crab nebula and the little ice age. Can I pat myself on the back a little?

Marlene Anderson
April 24, 2012 9:39 am

It gives new meaning to the Pater Noster. “Our Father, who art in heaven.”
The heavens bring life to earth.

Werner Brozek
April 24, 2012 9:42 am

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.
Job 38:31
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt?
Job 38:30-32 (in Context) Job 38 (Whole Chapter)
Did Job know something we don’t know?

Daniel Vogler
April 24, 2012 9:42 am

I think Betelguese is almost time for supernova. Will be like a second sun for a day or 2 if i remember, brightness wise.

Robert of Ottawa
April 24, 2012 9:49 am

So, how does he cont the number os past local supernovas?

Steve.
April 24, 2012 9:49 am

Thank you Anthony Watts. May you live long and prosper!

Bengt A
April 24, 2012 9:53 am

Leif!

If the time stamps are correct you spent six min reading before posting your first comment. A first impression is always interesting but this paper is about how super nova affects climate on earth. It is NOT about how the sun modulates cosmic rays. Did you notice? If you read Results, Discussion, Conclusion and Abstract in the article there is nothing about solar cycles. Your comment is irrelevant and you seem more eager to debunk Svenmark than to analyze this paper.

lgl
April 24, 2012 9:54 am

Why not; more cosmic rays > more mutations > more biodiversity ?

pat
April 24, 2012 9:55 am

Hmmm.this will drive the Warmists mad. Astrophysicists have been saying that the CO2 -CAGW hypothesis is wrong for years. Not because they are experts on the global toxicity of CO2, but because so many events and measures are incorrectly attributed to CO2. But they have been talking to themselves, waiting for real science to intrude into the discussion. Of course the embargo by agenda driven editorial boards on the publication of any study that even implied that CAGW was wrong meant the outlet for competeing views was very narrow.