Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
