Guest essay by Kirby Schlaht
Nir Joseph Shaviv is an Israeli-American physics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is a professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.He is also a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
He is best known for his controversial solar and cosmic-ray hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesized that passages through the Milky Way’s spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-age epochs over the past billion years.
In 2014 Shaviv and coworkers published the paper “Is the Solar System’s Galactic Motion Imprinted in the Phanerozoic Climate?in Scientific Reports. Fossil shells, mainly brachiopods with some conodonts and belemnites are proposed as chronometers with a physical mechanism inferred to exists to link the solar system’s vertical motion through the galaxy to the terrestrial climate
Abstract:
“A new δ18O Phanerozoic database, based on 24,000 low-Mg calcitic fossil shells, yields a prominent 32 Ma oscillation with a secondary 175 Ma frequency modulation. The periodicities and phases of these oscillations are consistent with parameters postulated for the vertical motion of the solar system across the galactic plane, modulated by the radial epicyclic motion. We propose therefore that the galactic motion left an imprint on the terrestrial climate record. Based on its vertical motion, the effective average galactic density encountered by the solar system … suggests the presence of a disk dark matter component.”
Paper Figure 1: The Gaussian filtered δ18O fossil shell data, separated into four groups
The green line is the low-latitude, blue the mid-latitude, red the high-latitude, and the black line the deep sea subset. The latter three subsets were shifted to minimize the χ2 between them and the low-latitude subset (see Supplementary Materials for details). Note that the low-latitude data show a warming for the past 15 Ma while the three other subsets exhibit cooling. Note also the data gaps around 110 and 210 Ma. The dotted vertical lines denote time intervals used for splicing the different combinations of subsets.
Paper Figure 2: The linearly detrended and high pass filtered ML200 δ18O dataset (in red) for Fourier modes shorter than 49 Ma
The simulated VO motion of the solar system in the galaxy (blue) has a secondary frequency modulation caused by the epicyclic motion of the solar system that generates slightly shorter VO periods around 130 Ma and 300 Ma and longer ones in between. Because the vertical potential changes adiabatically with the epicyclic motion, the vertical amplitude is larger when the period is longer. The shaded region denotes the 95% confidence range for the measured δ18O obtained from the finite number of data points in each bin and the variance in the data.
From the author’s discussion:
“Given the consistency between the vertical and radial oscillations and the paleoclimate data, and the low probability that it could be mimicked by random fluctuations, we conclude with high confidence that the terrestrial temperature has a component which is quadratic in the distance from the galactic plane. Although this can be naturally explained through the cosmic ray climate link, the observations by themselves do not prove it.
In addition, it should be noted that although a galactic driver can naturally explain a stable ~32 Ma cycle, there are terrestrial processes that could drive climate variations on the ~32 Ma time scale as well. The most prominent is probably mantle convection periodically producing plumes that result in large volcanic eruptions/igneous provinces. These eruptions will in turn add aerosols and carbon dioxide to the oceanic-atmospheric system and either cool or warm the climate. The influence of the Earth mantle connection could also drive changes or even reversals in Earth’s magnetic field, which would modulate the atmospheric ionization. The advantage of the proposed galactic forcing over a terrestrial driver is that it will produce a gradual (sinusoidal) fluctuations as found for most of the δ18O record with a relatively steady periodicity, while volcanic forcing will more likely produce random abrupt perturbations followed by gradual relaxations to climate base levels”
Presenter’s note: this is not to defend or refute the authors’ theory but to provide the community with the information – decide for yourselves.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This has made sense to me whenever I’ve read it.
But so do lots of things – I’m very gullible.
If it’s significantly right there would be a perfect correlation in the historical record. And there isn’t, is there?
No one factor dominates the climate… probably.
The large scale climate oscillations they are looking at for some reason also coincide with the Mg budget of the ocean. Ice house climates have high Mg:Ca with aragonite as the common CaCO3 polymorph and green house climates have low Mg:Ca with high Mg or even low Mg calcite as the common polymorph. These changes also coincide with transitions between MgSO4 and KCl marine evaporites in aragonite and calcite seas respectively.
http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/2795/2010/bg-7-2795-2010.pdf
The evidence suggests that it is variations in global volcanism, especially at rift zones, large igneous provinces, and mid ocean ridges with fresh basalt pulling Mg and SO4 out of sea water and adding Ca and K. It appears that CO2 has little to do with this sea water chemistry but this sea water chemistry correlates very well with the global average temperature. So there you have direct evidence of an Earth mantle connection. Only during the rather bizarre Ordovician-Silurian boundary glaciation does this sea water chemistry caused by volcanism not correlate with climate conditions on Earth, and this glaciation is the only one that is associated with a major extinction. That suggests it was a catastrophic event of some sort that caused the cold climate conditions at that time. Looking for cosmic connection in 32 m.y. climate oscillations sounds like a wild goose chase.
P.S. The linked paper has an interesting section on CO2 and ocean chemistry that is worth mentioning.
Good summary of a few geologic/geochemistry/glacial connections to observed datasets. Only, can we drop the ignorant ‘icehouse’/’greenhouse’ academic CAGW communication verbiage when discussing geologic time frame ‘climate’. Essentially, going by that meme, we are still in an ‘icehouse’, in geologic ‘deep time’ speech.
Ice house/Green house jargon is not CAGW related. These terms have been used for decades to describe, in very general terms, the prevalent climate conditions on Earth. It’s not a meme, and we are in ice house conditions by definition, not by colloquial speech.
MCourtney says:
No one factor dominates the climate… probably.
Well, if there is one factor… ti’s money.
In fact, pointing out the simple fact that the Earth is in an ice age is one of my favorite ways to troll alarmists. 😉
It’s the suns stupid.
Then you might like a painting of mine …
http://www.maxphoton.com/sunsset/
They are very vibrant paintings Max Photon. I liked violet, and clatsop sunset. Also linear thinking in a cyclic world, the cartoon.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Very good paintings. Thanks, Max.
This kind of post is no fun. We need to be able to figure out who is a denier or this or that so we can know who the bad guy is and who the good guy is. What good is science and theoretical speculation if you can’t make it into a moral play? 🙂
Very interesting, of course.
Über-Denier
It should be noted that the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate is by no means generally accepted. The link is contentious and it has attracted significant opponents over the years because of its ramifications to our understanding of recent and future climate change.
A nice way to put “who and how are we going to tax & control that?”
– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/03/21/israeli-astrophysicist-nir-shaviv-solar-activity-responsible-for-about-half-of-20th-century-global-warming/#comment-1020277
We have to figure it out, first
Bill,
I’m not completely sure where you’re going with your comment. However, I do emphatically agree that there is a very strong tendency for human beings to hijack debates, which are ostensibly about the discovery of true ideas, to become morality plays, with themselves as the righteous heroes and their critics as villains.
Moral posturing is SO much easier than science or objective news presentation, that it presents an almost irresistible temptation.
Shaviv was featured quite prominently in the Svensmark movie. He’s a compelling guy.
Compelling. Thanks for the link.
I’ve met Dr. Shaviv a couple of times, at the Heartland climate conferences. He’s a very nice and friendly guy, who doesn’t talk down to people who are a lot more ignorant than he is. Like me.
Don’t you hate people, who draw graphs backwards. Yeah, I know the origin is on the left, but we from read and count from left to right. Or is this a Hebrew graph?
I hate, people who put, commas in the, wrong, place.
And don’t, you hate people who, forget question, marks.
/sarc
😉
>>And don’t, you hate people who, forget question, marks.
It was a rhetorical statement, not a question.
You do understand rhetoric, I presume?
R
>> You do understand rhetoric, I presume?
Better than you understand humor.
comma chameleons
“Correcting someone’s grammar is dangerous “ is a rhetorical statement; it requires no response.
“Don’t you hate people, who draw graphs backwards?” is a rhetorical question because it is phrased as a question. It requires a question mark whether an answer is expected or not.
! eXcellen,t?
AT least it is not hieroglyphic.
A rhetorical question takes a question mark. The need for a question mark is dictated by grammatical form, not by the intention of the writer.
… hence my response.
The amusing part is that ralfellis ended his rhetorical question with a question mark.
To be clear, I’m just teasing.
And I agree: reading the abscissa from right to left is very disconcerting.
yev yO
Just because you’re teasing doesn’t mean I can’t be deadly earnest and declare the putative rhetorical question of ralfellis not a question at all, but a statement about what he presumes!
Then why did he end with a question mark, thereby contradicting the very thing he was railing about in the first place?
‘cos he didn’t know it wasn’t a question.
(I wasn’t being serious, either)
But there is a rationale for my tease; he could say “… I presume?” but that makes the question “do I presume?”
Like when someone tells me “You’re a fool” and I ask “I am?”
For total properness he should have done it thus; “You do understand rhetoric? I presume.”
(still not serious)
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz7qeztSZS1rpswypo1_400.jpg
Max,
you come up with some good ones.
At least we’re not criticizing apostrophe use:
http://www.angryflower.com/aposter3.jpg
I came up with a conjecture a couple weeks ago along similar lines. My idea is that as the solar system travels through the spiral arms, they are traveling through a high density area (relatively) and the increase in proximity to other stars increase the cosmic ray bombardment, which increase cloud seeding which increases temperatures. This lasts for as long as the system is in the spiral arm.
Then the solar system enters the void between the arms. This is a low density area (relatively) and like flowing water moves much faster. Without the proximity to other stars the earth doesn’t get the cosmic ray bombardment, so it gets reduced cloud seeding and reduced temperatures.
Greg, I believe you have the inverse effect. More Cosmic Rays, more clouds lower temps…out of the spiral arms less cosmic rays, fewer clouds warmer earth.
Excellent, I learned something from that 🙂 Thanks Walter.
Looking through Google to find where out solar system is in relation to the Galaxy’s spiral arms. I’m finding it both in the arm, and in between the arms. Does anyone have an authoritative location of where our solar system currently is?
Why wouldn’t the solar system be traveling with the rest of the galactic matter within an arm – heading toward a possible black hole at the center – or whatever keeps the spiral going?
@noaaprogrammer: The “movement” is misleading. The arms are really density waves. Like stall points in heavy freeway traffic. You are sorrounded by the same cars and move together, but some times slow down and bunch up; other time speed up and spread out.. Gravity force variations cause the speed changes. (as you bunch up or spread out, more mass is in front or behind you and changes your speed, until you get pulled the other way…)
Don’t foget Space Dust Clouds could have just the same kind of affect on temperature by reducing the amount of Solar and Coamic radiation reaching earth.
How would anyone know if our Solar System has passed through any Dust clouds in the past?
There is also a reference to this same idea in the “Correlated History of the Earth”, by P. R. Janke, at the Worldwide Museum of Natural History. The publisher is Pan Terra, in Hill City, South Dakota. I made oblique reference to this same idea in my 06 March 2012 guest post (thanks Anthony, and mods, for posting my missive!!) on the Permian extinction/Siberian Traps (non)connection. Dr. Janke also postulates a link to extraterrestrial impact events, based on our solar system’s passage through spiral arms, though the hypothesis requires more work and investigation.
Regards to all,
Mark H.
And I am presuming that when it says: “VO periods around 130 Ma and 300 Ma”.
It actualy means: “VO periods around 30 Ma and 300 Ma”.
The periodicity in blue on the second graph, is more like 30 Ma than 130 Ma.
Ralph
Most alternate climate theories seem more believable than trace gas variations.
Lets see if I can properly give the other scientific argument here so both sides are represented in this discussion…
But the science is settled! 99% of scientists agree with me, so you’re just wrong and stupid!
You’re all just anti-science, stupid deniers, probably being paid by oil companies, who should be put in jail because you obviously want to kill poloar bears!!!!1!!!
All you people are stupid stupid-heads who can’t think because youre all stupid! Obama should ban this site to save the world! I hate you all!!1!!!!
Now that sounds familiar!
It’s always good to have both sides stated so clearly…
One more vector in the force field…
I’m glad that’s settled 🙂
I think Nir Shaviv’s problem here is that a 49 My Gaussian smooth of the data does not produce a high-enough resolution to be able to determine much at all. The numbers need to be smoothed at much higher resolution like 3 Mys or even 1 Mys. Now the data starts to show the history of the paleoclimate exactly according to things we know about such as ice ages, hot-houses, Antarctic glaciation timelines etc.
Climate change science is perfectly correlated with climate change funding. QED
This is the first I’ve heard of this. It sounds like there astronomical evidence for periodicity in the solar system’s oscillation, but the models don’t predict oscillations that are this fast, so Schlaht is wondering about a disk of Dark Matter to explain the strength of attraction to the plane. Seldom I hear of a rational idea that is so original
Well, if the models don’t predict it, well then.
The rule with any astronomical paper is: if dark matter is a required part of the hypothesis, dismiss the hypothesis. Dark matter is simply the gap between model and measurement, and can’t be used to justify any model as it is thus circular reasoning.
NZW, dark matter was proposed to explain the fact that the rotational dynamics of galaxies requires ~10x more mass than is represented by their luminous stars. The idea is based in observation, not in a logical error.
The dynamical anomaly was discovered by Vera Rubin. Personal webpage here.
Gravity provided by dark matter is one of two current explanations for the phenomenon. The other, less generally favored, is that Newton’s Law of gravitation must be modified over large distances. According to Wiki Rubin herself favors modifying Newton’s Laws over proposing dark matter. She arguably deserves a Nobel for that discovery.
Fritz Zwicky also was a voice in the wilderness for many years, because his studies of star velocities consistently showed that they were too great for the known mass attracting them. When I was studying astrophysics, this was known as the “missing mass” problem. But none of us predicted dark matter. I don’t know whether Zwicky or Rubin was first to note the problem.
By that logic, I deserve a Nobel for proposing “dark heat” as the solution to Trenberth’s missing heat. Not a solution, you say? Neither is “dark matter”.
third option: The Universe isn’t old enough for the galaxies to have dispersed.
SR
So it has a fake ID?
Personal incredulity is not a valid refutation, NZW.
Lance, according to Wiki, Fred Zwicky was first with credible evidence. He apparently preceded Vera Rubin by about 30 years.
It is in this case, Pat, because the null hypothesis is on my side. Dark matter is not observed, so that’s the refutation until it is observed — same with gravity waves, fairies, and gremlins. Galaxy rotational profiles are an interesting problem, but there are alternatives to dark matter.
I’m going to agree with NZ Willy on this one. Dark matter can’t be seen or measured. Under that scenario it doesn’t exist until proven otherwise.
I’m more than happy to explore alternate theories, such as string theory. But I can’t accept that it exists until it’s been measured.
On the one hand, condensation-nuclei in the path of a charged particle make an amazing display in a cloud chamber. It’s too bad demo and simple cloud chambers aren’t popular anymore. That such a tiny particle and infinitesimal amount of energy can have such a dramatic effect … is of course the root to all suggestions that variations of incoming radiations could be a big atmospheric deal. Even a climate-driver.
But on the other hand, conditions have to be ever so especially thusly inside the chamber, for the spectacular effect to work, and certainly such conditions are not going to be prevalent in ways leading to big-time climate-influences. Maybe (theoretically) in a given locale, on a still & saturated almost-foggy morning … but not on mass scales.
And worse, the condensation-trails are quite macroscopic and readily visible to the naked eye. We would see them suddenly appear in the air around us (under the right conditions), like little spider filaments. But this type of display is unknown, and that is not good news for the idea that ‘radiation does it’ …
Ted, I’ve raised the Wilson Cloud Chamber several times, wondering if climate theorists even cite this Nobel Laureate. Yes such tiny particles and such relatively huge “con trails” don’t seem to elicit much interest. I think the absence of these trails in the atmosphere around us is because of the other ingredients in the soup of weather. But I believe it possible to quantify the effect. Measure the density of these bombardments (probably already have them) and sum the volumes of the trails which are many many orders of magnitude greater than the size of the particle.
For sure, Gary, radiation is likely to be a potent actor in the atmosphere & weather soup, it’s just hard to pinpoint the magic bullet.
There’s also the gamma ray bursts, and the possibility of other ‘radiation storms’ that might also be linked to the galactic-travel cycles. Or those dynamic factors might affect the sun, and it us …
I used to live in San Francisco and loved going to the Exploratorium. There they have a cloud chamber that is totally cosmic.
That is way awesome Max! It’s good to seen that big ones and plans for small demo versions aren’t as scarce as I feared. 🙂
Finally saw “Sun” in the galaxy diagram after looking and looking. Needs a “You are Here” label for us older guys.
A Question: Referring to Paper Fig 2. If the cool periods, noted by low d18O values, are encountered which each passage across the galactic disc/plane, wouldn’t the period be 64 My?
Stated slightly different, wouldn’t there be with each cycle an ascending disc pass, followed 32 My later by a descending disc plane pass, thus a 64 My cycle?
What am I missing to make a 32 My cycle?
BURN THE WITCH! BURN HIM!
Can’t Burn him, that would release CO2.
Actually, it’s a lot like corn ethanol in that when he’s burnt up his CO2 is released and another human is born to take over his sequester duties.
But then he would stop exhaling CO2, so burning him gives a net reduction.
Just plant a tree over his ashes, problem solved!
This theory at least makes some sense and respects known physics rather than ignore it. The CO2 hypothesis of Jim Hansen on the other hand …
His CO2 expulsion problem was that he did so many voices, not just Kermit.
I bet you could estimate the size of the galaxy based on the climate cycles.
The Corrugated Galaxy—Milky Way May Be Much Larger Than Previously Estimated – See more at:
http://news.rpi.edu:8080/content/2015/03/09/rippling-milky-way-may-be-much-larger-previously-estimated
Looks similar to the heliospheric current sheet….
heliospheric current sheet 2001 till 2009
Brant
Whats with the “blocked plug-in?”
It’s probably your computer. Maybe the OS…
http://earthref.org/ERR/9341/
Negi, J.G. and Tiwari, R.K. (1983). Matching long term periodicities of geomagnetic reversals and galactic motions of the solar system. Geophysical Research Letters 10: doi: 10.1029/GL010i008p00713. issn: 0094-8276.
“…The similar analysis was further repeated by dividing the total record in two sub-series. These results indicate mean periods of 71, 47 and 32- m.y. These peaks are statistically significant at 90% confidence level….”
I’m all for expanding and expounding theories in an effort to find answers – but, and I say this even as a geologist – it is difficult to accept the stated ‘result’ of such studies in isolation. Many such studies need to correlate together for a potential point to be made BUT even then, we have absolutely NO way of confirming the ‘thoughts’ being indicated. It’s no better than the tree rings studies – was it water, temperature, sunlight, co2, volcanic eruptions, etc – what? that caused the various observed annual changes in growth rings? In short – who knows? I would prefer all of these type studies to start with the line ‘this is all based on pure conjecture and supposition….’ – because, in truth, that is all it is………..it’s all grist to the mill of course, in the search for understanding, but it is always conjecture at this stage (of science). Maybe in a millenia or twenty, we can have a better idea!
Galactic arms are something akin to a standing wave. As stars approach they speed up, and then slow during transit and exit.
This was meant to be a reply to Robert_G.
y eyesight has really been getting bad 🙁
Thanks, that is helpful. Can you give me a reference?
Re: eyes–welcome to my world.
This is a wiki article with some nice animation that demonstrate the basic idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory
I get the “vertical” wobbles through the galactic plane, but I don’t understand from what I’ve read how the solar system moves through the spiral arms. Don’t the arms (stars) revolve around the galactic nucleus, too? And I expect that those stars at the same radial distance as the sun would “match” up “speed-wise”– particularly if they condensed from the same primordial cloud of gas that formed the milky way in the first place.
We are in speculative territory.
Everything in our solar system orbits the Sun at different velocities and trajectories. In similar manner, different objects and systems in our galaxy differ in their orbits around the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Supposedly.
While many proxy studies have tried to discern climate trends of the past, there aren’t any ancient star charts buried in the sediments. I wouldn’t want to insult anyone, but it’s doubtful if our overall understanding of what’s out there even approaches a Cargo Cult level. Just a little over a Century ago, we didn’t even know that any other Galaxies existed.
IIRC, we are unaware of even the number of arms in the Milky Way.
They move at different rates.
Then how are there arms? Seems like if everything was “doing its own thing” it would just be a disorganized mess with no “arms.”
Like Robert_G, I don’t understand.
This could be showing that the Milky Way is made up of multiple systems over time that gradually came to a balance point.
The galaxy keeps absorbing smaller ones and clouds of stars with different angular and rotational velocities, with time they all tend to blend together, and spiral in toward the middle. There is probably a lot of matter (from way out on the edges) that magnetically interacts with the visible matter in toward the middle of the vortex of stars that are visible.
Frame dragging out into the outer edges by magnetic effects would not need “Dark Matter” to explain the process. A purely gravity model needs the “dark matter” and black holes to explain the magnetic coupling effects of our local galaxy into the larger fields of the local cluster.
It would have been nice to give us a bit of simple background. I looked it up, it takes 230Ma for the galaxy to make one revolution. I thought the motion of the solar system through the actual spiral arm was a ~circular one around the central part of the arm – is that what this is? I’m with NZ Willy about tendering dark matter which is too desperate an invention. Surely the density changes just because of being nearer or farther from other systems. Isn’t this movement an explanation for the apparent clustered bombardment sustained by the Moon, earth and other planets? How would that affect the climate – impact apparently killed the dinosaurs.
A simple tutorial on the physical explanation of what is happening, etc. would make the paper more interesting. Even a translation of the proportion of O18 relation to temperature – hey, be reckless and put the temperatures in – looks like a giant hockey stick. I believe geology tells us we have cooled down with time (no more very high temperature tholeiite basalt volcanics that even were able to melt down surface rocks into a flow channel).
Gary, some new theories suggest a “graviton” manifests gravity, and its characteristics cause the effect of dark matter AND dark energy. So no dark matter “particle” required. The below link describes this — a bit above my knowledge-grade but makes more sense the more I study it. And it also stipulates that space-time is “granular”, so the infinity issues w/Einstein’s GR failures at R(distance)=0 go away — there is no R=0:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/5-4500184_36510.htm
59.56 possible revolutions of our galaxy. 13700Ma/230Ma = 59.56 revs. Doesn’t seem like very many to get the shape. Do other galaxies have different rotational speeds?
I like the idea though!!