Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Milky Way's Spiral Arms Could Not Have Caused Climate Change

Posted by Soulskill on from the it-was-the-one-armed-galaxy dept.

KentuckyFC writes "One of the puzzles of Earth's climate history is an apparent 140-million-year cycle in the climate record. Various astronomers think this can be explained by the passage of the Sun through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, which also seems to have had a period of about 140 million years. The thinking is that in regions of denser star populations, supernovas would have been more common, bathing the Earth in cosmic rays more often. These cosmic rays would then have seeded the formation of clouds that cool the planet. But in recent years, astronomers have mapped out the structure of the galaxy in much more detail. And now a pair of US astronomers have reanalyzed this climate change idea in light of the new evidence. Their conclusion is that the climate change cycle cannot possibly have coincided with the movement of the Sun through the spiral arms. So whatever caused the 140-million-year climate change cycle on Earth, it wasn't the Sun's passage through the galaxy."

14 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Climatologists struggle to stay relevant by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bummer about how the Sun is more responsible for global warming than people.

    So what? Heart disease is more responsible for human deaths than murder, and yet we still take action against murderers.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  2. Since these comments are going to suck.... by HerculesMO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because now the political "we don't cause GW" arguments will begin, and the bickering....

    It shouldn't even be about global warming. It should be about national security. If you have no renewable resources, and rely on other (enemy) nations to provide that stuff to you and your way of life, you have a severe problem.

    Let's get off oil if for nothing else, to bankrupt every middle eastern country out there. We won't bother maintaining a presence there if there's nothing to take advantage of.

    --
    The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    1. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It needs to be at least a little about the environment, because otherwise our easiest move may be to switch from oil to coal, which we have a lot more of. Of course, coal pollutes like crazy (even so-called "clean" coal), so it would be nice if we could keep the environmental stuff at the forefront too. I do agree that national security is a helpful selling point, though.

    2. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by HerculesMO · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm, the countries that have oil and we buy it from them don't want to nuke us.

      The ones we take oil from do want to nuke us.

      Either way, if we remove oil from the picture, it's a win-win.

      --
      The price is always right if someone else is paying.
    3. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ones we take oil from do want to nuke us.

      Please list the countries from which we "take" oil.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Long term thinking is all very well so long as the short term picture doesn't sneak up and slit your throat before you get there. We can't "get off oil" tomorrow, that would achieve much the same effect as carpet bombing Americas 20 biggest cities would have. Until there is a viable long term alternative to fossil fuels for baseload electrical power, heating, cooking and transportation, it makes sense to pursue short term solutions to energy problems at the same time is we pursue long term renewable sources of energy

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    5. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by chartreuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice straw man. Time to learn about realpolitik.

    6. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not about where in particular the US consumer's oil comes from, since it's all part of a single global market.

      What's important, in geopolitical terms, is controlling the oil that other people are using. It gives tremendous political leverage internationally. This has almost nothing to do with domestic US politics.

      Consider for instance how FDR would have gotten the USA into WWII, without having an effective monopoly control over global oil sales (in cooperation with the British and Dutch govt. in exile - the USSR's oil not being sold on the global open market at that time - the British and Dutch having become virtual satellites of the USA even before the US entry into the war thanks to their being bankrupt and the USA being their major backer in terms of lend lease). No de facto control over global oil sales, no ability to embargo Japan, and thus no ability to force Japan to either go to war with the USA, or else become FDR's bitches by giving in to blackmail and becoming a de facto lackey of the USA.

      It's about controlling oil in global terms, it is not about where the oil US consumers use happens to come from.

    7. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by john.r.strohm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, there already *IS* a viable long term alternative to fossil fuels for baseload electrical power, heating, cooking and transportation.

      It is called "nuclear".

      See "The Economics of Nuclear Power" at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html.

      For the people who feel like ranting about nuclear waste, consider the sheer size of the installations that are being proposed for ground-level solar arrays or algae farms, and ask yourselves how many Astrodome-sized nuclear waste storage facilities could be built on that amount of land.

      For the people who want to rant about the waste being horribly toxic for millenia (it isn't; the dangerous stuff is very, very short-lived), consider that the CO2 pollution model assumes that industrial carbon dioxide is deadly FOREVER - which it isn't, left to itself, with a little assist from Mother Nature, carbon dioxide turns into trees and grass and FOOD.

      (Note that mine tailings, while considered radwaste by the Department of Energy, are actually LESS radioactive than the raw ore was, because the useful uranium has been TAKEN OUT of the mine tailings. If, as raw ore, it was safe enough to leave it in the ground, without any stewardship whatsoever, I really fail to understand how REDUCING its radioactivity has made it UNSAFE to put BACK in the ground.)

      For some reason, environmentally-concerned citizens seem to have never learned basic arithmetic OR basic biology The carbon cycle, how animals consume oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, while plants consume carbon dioxide and emit oxygen, used to be taught in elementary school science lessons, and then again, in more detail, in high-school biology classes, at least in the US.

  3. Re:Climatologists struggle to stay relevant by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first 300 degrees Kelvin due to the sun might be all well and good, but when you add 20 degrees more by man-made causes you get big problems.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  4. Re:Climatologists struggle to stay relevant by genner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what? Hippos are responsible for fewer human deaths than heart disease, but we don't take action against hippopotamuses.

    Maybe you don't.
    Your totally going to get your canoe bitten in half with that attitude.

  5. Re:Farnsworth exists? by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Damn you kids, um Philo Farnsworth who invented the television and inertial confinement fusion amongst other things.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  6. Re:You know what this means? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    140 million years ago? sure, who else could it be?

  7. Re:You know what this means? by overunderunderdone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well yes, a 140 million year cycle can't be us.