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.
The Author says the following:
“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.”
So he’s saying that CO2 warms the climate! Just like what we are seeing today!
No. He is pointing out alternative explanations to what he is proposing. At one time, this was common practice for scientists. Ever read Darwin?
Nothing makes sense until you link Climate Change to Agenda 21. Agenda 21 – aim global Governance, Climate Change, the key to achieve it.
+1
Check out any videos by Rosa Koire on the subject of Agenda 21. She’s a neat lady with a lot to say.
Here is one example …
Agree. Hypothesis transitions to theory when simple correlation is demonstrated to be ’cause and effect’.
Worth showing to Wal Thornhill and Stephen Smith from thunderbolts.com They propose that the universe is electrical in nature and that the sun and stars are powered by inter galactic electrical currents. Their predictions for comets have been the most accurate so far.
I expect they would also accept the premise of the sun traveling in the galaxy causing a change in climate, though they would refute the dark matter aspect.
They also refute the Carbon Dioxide and Greenhouse premise.
While I sometimes feel the Thunderbolts folks can get a bit carried away with confirmation bias, I think that they offer numerous ideas and insights that are worthy of serious consideration … not only for astrophysics, but also for the understanding of climate and weather.
But I thought plasma physics was verboten around these parts. At a minimum, plasma physics contributions are not allowed (if I understand correctly) … which is a shame.
What is Ma the abbreviation for?
Mega annum.. That is million years.
Millennia ago
I always thought it was short for ‘MaMa’ … as their puckered lips search for the Breast of More Funding.
They should rename it “dark doesn’t-matter.”
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png
Next time we rearrange the classroom, I want my desk next to Max’s.
Another interesting contribution and your actual science too.
We are on a planet that spins with an orbiting moon and which together orbit a star in conjunction with a number of other planets, big and small, not to mention all those asteroids, comets and cosmic dust. All this spinning and orbiting occurs at a number of periods and with a whole set of interactive effects.
To posit that the fluid systems of the planet, liquid and gaseous, are NOT affected by all that periodic action, let alone the resonant and seiching (basically reflection and period doubling) possibilities is absurd.
To posit that the ‘science is settled’ without being able to quantify all those effects on the Earth’s climate is also absurd but more to the point, utterly arrogant.
Re: “utterly arrogant”, I reckon hubris generally is … especially when it is publicly funded..
As for visualizing some of this galaxy/gravity stuff, I’ve found it to be more fun if a banjo is involved along with a gopro taped UNDER the bow of a kayak drifting downstream. As per some of the current movements and weird reflections and distortions captured in the following (albeit long) youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa0N8IS_hR8
regarDS
Ya wanna play ?
Per Wiki :
Stars and gases at a wide range of distances from the Galactic Center orbit at approximately 220 kilometers per second. The constant rotation speed contradicts the laws of Keplerian dynamics and suggests that much of the mass of the Milky Way does not emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation. This mass has been given the name “dark matter”.[29]
================
I got all night.
All of that other stuff exists on a different dimensional plane, unknown to our ordinary consciousness.
How’s that?
Is that the same as saying it is beyond our current understanding.
If so, somebody needs to get on that job.
Theoretical work always models extra dimensions as empty. All they need do is stuff it with matter.
Sort of like æther?
From Fred Hoyle’s book The Dark Cloud: “Is bastard in cloud.”
No idea really, forgetting about climate for a second, but what about mass extinctions and this 32M oscillation?
looking at the the same time frame, 540M years, that makes ~17 cycles. Mass extinctions are counted in the 5-20. Of course they are not regular, but each time the solar system oscillates it is passing through a different part of the galaxy – until the galactic year repeats (unless I have it wrong).
With the galactic year at 240M years. that would mean Phanerozoic is a little more than 2 Galactic years, or trips around the rim. if you squint real hard at this there a big line around 250 and 500
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Extinction_intensity.svg/480px-Extinction_intensity.svg.png
Needless to say the 32M does not sync with the 240 so if that caused anything it would not repeat .. not to mention, maybe the dark matter (or whatever it is) at the edge of the trim has its own freaking cycle.
Maybe we’ll get lucky!
I’m not going to comment on the hypothesis, but the first graphic is impressive.
Love to see big thinking like this because we are obviously missing a huge piece of the puzzle. This is not a first principle level idea, any more than Milankovitch. It may be a layer.
I have specific objections, of course. No convection occurs anywhere in the mantle. The driving force of tectonic motion is shallow lineations of molten rock of unknown, and plausibly electromagnetic provenance.
Tunnels of dark energy?
You are rarely going to be right thinking big, but if you don’t, you never escape the rat race.
The graphs are a treat. I wonder if the story is true.
Dark matter need not be thought of as something mystical. At least some of the matter in the Universe should be expected to be dark , since it requires energy to observe an object and most of space is cold and low in energy. Think of ‘Dark Matter’ in its simplest form as normal matter that is cold and does not radiate any energy, for example, dead stars. This type of ‘dark matter’ is called Baryonic Dark Matter.
The amount of dark matter is important in determining whether the Universe is ‘open’, i.e. it will go on expanding forever, or ‘closed’, i.e. it will eventually collapse in on itself (an indefinite cycle?)
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec16.html
If you look at mountains that have snow caps from a long distance, you cannot see the actual mountains but only the tops covered with snow. However, the mountains still exist even though not visible to our eyes.
Isn’t it time for Rahmstorf to publish a press release about bad scientific methods ? (climategate I)
Thanks, Kirby Schlaht. This is a very good article.
I think Nir Shaviv has an important theory.
http://www.sciencebits.com is a website to visit, if you like science. Thanks, Nir Shaviv.
I do not care for his explanations for why the climate may change. Data can not be reconciled with what he is saying especially over short periods of time.
Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts. It does incorporate extra-terrestrial /terrestrial events but not at the center piece for how/why the climate may change as does Nir Joseph Shaviv.
I treat what he says as perhaps a having a further modulation upon the climate but not the overwhelming cause.
PART ONE
HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE
Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.
From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.
My explanation:
I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature gradient equator to pole), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is/ average global temperature) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.
What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.
The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.
The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.
QUESTIONS:
Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?
Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?
Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?
My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.
.
Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness.
NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/ inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.
“The evidence suggests that it is variations in global volcanism,…”
The paper deals with this issue. Volcanism related to plate tectonics would tend to be more random and not be expected to follow such regular cycles. Plus the onset would be abrupt with longer relaxation time.
Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
This is an interesting theory and is provided for your examination and evaluation. We live on a planet in a complex galactic neighborhood.
Hi all. My theory that follows the data for the last half-million years is that the Earth’s tilt cycle of 41,000 years brings on warming and cooling that interacts with the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle. My Fourer analysis shows 450,000 years of data that are remarkably close to the temps and ice depths in Antarctica as determined by the separately derived European and Russian data. Another influence is the alignment of the planets that put the center of mass of the solar system sometimes inside of the Sun and sometimes
outside of it, even quite far away. Jupiter and Saturn mainly cause this variation and wobble of the Sun
about the solar system c.m., which either increases or alleviates stress on the Sun in its wobbly orbit.
The galactic influence on the Earth’s weather could be significant, but would have a greatly lower
frequency that what we see on Earth over the last few million years that humanoid creatures have
existed. — Carl G. Looney, Ph.D.,Mathematics, Professor Emeritus of Computer Science & Engineering.
.
Kirby
There is no 32 Ma cycle of ice ages. Look at the four ice ages in past one billion years.
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/geologic%20global%20temp.jpg
Dr Strange.., In Shaviv’s 2002 paper he postulates that the Ice Age Epochs coincide with the solar system crossing a galactic spiral arm at 150M year intervals – looks pretty close to me. The 32M year periods through the galactic plane coincide with “cooler” and “warmer” periods of climate exposure for the animal fossils studied.
There is only one 150M year interval between the Carboniferous and Ordovician ice ages. However, the latter is probably caused by a gamma ray burst during the Ordovician-Silurian extinction. The gamma rays produced nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere that became photochemical smog that blocked sunlight. The Carboniferous ice age is caused by evolution of land plants that depleted CO2 to below 300 ppm.
Shaviv and his team are widely regarded as first-rate scientists and among the cleverest people on the planet. They usually know what they are talking about.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/cp-8-1473-2012.pdf
This shows various inter-glacial and glacial cycles which do not fit in with the 32 million year cycle for ice ages and supports what Dr. Strangelove presented.
far out.
green grass roots.
“”Dr. Strangelove
March 23, 2015 at 1:55 am
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/geologic%20global%20temp.jpg “”
That above graph’s wave pattern has a similarity to this one..
http://www.rpi.edu/~newbeh/NewbergRPIGalaxyWiggles_Lablels_8K_V2.small.jpg
Brent had the article posted above about the waves of the galaxy’s spiral arms.
The Corrugated Galaxy—Milky Way May Be Much Larger Than Previously Estimated
Findings Led by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Researchers Published in the Astrophysical Journal
March 11, 2015
http://news.rpi.edu:8080/content/2015/03/09/rippling-milky-way-may-be-much-larger-previously-estimated
Which he said resembles the heliospheric current sheath. I agree and probably also carries out the galactic magnetic field, which we call the Interstellar Magnetic Field, which has a compressional effect on the heliosophere and and solar system. And could do so hemispherically at the heliospheric size.
Now what could hemispherically affect the solar rotation parameters???