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
April 24, 2012 11:28 am

Wow! Not so much of a eurica moment as when I first saw the magnet reversals in the oceanic basalts showing the march of strips that explained how contents move. This is a very compelling explination that is probably way closer to the mark then anything before. It even fits with the “snowball earth” suggestions. Is it corrent in every detal? Hell no but it dosen’t need to be either. This is not some kind of predictive model for people to obcess about nor is it the final word on anything. Lets us all, us geologists anyway, take a deep breath and get back to trying to understand stuff instead of trying to compell nature to our faith and sophistry.

Dodgy Geezer
April 24, 2012 11:32 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…
NO THEY SHOULDN’T!
I know what you mean – but your use of that phrase jars. If I can find a piece of this theory which does not hang together, I can ‘pooh-pooh’ it. I don’t have to offer up an alternative. I’m not saying that I can – I haven’t even read it yet, and it sounds like an exciting proposal. But we have to respond to this false argument so often from the AGW crowd that I don’t really like to see it here – even if it is mentioned lightly or in jest…

Jim G
April 24, 2012 11:34 am

ari says:
April 24, 2012 at 11:09 am
“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?).”
Cosmic rays do not travel at the speed of light as they are caused by particles that have rest mass. Knowing their arrival time would require knowing more than their distance of origin and date of the explosion but their launch velocity, intervening gas clouds which could inhibit them, & any angle of launch in the event the explosion was asymetrical as well. It would also be usefull to know the intensity and composition of the blast and the condition of the overall heliosphere at the time of their arrival to determine what might get through.
As I indicated earlier, correlating these issues over 400mm years would be difficult to say the least and at worst the variables involved are unknowable.

Ivan
April 24, 2012 11:37 am

“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.”
Moreover, Leif quoted Svensmark as saying exactly that, so I am puzzled why everyone is trumpeting this new paper as having any direct relevance to the old “Svensmark hypothesis”.

April 24, 2012 11:49 am

Alec, my guess is that some of that turbulance (circulation) isn’t caused by cold from clouds, it’s caused by changes in other fluid that also are ionized.

April 24, 2012 11:53 am

Robert of Ottawa says:
April 24, 2012 at 9:49 am (Edit)
So, how does he cont the number os past local supernovas?
############
He Doesnt. Its estimated. And Its modelled. It’s not an observation. There are other “records”
of the count. He looks at them, calls them “similar” and doesnt test his calculations WRT the selection of records.
If Mann wrote this, people here would be hooting and hollaring.

Crono141
April 24, 2012 11:55 am

Clearly, the only legitimate conclusion we can come to is that CO2 causes Supernovae.

April 24, 2012 11:55 am

If I was an AGW believer/follower/disciple/fanatic I would pooh pooh this by saying that although supernovas and cosmic rays may well have affected things up to 1970, since then it has been the evil of man and his burning of fossil fuels that have changed the cimate.

RonPE
April 24, 2012 11:57 am

This proud skeptic regularly boasts that humans have a limited effect beyond their local environment and that real changes are caused by geological and solar cycles. Now it appears that these changes may have even BIGGER CAUSES. I will need to add galactic cycles to that list.

John Blake
April 24, 2012 12:00 pm

From Conjecture to Hypothesis to Theory: Svensmark’s careful depiction has it all. Two points: Given only two (2) main variables, this “bipolar” thesis lends itself not to chaotic/fractal indeterminacy but to linear extrapolation. Such over-simplification is saved, however, by noting the incidence of relatively nearby supernovae as independent random variables.
Since (for all astrophysics knows) supernovae are scalar phenomena not physically linked in any way, their math/statistical occurrence, collectively or in isolation, is not amenable to rational prediction in detail. Nor in fact are plate tectonic distributions of continental landmasses… in combination, a Permian-type extinction could begin tomorrow, recur in the indefinite future, or never trouble Planet Earth again.
Wegener, Milankovich, now Svensmark– all are subject to pure observational verification whose directly realizable consequences make nonsense of agenda-driven scholastic exercises such as AGW catastrophism. Any so-called researcher clinging bitterly to hyper-politicized grant monies betrays affinity with Aristotle’s “impetus,” Ptolemaic epicycles– with J.B. Rhine, Trofim Lysenko, Immanuel Velikovsky. Ugh.

April 24, 2012 12:01 pm

Betelgeuse might go soon, about 500-600 Light Years away; it is in the red-supergiant phase. Think of a sun that fills our solar system out to between the orbit of Mars-Jupiter and you have a supergiant like Betelgeuse.
Rigel (Beta Orionis) is 700-900 Light Years away and has already transitioned to blue-supergiant phase, another candidate for a close supernova. Similar in size to Betelgeuse.
Antares is roughly 550 Light Years away and is another red-supergiant like Betelgeuse only a little larger.
If we see any one of them cook off, it’s sure going to be rough on the CAGW alarmists. If all three cook off in close sequence and we see that in the day sky (and we will). The it sure looks like hell is going to freeze over (nice to know all of those CAGW alarmists won’t have to suffer in the heat).
But, it may be all moot in a few billion years when our galaxy gets whacked by the Andromeda Galaxy. http://wn.com/The_Milky_Way's_Collision_Course_with_Andromeda. 2-4 million Light Years away and closing.

April 24, 2012 12:01 pm

Nicely done. Will be a fun read. On first glance, it echoes a bit what James Marusek has been writing about over at the Impact blog, though this paper is the much longer view. Cheers –
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/

NeedleFactory
April 24, 2012 12:18 pm

Mike Clark at 10:49am: Lief goes in circles, is lazy, lacks drive, etc.
Sorry, Mike, but I find your post offensive and gratuitous. Offensive, because it’s 100% ad hominem — and unsupported an hominem at that! Gratuitous, because it provides neither light nor information.
I appreciate Lief’s posts here.

Latitude
April 24, 2012 12:22 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 24, 2012 at 11:53 am
If Mann wrote this, people here would be hooting and hollaring
====================================
No Mosh, if Mann wrote this someone would have him locked up by now…………….

dp
April 24, 2012 12:26 pm

Cool – a “God” hypothesis. And it addresses questions I’ve had for decades regarding our galactic neighbors. This is going to make for some very interesting reading for years and years.

April 24, 2012 12:28 pm

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?
This is not a very hard question to answer. Betelgeuse and Antares are both red giants and about 600 lightyears away. These stars have an expected lifetime of about 10-million years and are about 9-million years old, give or take a couple million.
Because they are 600-lightyears away (and GCRs travel on average 40 percent the speed of light) if we were to see the light from their explosion today, it would be about 900 years later that the peak of the GCRs would reach us.
For perspective, solar wind particles travel at 0.2 to 0.3 percent the speed of light.

Gorgias
April 24, 2012 12:34 pm

Ah…God is a Quasar.
Perhaps Neitzsche misspoke.

Scarface
April 24, 2012 12:35 pm

It’s time for Michael Mann to start studying the treerings of his hockeystick,
which is another way to say: the damn thing is broken!
This paper by Svensmark is fantastic. He will be remembered as the modern Galileo.
The resemblance in the shift of focus caused by these two men is truly remarkable.

sean71
April 24, 2012 12:35 pm

Interesting, if only because it seems superficially to be a viable hypothesis for further investigation. We have correlation of some sort, and a tentative mechanism for causality. Certainly, there are big questions about the cloud causality which could easily take another 10 years of data to close out.
Most significant I think seems to be the suggestion that here we have a strong enough alternative theory which gives scientists a real possibility of making a significant breakthrough (or the chance of humiliation in 5-10 years time if they didn’t bother to check how this idea might apply to their work).
We can expect the hand-waving strawmen. It would be great to see some researched critique of this paper to get an idea of how strong it it. One for CA maybe (although cracking open a whole new dataset probably won’t appeal).

Gary
April 24, 2012 12:41 pm

I’ll waiting for Willis to give it a going over.

April 24, 2012 12:43 pm

Steven Mosher says: April 24, 2012 at 11:53 am

Robert of Ottawa says: So, how does he cont the number os past local supernovas?

He Doesnt. Its estimated. And Its modelled. It’s not an observation. There are other “records”
of the count. He looks at them, calls them “similar” and doesnt test his calculations WRT the selection of records.
If Mann wrote this, people here would be hooting and hollaring.

Svensmark’s paper actually says things like
The present results are no better than the data on which they are built, and the uncertainty of the data gets larger as one reaches further into the past. Estimated variations in SN rates are better determined for 250 – 0 Myr ago than for 500 – 250 Myr ago, because there are fewer clusters of old ages and because phase mixing tends to erase part of the memory of the birthplaces of the open clusters. On the other hand, consistencies in the comparisons with geological data lend support to the estimated SN rates, even in the earlier period. Without direct terrestrial records of the GCR variation on long time scales, the highly fluctuating flux due to nearby SNs remains a matter of numerical modelling, but again the geological record of sudden drops in sea level appears to support the analysis.
Models are unavoidable here, and have been “calibrated” against real data as far as possible, by someone who is mathematically literate, open to debate, wants the integrity of the science rather than the science-free IPCC kudos, and has paid the price.
No comparison with Mann at all.

Jamie
April 24, 2012 12:46 pm

I’m not wise and/or clever or not to comment on the veracity of this paper. I can follow the comments and debate, but the raw technical details is too much for me, a scientifically inclined layman.
But I can appreciate the ramification of the conclusions. Every so often a theory comes along that is not only fascinating and ground-breaking from for it’s field of science, but deeply profound and thought provoking from a philosophical point of view too.
Darwin’s theory of evolution, General relativity, quantum physics, to name a few.
Carl Sagan’s quote is most certainly apt here, I immediately thought of it too. But the idea that the stars and the universe are having a direct, continual and current impact on the evolution of life on this planet is equally profound.
But of course, let’s not get carried away. All of the above is of course pre-faced with a gig “If this is true ,”… Let’s remain cautiously sceptical and see what happens here on out. As an observer, I’ll say what a truly exciting time for science. And what a terrible tragedy that these innovative ideas will be subject to the attack science we have all become familiar with in the climate debate.

TRM
April 24, 2012 12:46 pm

Just had a weird thought or two.
Is there any way to correlate when the effects of a supernova would hit earth with our sun’s sheilding of earth at that time?
How long would a supernova’s output hit earth? Years, decades, century?
Thanks again for a very thought provoking article.

T. S.
April 24, 2012 12:52 pm

The paper is a hoax. Figure 2a shows that the raw data is nothing but noise, and from this random noise Svensmark draws his “correlations”.

Dieter
April 24, 2012 12:54 pm

This is exciting work. It clearly illustrates that what we call the “environment” extends far beyond the earth – and far beyond our control. It is at once both beautiful and humbling.

1 3 4 5 6 7 18
Verified by MonsterInsights