Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

27 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Climatologists struggle to stay relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bummer how the latest economic crunch sent all the "green" masturbators back to their basements.

    Yeah, look at them hiding in their basements.

  2. 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
  3. 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 larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where is the national security in forcing any remaining manufacturers offshore where they don't have to deal with carbon credits and higher electrical costs?

      The US has 273 billion tons of proven coal reserves, far more than any other country, and that coal can be liquefactioned into gasoline.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. 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.
    5. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by abigor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. The people who rattle on about how the US invades countries for oil tend to fall silent when they find out that Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US.

    6. 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
    7. Re:Since these comments are going to suck.... by chartreuse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice straw man. Time to learn about realpolitik.

    8. 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.

  4. Heh by Kingrames · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is the very technical (and long-winded) explanation for something along the lines of "We are telling you, Miss Daisy, that your cat was not put into that tree by giant ninja robots from outer space."

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    1. Re:Heh by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunately, Miss Daisy will still cite it as one of the many reasons she shouldn't have to keep her damn cat inside.

  5. Hold on there, Wilbur by uassholes · · Score: 2, Funny
    I took a look at it: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2777

    They're jumping to conclusions. It will be 140 million years before we have enough data to decide.

  6. You know what this means? by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

    It must be the unicorns fault!

    I mean... it cant be us. Right?

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:You know what this means? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

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

  7. It is difficult to say who is right by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both Shaviv's and Melott's papers are based upon models of the Milky Way that are built from observations taken from a single point in the universe, and made during a negligible time frame. This model is then kept valid and unchanged for a timeframe of about 1.000.000.000 years, neglecting for example errors in measuring accelerations of the galaxy and of the solar system, the 3D structure of the galaxy, dark matter influence (and existence...) on the motion of the galaxy, etc. Still too much unknowns before reaching a definite answer, isn't it ?!?

    1. Re:It is difficult to say who is right by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here you can find a brief description of the Milky Way structure. In the time frame of 1 Gy our solar system makes probably four revolutions around the center of our galaxy. I try to make an example about what is the problem with the theory related with TFA. Suppose you live in New York City: get out from your home, look carefully to people around you, then get into the underground. Make four trips all around the city, and go back home. Are the very same people you met before still all around you ?!? Some of your neighbours for sure, others don't, somebody who previously was hidden is now in sight of you, and somebody else died or emigrated elsewhere. Now you are the solar system: what if one of your neighbours is like this one ? And what about dark matter (if ever exists) ? My point is that to prove or disprove the theories from Shaviv or Mellot we need something better than a piece of paper with a sketch of our galaxy, and a sign showing "you are here". I wonder if some further evidence can be inferred from geological data besides O16/O18 measurements. I am very curious about the outcome...

  8. Just invalidates Cosmic Ray cloud seeding. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A lot of the invalidations of these spaced theories tend to focus on the effects of cloud formation by cosmic rays, but are they so sure that these are the only effects that space could have? Space is pretty big, and the earth is pretty complex, and I would be willing to bet that there's going to be something out there in space, besides the obvious asteroid, that screws us.

    --
    This is my sig.
  9. 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.
  10. ANY change? by denzacar · · Score: 2, Informative

    You mean like that time that big ball of burning gas shot down and all dinosaurs died? Or did it just burn colder for a while back then?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  11. 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.

  12. Not Arms by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In 1978 is was suggested that a galactic density wave, rather than passage through the arms, was responsible for the 140 My events. This wave, with a period 1/2 that of galactic rotation, eminates from the galactic core. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k1t6v868227t7403/

    The solar system doesn't just orbit the galaxy. It oscillates up and down through the galactic plane with a period of 88 +/- 5 My. This too has been suggested as being involved in extinctions, since the galactic plane is denser than the regions outside it.

    I'm glad they got a better galactic map, and I'm sure it shows what they say. But the arms themselves aren't the only things hypothesized to be involved.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Not Arms by Teancum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the problems with the suggestion of moving through the galactic plane being a major issue is that the Sun is currently very close to the main galactic plane at the moment. That is something that has to be explained if you want to use this concept to prove or disprove a hypothesis regarding the orbit our solar system takes through the galaxy.

      What I would be curious about is the "CO2 data" that they are using, and the assumption that global temperatures have a direct correlation to this substance, not to mention the reliability of the measurement process over the scale of billions of years to calculate what levels of this gas were through more than just a couple of galactic years. Yes, I know there are attempts to measure global temperatures over time using the geologic record, but it seems to me that both the CO2 measurements as well as measurements of the orbit of the solar system have such huge margins of error that doing a statistical comparison of the two could give you virtually any kind of conclusion that you want.

      I have to assume that this paper addresses these issues in some detail (I would love to read the original paper).

      One other thing that struck me, in looking at the supposed solar system orbit that they plotted in this paper, is if they have accounted for the fact that the galaxy is a dynamic and not a static place? They calculated the path of the Sun over apparently three galactic years, but at the same time all of the objects that they used for measuring protuberance of the orbit are also moving in their own galactic orbits. If there is a model that they were able to develop that shows the galactic evolution of the Milky Way over the past 500 million years. Seriously, I had no idea that stellar parallax measurements (to accurately plot the positions of stars) were so accurate and have been for long enough to not only get a good fix on the position of a large number of stars in the Milky Way to be able to also plot the apparent trajectories of this many stars and galactic nebulae. That is some trick, and such a model would have a great many other uses besides trying to prove anthropogenic global warming (or disproving an alternative hypothesis).

      My understanding was that stellar parallax measurements were only good to about 1 or 2 significant digits and getting the order of magnitude down. That may have improved with the Hubble and some other star surveys with really accurate telescopes, but I don't think it is too much better than that.

  13. 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.

  14. the actual cause of global warming. by Cr0vv · · Score: 2, Funny

    The actual cause of global warming, is a planet in the solar system that Nasa warned us about in 1983 (Washington Post) but was quickly repressed by the Government. Since then, the planet has progressed in it's sling orbit through our solar system. Currently, it resides just north of the Sun's south pole near the ecliptic. It's a magnetic brown dwarf with unusual moon swirls in 2 "tails", which is why ancient cultures depicted it as a winged planet. It's a magnetic powerhouse, which is why the Sun is uncharacteristically sunspot/activity quiet now -- the interloping planet has it's north pole pointing at the sun. The magma of the Earth is very responsive to a magnetic field; it roils due to the magnetic influence of this planet causing the Earth's crust to heat up -- hence, Global Warming. That simple. Don't look for the evidence of this in normal news channels, they are not allowed to report on this, neither are the astronauts or the astronomical observatories. Crow.