Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union

Comment [on “Cosmic rays, carbon dioxide, and climate”]



Rahmstorf et al. [2004], in their “critique” of Shaviv and Veizer [2003], assert that the proposed correlation between cosmic ray flux (CRF) and paleoclimate during the Phanerozoic does not “hold up under scrutiny” because its astrophysical background is based on “questionable assumptions” and circular reasoning, and because the meteoritic and terrestrial databases and statistics are manipulated.

They further claim that the Shaviv and Veizer [2003] treatment of the CO2/climate relationship is not scientifically sustainable, and that the oxygen isotope record is likely a proxy of oceanic pH and not of paleotemperature. They make a host of additional assertions that cannot all be restated here.