
Note: I’m going to leave this as a sticky “top post” for a day or so. new stories appear below.
Nigel Calder asks us to republish this post for maximum exposure. He writes:
Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, it’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release at http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.
In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.
Here are the main results:
- The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
- The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
- Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
- As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.
By implication, supernovae also determine the amount of oxygen available for animals like you and me to breathe. So the inherently simple cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis now has far-reaching consequences, which I’ve tried to sum up in this diagram.

By way of explanation
The text of “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” is available via ftp://ftp2.space.dtu.dk/pub/Svensmark/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf The paper is highly technical, as befits a professional journal, so to non-expert eyes even the illustrations may be a little puzzling. So I’ve enlisted the aid of Liz Calder to explain the way one of the most striking graphs, Svensmark’s Figure 20, was put together. That graph shows how, over the past 440 million years, the changing rates of supernova explosions relatively close to the Earth have strongly influenced the biodiversity of marine invertebrate animals, from trilobites of ancient times to lobsters of today. Svensmark’s published caption ends: “Evidently marine biodiversity is largely explained by a combination of sea-level and astrophysical activity.” To follow his argument you need to see how Figure 20 draws on information in Figure 19. That tells of the total diversity of the sea creatures in the fossil record, fluctuating between times of rapid evolution and times of recession.
The count is by genera, which are groups of similar animals. Here it’s shown freehand by Liz in Sketch A. Sketch B is from another part of Figure 19, telling how the long-term global sea-level changed during the same period. The broad correspondence isn’t surprising because a high sea-level floods continental margins and gives the marine invertebrates more extensive and varied habitats. But it obviously isn’t the whole story. For a start, there’s a conspicuous spike in diversity about 270 million years ago that contradicts the declining sea-level. Svensmark knew that there was a strong peak in the supernova rate around that time. So he looked to see what would happen to the wiggles over the whole 440 million years if he “normalized” the biodiversity to remove the influence of sea-level. That simple operation is shown in Sketch C, where the 270-million-year spike becomes broader and taller. Sketch D shows Svensmark’s reckoning of the changing rates of nearby supernovae during the same period. Let me stress that these are all freehand sketches to explain the operations, not to convey the data. In the published paper, the graphs as in C and D are drawn precisely and superimposed for comparison.

There are many fascinating particulars that I might use to illustrate the significance of Svensmark’s findings. To choose the Gorgon’s story that follows is not entirely arbitrary, because this brings in another of those top results, about supernovae and bio-productivity.
The great dying at the end of the Permian
Out of breath, poor gorgon? Gasping for some supernovae? Named after scary creatures of Greek myth, the Gorgonopsia of the Late Permian Period included this fossil species Sauroctonus progressus, 3 metres long. Like many of its therapsid cousins, near relatives of our own ancestors, it died out during the Permo-Triassic Event. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgonopsia
Luckiest among our ancestors was a mammal-like reptile, or therapsid, that scraped through the Permo-Triassic Event, the worst catastrophe in the history of animal life. The climax was 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian Period. Nearly all animal species in the sea went extinct, along with most on land. The event ended the era of “old life”, the Palaeozoic, and ushered in the Mesozoic Era, when our ancestors would become small mammals trying to keep clear of the dinosaurs. So what put to death our previously flourishing Gorgon-faced cousins of the Late Permian? According to Henrik Svensmark, the Galaxy let the reptiles down.
Forget old suggestions (by myself included) that the impact of a comet or asteroid was to blame, like the one that did for the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic. The greatest dying was less sudden than that. Similarly the impressive evidence for an eruption 250 million years ago – a flood basalt event that smothered Siberia with noxious volcanic rocks covering an area half the size of Australia – tells of only a belated regional coup de grâce. It’s more to the point that oxygen was in short supply – geologists speak of a “superanoxic ocean”. And there was far more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now.
“Well there you go,” some people will say. “We told you CO2 is bad for you.” That, of course, overlooks the fact that the notorious gas keeps us alive. The recenty increased CO2 shares with the plant breeders the credit for feeding the growing human population. Plants and photosynthetic microbes covet CO2 to grow. So in the late Permian its high concentration was a symptom of a big shortfall in life’s productivity, due to few supernovae, ice-free conditions, and a lack of weather to circulate the nutrients. And as photosynthesis is also badly needed to turn H2O into O2, the doomed animals were left gasping for oxygen, with little more than half of what we’re lucky to breathe today.
When Svensmark comments briefly on the Permo-Triassic Event in his new paper, “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth,” he does so in the context of the finding that high rates of nearby supernovae promote life’s productivity by chilling the planet, and so improving the circulation of nutrients needed by the photosynthetic organisms.
Here’s a sketch (above) from Figure 22 in the paper, simplified to make it easier to read. Heavy carbon, 13C, is an indicator of how much photosynthesis was going on. Plumb in the middle is a downward pointing green dagger that marks the Permo-Triassic Event. And in the local supernova rate (black curve) Svensmark notes that the Late Permian saw the largest fall in the local supernova rate seen in the past 500 million years. This was when the Solar System had left the hyperactive Norma Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy behind it and entered the quiet space beyond. “Fatal consequences would ensue for marine life,” Svensmark writes, “if a rapid warming led to nutrient exhaustion … occurring too quickly for species to adapt.”
One size doesn’t fit all, and a fuller story of Late Permian biodiversity becomes subtler and even more persuasive. About 6 million years before the culminating mass extinction of 251 million years ago, a lesser one occurred at the end of the Guadalupian stage. This earlier extinction was linked with a brief resurgence in the supernova rate and a global cooling that interrupted the mid-Permian warming. In contrast with the end of the Permian, bio-productivity was high. The chief victims of this die-off were warm-water creatures including gigantic bivalves and rugose corals.
Why it’s tagged as “astrobiology”
So what, you may wonder, is the most life-enhancing supernova rate? Without wanting to sound like Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss, it’s probably not very far from the average rate for the past few hundred million years, nor very different from what we have now. Biodiversity and bio-productivity are both generous at present.
Svensmark has commented (not in the paper itself) on a closely related question – where’s the best place to live in the Galaxy?
“Too many supernovae can threaten life with extinction. Although they came before the time range of the present paper, very severe episodes called Snowball Earth have been blamed on bursts of rapid star formation. I’ve tagged the paper as ‘Astrobiology’ because we may be very lucky in our location in the Galaxy. Other regions may be inhospitable for advanced forms of life because of too many supernovae or too few.”
Astronomers searching for life elsewhere speak of a Goldilocks Zone in planetary systems. A planet fit for life should be neither too near to nor too far from the parent star. We’re there in the Solar System, sure enough. We may also be in a similar Goldilocks Zone of the Milky Way, and other galaxies with too many or too few supernovae may be unfit for life. Add to that the huge planetary collision that created the Earth’s disproportionately large Moon and provided the orbital stability and active geology on which life relies, and you may suspect that, astronomically at least, Dr Pangloss was right — “Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”
Don’t fret about the diehards
If this blog has sometimes seemed too cocky about the Svensmark hypothesis, it’s because I’ve known what was in the pipeline, from theories, observations and experiments, long before publication. Since 1996 the hypothesis has brought new successes year by year and has resisted umpteen attempts to falsify it.
New additions at the level of microphysics include a previously unknown reaction of sulphuric acid, as in a recent preprint. On a vastly different scale, Svensmark’s present supernova paper gives us better knowledge of the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy.
A mark of a good hypothesis is that it looks better and better as time passes. With the triumph of plate tectonics, diehard opponents were left redfaced and blustering. In 1960 you’d not get a job in an American geology department if you believed in continental drift, but by 1970 you’d not get the job if you didn’t. That’s what a paradigm shift means in practice and it will happen sometime soon with cosmic rays in climate physics.
Plate tectonics was never much of a political issue, except in the Communist bloc. There, the immobility of continents was doctrinally imposed by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. An analagous diehard doctrine in climate physics went global two decades ago, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was conceived to insist that natural causes of climate change are minor compared with human impacts.
Don’t fret about the diehards. The glory of empirical science is this: no matter how many years, decades, or sometimes centuries it may take, in the end the story will come out right.
===============================================================
For those who would doubt our cosmic connections, Svenmark’s work and Calder’s article reminds me to remind you of this well known quote:
The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff. – Carl Sagan
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



Wow the implications are astounding. I am gob smacked.
Not to split off into teams and turn this into an academic battle, but I tend to agree with Mosher, just based on my previous comment alone. He’s using a proxy of a proxy, and the initial proxy relies on “modeling” the galaxy back 250 million or 500 million years… seems to be at least a little sketchy as much as I want it to be true.
Ivan says:
April 24, 2012 at 10:26 am
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 think that you are missing something.
Initial idea GCR seed clouds. More GCR more clouds.
Variance on a short timescale possibly caused by solar wind changes…
What varies GCR on a long timescale?
==Supernovae could vary GCR on a long timescale – potentially giving large overload.
==Just orbiting the galaxy could alter the background level of GCR as the solar system moves into different sectors
Can we find evidence of either of these longer term variations that were hypothesized by Nir Shaviv? If so that would provide support for the short term changes in cloud being caused by GCR. This paper states that it appears that there is some correlation with nearby supernovae which would cause large amounts of GCR.
Its a pretty hypothesis but it has caused distinct dyspepsia to some with sacred cows in play. So we can be assured that there will be some skeptical scientists attempting to falsify the hypothesis. As there should be.
From the introduction:
Really? If so … why have most of the ice ages occurred in the last three million years? And when I look at Frisch (2000), it’s listed as “Frisch P., 2000, American Scientist, 88, 52”. As an aside, could people put the name of the freakin’ article in the references?
In any case, Frisch (2000) is available here … and it doesn’t mention ice ages anywhere. Not one word. It does mention climate, though … exactly once … and the temperature of the earth is not mentioned at all. Regarding climate, it says:
I’m sorry, but that has nothing to do with the claim that ice ages are due to earth encountering gas clouds. Does Svensmark think we won’t check his references?
w.
Willis Eschenbach says: April 24, 2012 at 2:40 pm
[…]
But a recent paper “Relative sea-level fall since the last interglacial stage: Are coasts uplifting worldwide?“, evaluated some 890 of the paleo-shorelines worldwide. They say:
The results show that most coastal segments have risen relative to sea-level with a mean uplift rate higher than 0.2 mm/yr, i.e. more than four times faster than the estimated eustatic drop in sea level.
After reading it, I don’t understand the relevance of the paper you linked to WRT it showing an argument against what Svensmark is saying. The paper talks about >0.2mm/ year uplift, so for 12K years you get almost 8 feet, relative to the sea level rise of ~300 feet since then. I don’t see how the former affects an assessment of the latter. We’re talking 0.2 vs. 7.62 mm/yr. Is it simply that it might supply that error in estimating a date for a layer of geographic deposition?
Sorry but I don’t think I can go with this on any timescale that might have relevance to human existence.
We must go back to the sun and variable influences on the air circulation from the top down subsequently modulated by the oceans and ultimately affecting global cloudiness, albedo and the amount of solar energy able to get into the oceans to drive the climate.
By leaping to supernovae as a relevant factor for observed climate changes during the interglacial I think Dr. Svensmark ‘jumped the shark’ in an entirely unnecessary fashion whatever the merits of his idea that cosmic rays are capable of providing more condensation nuclei.
The historical events that he tries to link together are just too fuzzy for reliable interpretation at the proposed level of confidence.
Not only are we not really sure what happened or why, all those millions of years ago, but the estimated timings are potentially way out.
Kev-in-UK says:
April 24, 2012 at 10:10 am
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.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Kev,
I think it is best if we use the term “celestial” or “galactic” rather than “extraterrestrial” as the latter term has too much of a Sci-Fi connotation – ET and all that nonsense as you indicate.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Really? If so … why have most of the ice ages occurred in the last three million years?
There has only been one ice age in the last 3 million years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages
No one seems to have observed that GCRs can potentially account for climate change over all timescales. Occam’s Razor.
It is good to see that this paper was published by hard science. For so long people like Svensmark have been prevented from publishing by the greenists who have seized control by wielding global warming as a club. It is a posting which is enormously heartening to read.
It reminds us that the Earth is just a planet like any other. What happens on other planets will happen here too, as has been observed, whether we emit CO2 or not. It is a relief to see real science being written about again in an elegant theory.
I hope that this paper will break the log jam of non-science & global warming nonsense, and restore Science to its real place beyond the control of Warmistas.
Also, if I’m not mistaken in my initial read of this paper, his inference is that open cluster formation is a proxy for SN explosions. However, in my limited Astronomy understanding, this would only be a worthwhile for type-2 supernovas, i.e., the extremely large stars that live fast and die young. There should be almost no correlation (that I can see, again not a professional astronomer, but I know some things) between type-1(a,b or c) supernova which rely on white dwarfs orbiting close to main-sequence stars and creating mass accretion disks. Is it generally known/presumed that only type-2 supernova create GCR?
Bengt A says:
April 24, 2012 at 9:53 am
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?
As I read it, it is not about climate on a time scale relevant to our society, but about evolution of life. Or not even on the time scale of ice ages [40,000-100,000 years] which are not related to cosmic rays or supernovae, but to the shape of the Earth’s orbit and orientation of the Earth’s axis. Did you notice that?
In spite of recent ‘climate’ not being the topic, the word occurs 95 times [so far] in this topic, so some people must have misunderstood the paper. The idea that supernovae regulates mutations and thereby indirectly evolution is furthermore not new at all.
How would cosmic rays affect the thinner atmosphere of Mars? Would it also increase its albedo – just not as much? If so, what proxies on Mars could be used to show the same correlations for that planet? Let’s get NASA back to substantive work!
grumpyoldmanuk says: April 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm
“42, dear boy, 42. The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. Check alcohol level in bloodstream before posting :)”
Ah but the QUESTION is-
What is seven times six….
-grin-
It’s the sun stupid…. no…
It’s the suns stupid.
There…. fixed.
Philip Bradley says:
April 24, 2012 at 3:44 pm
There has only been one ice age in the last 3 million years.
You are splitting hairs, or just confused. Precisely spoken an ‘ice age’ is a series of individual ‘glaciations’. In loose talk ‘ice age’ is often used for ‘glaciation’. This is OK as long as one knows the difference.
Congratulations once more to Prof Svensmark!
I predict an upsurge, if not supernovae, at least of exploding heads in a certain community who we know won’t like this finding at all.
Jeremy says:
April 24, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Is it generally known/presumed that only type-2 supernova create GCR?
GCRs are not created directly by the supernova explosion, but from acceleration of charged particles by/from shock waves created by the explosion, so the type does not matter.
Reblogged this on pindanpost.
Thanks Nigel, Dr. Svensmark, Anthony,
This is good news getting better.
Galactic cosmic rays as a driver and our Sun as a modulator make good sense, the beauty of the theory is evident, and the experimental (based in data) corroboration is mounting.
Ian W says: April 24, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Can we find evidence of either of these longer term variations that were hypothesized by Nir Shaviv?
For reference, Nir Shaviv wrote that;
“The density of cosmic ray sources in the galaxy is not uniform. In fact, it is concentrated in the galactic spiral arms (it arises from supernovae, which in our galaxy are predominantly the end product of massive stars, which in turn form and die primarily in spiral arms). Thus, each time we cross a galactic arm, we should expect a colder climate. Current data for the spiral arm passages gives a crossing once every 135 ± 25 Million years. (See fig. 2 on the left. Note also that the spiral arms are density waves which propagate at a different speed than the stars, that is, nothing moves at their rotation speed).”
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/long-ice.pdf
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf
Svensmark’s theory rests heavily on the idea that the source of cosmic rays is supernovae. However, I find the following (emphasis mine):
Call me crazy, but it sure doesn’t seem like cosmic rays are anywhere near as well understood as Svensmark makes out.
Also, there have been about 6,000 supernovae observed since 1885 … surely we should look at the ebb and flow of those w.r.t. climate before heading back half a billion years with models of models …
w.
This piece of research merits TV coverage. I have tried to write a simple news “package”. As an interesting exercise (which I may regret) I think I will try posting it here for comments and suggestions before I present it to my bosses for their consideration.
By the way, I am on a short leave (following minor surgery) so this would not go into production until Monday, April 30th at the earliest. Do you think so one else may beat me to it. I doubt it; nobody much covers science on the news anymore.
Any way here it is:
Here is my first draft.
ANCHORS: (INTRO)
John Coleman is classified as a global warming skeptic. He has steadfastly refused to accept the much publicized hypothesis that the carbon dioxide produced by our use of fossil fuels is the prime factor that will soon lead to uncontrollable global warming and catastrophic consequences for our civilization. Tonight he is anxious to tell us about another theory behind climate change. John.
COLEMAN: (LEAD IN)
[SCREEN LEFT OF EARTH FLOATING IN SPACE]
Sandra, Allan and everybody, the idea that carbon dioxide produced by our use of fossil fuels has enough impact to control our climate never made much sense to me. Over the years, hundreds of scientific studies have totally failed to make a convincing case. Is there another force at work with the power to dramatically alter the climate of Earth? There is new theory that may be the answer. It may turn out to explain all the dramatic changes in earth’s climate over the last four and half billion years.
PACKAGE: (COLEMAN VOICE OVER)
[WX1 MOVIE OF ZOOM OUT FROM SAN DIEGO TO FULL EARTH AND BEYOND]
This new theory doesn’t start here in San Diego or Southern California; not even on planet Earth.
[PICTURE OF SOLAR SYSTEM: SUN AND EARTH DOMINATE]
It doesn’t even begin with our Sun. I have studied several Sun based climate theories and they never quite hold up when you put them to the test.
[PICTURE OF THE MILKY WAY GALAXY]
This theory begins with the really big picture: Our solar system, a speck in the Milky Way Galaxy. There is our sun, only a dim dot of light far out in out in one of the spirals that rotate around the center.
[ADD LABEL TO THE MILKY WAY GALAXY PICTURE: OUR SUN WITH AN ARROW TO A TINY DOT]
The theory is that as Earth rotates around the Sun and as our Solar System moves through the Milky Way spiral,
[PICTURE OF WIDE SKY VIEW WITH STARS AND SUPERNOVAE LABELS: OUR SUN WITH ARROW TO DIM DOT AND SUPERNOVAE WITH ARROW TO SUPERNOVAE IN PICTURE]
that the Earth, from time to time, is engulfed in huge cosmic energy waves from exploding stars, events that are known as Supernovae.
[CLOSE UP PICTURE OF SUPERNOVAE]
These explosive masses are often many times the size of our entire Solar System. These explosions are enormously bright and powerful and spread remnants at incredible speed across the space of the universe.
[PICTURE OF HENRIK SEVENSMARK]
This man, Henrik Sevensmark, a Danish Physicist, has spend several years studying the history of the encounters by Earth with Supernovae remnants and the impact of such cosmic ray blasts on our atmosphere. He theorizes there is a excellent correlation and
[CU OF PAPER AND A PICTURE OF Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society]
in his lengthy, math formula and chart studded, peer reviewed paper published in professional journal, makes a solid case for his theory.
[MONTAGE OF PICTURES OF ICE AGES, EXTREME HEAT, TROPICAL FORESTS, RICH FIELDS, OCEANS, MOUNTAINS, STORMS]
In it’s 4.5 billion years of existence, it is clear our planet Earth has gone through a multitude of huge climate swings
[SUPER 400,000 MILLION YEAR CLIMATE CHART OVER ABOVE MONTAGE]
Clearly very powerful forces have produced our ice ages and interglacial periods, eradicated the dinosaurs, melted polar ice and frozen it up again, caused the oceans to rise and fall by 100s of feet.
[MONTAGE OF PICTURES OF MODERN CIVILIZATION]
These forces were at work for millions of years before our modern civilization developed and the age of fossil fuels began 150 years ago.
[SUPER CHART OF CO2, THE KEELING CURVE]
There is no doubt that our use of fossil fuels has increased the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, but it remains tiny by percentage,
[SUPER RADIOACTIVE FORCING EQUATION]
Years of study have tried to make a case that this CO2 build up, has a huge impact on climate, far beyond it’s direct contribution to the greenhouse effect. But to me that effort has just not been at all convincing.
[ANIMATION OF SUPERNOVAE EXPLOSION]
Now we have a new theory that seems, as first study, to have a chance of explaining the past and eventually, perhaps, predicting the future of climate.
COLEMAN: (TAG)
[SCREEN LEFT OF PICTURES OF SEVENSMARK, PUBLICATION, GALAXY, SUPERNOVAE]
This is just a theory. There is plenty of skepticism about it and that is totally appropriate in science. But it may at last broaden the examination of global warming. Sandra and Allen.
Well, I tend to think of shockwaves as part of an explosion, but ok.
That being stated Leif, can you offer any other explanation for open clusters being a worthwhile proxy for supernovae/GCRs ? It seems to me quite presumptuous to believe that open cluster formation can be used as a proxy for supernovae, much less historical GCR incoming to Earth.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 24, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Call me crazy, but it sure doesn’t seem like cosmic rays are anywhere near as well understood as Svensmark makes out. Also, there have been about 6,000 supernovae observed since 1885 … surely we should look at the ebb and flow of those w.r.t. climate before heading back half a billion years with models of models …
Willis, the cosmic rays you are referring to are the ultra-high energy ones. These are very rare [one per square kilometer per century or so; only about 15 have ever been observed] and not at all important for life [or anything else] on Earth. The 6,000 supernova are the ones in other galaxies. The cosmic rays of interest are produced in our galaxy [about one supernova every 30 years]. Generally, cosmic rays [except the very rare ultra-high energy ones] are trapped by the magnetic field of the galaxy and stay within the galaxy where they are generated, so each galaxy has its own ‘population’ of cosmic rays. ‘Galactic’ Cosmic Rays [GCRs] are called that for a good reason.
grumpyoldmanuk says:
April 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm
42, dear boy, 42. The answer to Life, the Universe and Everything is 42. Check alcohol level in bloodstream before posting 🙂
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Given that you’re discussing Douglas Adams, I would guess you are suggesting his BAC was too low.