
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.



A fascinating and elegant theory. I hope it survives the many arrows which will no doubt be flung at it!
I wonder if this could tie in with the recent article questioning whether the current increase in CO2 levels is natural rather than man-made. That could finally take climate out of mankind’s hands and leave us to tackle the solveable problems of pollution, overfishing and destruction of habitat.
Clouds??….
…we can’t have no stinking clouds
There’s got to be anouther explanation for atmospheric CO2….
if not, why did CO2 levels rise so high and then crash when it was in the thousands ppm…
Is there a possible link between this paper and the following from the excellent ‘Digging in the Clay” which discusses a fascinating lecture by Dr Gerry Pollack?
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/shedding-new-light-on-clouds/
I will have to read and fully digest over a few days on this one. I’m sure the warmists will come out in their droves to pooh-pooh it though!
FWIW, I have always considered that the combined extraterrestrial influence (NO, I don’t mean ET, either!) must be significant, in some way shape or form; whether it be solar, GCR’s, obital changes, gravity, etc,etc. There is a (geo)logical reason for my ‘pre-belief’ in extraterrestrial influence – and that is because if we consider the earth as a relatively ‘closed’ system – and (from geology) we know that the climate has varied dramatically over the earths history – we can consider that once the initial cooling down took place, these kind of global wide climate changes cannot really be explained within a largely ‘closed’ system. [BTW – I love it when the warmists talk of climate equilibrium for exactly this reason – as there clearly hasn’t been any on a geological timescale!] Of course, we now know the earth is not really a closed system, but is impacted upon by various forms of ‘energy’ and its effects from lots of sources – the trick now, is to identify which are the major players and which are the minor ones.
I don’t think by any stretch of the imagination that CO2 can ever be called a driver, and have never accepted such claims. External (extraterrestrial) influences are at least more realistic, and if this paper shows that EES (Extraterrestial energy sources, LOL) are relatively easy to correlate to climate then I think the CO2 driver meme will hopefully be dead.
If one thing this proves, it would be that the science is no where near settled yet. Imagine what could be achieved for human kind if just a small percentage of the extravagance in funding of political alarmism was pointed towards real science and thinking such as this?
Thankyou Anthony and Svensmark et al , one for providing a platform and two for an astounding alternative to the rot that has been infecting the real science of late.
This is beautiful in it’s simplicity.
“…no matter how many years, decades, or sometimes centuries it may take, in the end the story will come out right.”
It’s the current LEFT TURN of the Science/Climate story that bugs me.
It’s time to go RIGHT.
My biggest question just from reading the abstract is this. How do we know what the rates of supernovas were in the past? How is that calculated? How is it verified? I seem to recall that we had to dig through Chinese history books to discover one or two in the past millenia, how do you go back in time before recorded history to discover the rates of SN explosions?
This seems like it would be mostly guesswork, or based on an unverified astronomical model. But I am not a professional astronomer.
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.
I am reminded more of the asteroid impact that was the last blow to the lives of dinasaurs. Every where that scientists looked for the iridium layer, they found it just about where it ought to be. When they hypothesized that the iridium layer ought to be thickest nearest the impact, they searched and found the hypothesized impact crater. Here, fluctuations in the GCR are hypothesized to affect life and temperature on earch. A new source of GCR fluctuations is found and studied, namely near earth supernovae; examination reveals evidence for the fluctions on earth that ought to have occurred in consequence, and such evidence is found, correlated as it ought to be with the supernova changes. The case that GCR fluctuations in Earth’s atmosphere, modulated by the solar cycles, create the climate cycles of the present and of the past 10,000 years just got stronger.
Correlation almost always implies causation, it just doesn’t usually imply a particular simple causal model, or support an interventionist strategy without further testing. As here, when the predicted relationship is confirmed by correlation, correlation confirms (i.e., in the scientific sense, does not disconfirm in a situation where it might have disconfirmed) the causal analysis. Note that the CO2 theorists make such a claim for CO2: scientists long ago predicted that atmospheric temperature would increase as CO2 increased, and it has happened. When a predicted correlation is found in data analysis, that confirms the hypothesis that predicted the correlation. So we have competing theories, all surviving on the evidence provided by correlational analyses. Right now, I personally might, if forced to choose, give more weight to the Svensmark hypothesis than to the CO2 hypothesis, but I am eager to see the results of the next 20 years’ worth of competition among the theories and theorists.
There is some modeling — have at it model-haters; the modeling looks basically sound to me (I’ll come back to that if there is extreme criticism of the models.) There is some least-squares estimation of parameters, but with a large number of observations compared to the number of parameters, so that isn’t an obvious weakness. Overall, this is a hit.
Hmm, when is Betelgeuse likely to go pop? Better not tell the Daily Mail about this paper 🙂
Does anyone else “hear” John Coleman in their heads when reading his comments? 8-]
Wonderful, Nigel Calder and Henrik Svensmark. Thank you. Personally I think Svensmark will get the Nobel prize eventually. Well, of course, Anthony and Steve Mc and Tallbloke should get it too, for their parts in the advancement of real science – with Transcendent Rant © for that delicious icing on the cake 🙂
Steve. says:
April 24, 2012 at 8:16 am
Hello Anthony.
Please feel free to comment on the following, even if yourself refuse to publish this on your wonderful site. I can understand the flak you wish to avoid with this being promoted on your blog.
But hey, it’s in the public domain. I’m thinking you might find the story interesting.
Planetary Defense: An Extraterrestrial Imperative
All the best.
Some very interesting Transcendent Rant in between all the science there. Hope Tallbloke picks this up.
Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see any obvious connection between this new theory and the old “Svensmark hypothesis” in climate science. Why is anyone so excited about this?
I really hope some sceptics will take a close look at all aspects of this paper and challenge (aka audit) the findings. After all we know that passing peer review is only the first step
That’s truly amazing, gave me tingles up the spine! How many Nobel prizes in store for Svensmark now?!
The last sentence of the abstract has reference to his idea that relative conc of the isotope 13Carbon (delta 13Carbon) is not contradicted by his hypothesis that SN rate increases bioproductivity. My nutshell interpretation is that if SN rates increase then cloud cover increases then earth cools then oceans absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere then marine life is fertilized which draws down even more CO2 from the atmosphere which will cause delta 13Carbon relative conc in the atmosphere to increase. To me Svensmark suggests that delta 13Carbon increase is what the geologic records show relative to increased SN rates.
I need to read more of the paper.
John
Lief’s still riding his scientific bicycle in circles. He’s one of those who likes comfort and hasn’t the energy or the will to drive the bike out of the circle. True scientists are in a constant mode of discovery. If we followed his method of non-discovery we’d still be hiding out in the bush chucking spears to catch our dinner. Thank goodness there are a lot of us out here including Anthony of course who want to discover and learn things we yet don’t understand
Real Science!
Svensmark provides a way to test his theory. If he is correct then we can use the geological records and paleo-fossils to PREDICT the structure of our galaxy. Based on what his theory predicts we can go out and look at certain parts of our galaxy and try to find evidence of high numbers of SN. This way we can help prove or disprove his hypothesis.
This is REAL science!
In comparison, what CAGW researchers do is more akin to sorcery or alchemy.
rgbatduke,
Leif didn’t say he’s skeptical of the result. He’s saying that it doesn’t say anything about the Sun affecting GCR significantly enough to drive temperature swings on the “decadal to millenial” time frame.
Leif is just cautioning people about reading into this more than is there (particularly regarding recent climate). He’s right.
Well, I happen to be one who believes, that in some small way, cosmic rays on earth do influence cloud formation (and location) but I have no idea how large an effect that is. But I’m not so sure that life on earth is dependent on the Pleiades.
Given, that so far as we KNOW, there isn’t any life outside a thin shell perhaps +/- 25 km about mean sea level, on planet earth; and none anywhere else, I find it difficult to credit cosmic explosions for our existence.
After all, we evolved out of nothing after these cosmic events occurred; so why isn’t life everywhere ?
This is definately getting a re-read tonight when I have more time. Oh and if anyone is worried about too much stellar stuff these are the ones: antares & betelgeuse. Do a search and see how big those suckers are!
Great work and glad to see it published.
Betelguese could have already blown and we wouldn’t know it yet. Luckily at 600+ ly it will look super cool but probably do no damage. Now if the axis was aimed at us a Gamma Ray Burst could do some serious damange. Luckiy it doesn’t appear to be the case.
Supernovas latest less than 1,000 light years: Vela supernova (800 light years) from 11 to 12,000 years ago (young dyras?). RX J0852.0-4622 (650 to 700 light years) year 1250 (little ice age?).
A couple of comments try to suggest that there is no way that cosmic rays could have enough of an effect. There’s just not enough of them.
Yet the argument for man made climate change is that just a little bit more of something that is so little of the atmosphere (CO2) is enough to have an effect.
Shouldn’t the relation between cold and productivity flip during an ice age such as the present? At such times, cold causes ice caps to descend to mid latitudes, blocking the sun from reaching the oceans or the soil and drastically reducing the surface area where photosynthesis can take place. Of course the amount of nutrients available is a limiting factor, but so is the amount of surface available for photosynthesis. It is counter-intuitive to think that the influence of cold on the availability of nutrients would dominate the surface area effect, but this is what Svensmark’s findings seem to show. The extended Carboniferous-Permian ice age shows the highest bio-productivity in the record. Surprising.
Do we know the extent of the ice caps at that time? Maybe the C-P ice age wasn’t all that icy? Then maybe there could still be a point beyond which which cooling does become a negative for productivity. (Certainly that would be the case for “ice ball earth” conditions.)
Could allow for a jiu-jitsu interpretation of the Permian-Triassic extinction. If cold was driven by supernova activity as Svensmark suggests, and if Svensmark’s supernova activity estimates are near the mark, then the peak (or the nadir) of the C-P ice age would have been at the tail end of the Permian, just before the extinction event began. Maybe the ice age got deep enough for ice cover to have put the brakes on photosynthetic production, then when the supernova activity dropped off, the planet got too hot, again presenting poor conditions for productivity.
A one-two punch like that, swinging out of the goldilocks zone first in one direction (deep ice cover) then in the other (nutrient poor heat), would certainly be tough for larger animals to survive, and would certainly help to explain that part of the extinction event.