Notices
Results 1 to 51 of 51

Thread: Earth Magnetic poles about to flip? Possible Ice-Age?

  1. #1 Earth Magnetic poles about to flip? Possible Ice-Age? 
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Dont know if anyone here has been following the news this morning. Have a look here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...udy/index.html

    Magnetic poles flip:
    http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/RevScience.html

    Magnetic pole moving story : http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...20/north.pole/

    Worst hurricane season on record this year: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/hurricanes/

    The sun does a flip:
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm

    Magnetic Field Fading:
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science....ap/index.html

    More reading:
    http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/sunspmax.html / http://istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/earthmag/reversal.htm (Those seem to link as well)

    This all reminds me a lot of the movie... Day after tomorrow

    Basicaly, it looks like the earth`s polar axis may flip, ice-age etc. Anyone else got an opinion on all of this?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Poles 'flip' from time to time. The last one was about 780,000 years ago and there's no evidence to suggest that anything catastrophic occurs when they do. No mass extinctions. No tectonic activity.

    Indeed, it just appears that the poles 'wander' a bit then gradually change positions.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Yes, they do happen from time to time. They also seem to be linked to bigg chills.

    What about todays report on CNN:

    Atlantic Conveyor flow slowed by about 30 percent between 1957 and 2004.
    Its going to get mighty chilly in europe the next 4 years me thinks. If you looked at all the links there seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting this is going to be bad for a lot of people.

    I think the Tsunami and Hurricanes were just the start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You need to distinguish between cause and effect, and coincidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    Yes, they do happen from time to time. They also seem to be linked to bigg chills.
    No they aren't. Cite one piece of evidence that supports this.
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    Atlantic Conveyor flow slowed by about 30 percent between 1957 and 2004.
    Which has absolutely nothing to do with any impending pole reversal.
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    Its going to get mighty chilly in europe the next 4 years me thinks. If you looked at all the links there seems to be a lot of evidence suggesting this is going to be bad for a lot of people.
    Global warming (or normal random variations in weather patterns) are producing some extreme conditions. This has nothing to do with pole reversals.
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    I think the Tsunami and Hurricanes were just the start.
    The tsunami was related to the normal process of plate tectonics. That occurs in the lithosphere and aethenosphere. The magnetic field is generated in the outer core. No association between the two events.
    Hurricanes are as noted above related to conventional chaotic weather. There is no implication of the pole reversals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    I am obviously not an academic like some people here, but it looks mighty funny like something is about to change.

    I also know I know almost nothing about the subject so will read all the replies I get to make my opinion. It is subject to change:P Please exscuse my poor spelling

    Could you have a look here : http://www.iceagenow.com/Magnetic_Reversal_Chart.htm unless the information presented there is completely false, there does seem to be a corilation. If it is false, please could you give me a reference to read up more information. Thanks


    Could this be plausible?:

    The earths molten core rotates, its creates a magnetic field. That and our atmosphere protects us from most solar radiation.

    I know that speed of our north pole`s movement has increased signaintly over the last couple of years, and have also noticed that the magnetic field has declined signifintly in that time period. (any connection with the fact that the Atlantic Conveyor flow slowed by about 30 percent over the last 50 years?)

    I was watching a show on the Discovery channel a while back that had probible computer simulations of the earths core roating, and they were able to simulate the the core changing direction. This simulations showed a complete reversal of the flow of the molten core. If this is true, would not something like this seriously effect life on the surface?

    Is it not possible that the depletion of the magnetic field around the earth is allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface, which in turn is causing the ice to melt, thereby adding more fresh water to oceans, which would lead to current changes, and therefore significant climate changes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    A. It's not going to flip anytime soon.
    B. Flipping is a gradual multi-decade process.
    C. It's happened many times before with no disaster, no ice age.
    D. I'd be a lot more worried about an asteroid hitting the earth (which I am not very worried about).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Well, every time i hear how long its going to take to flip, the time spanner gets shorter and shorter as science improves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    177
    I suggest that you educate yourself by reading refereed journals, and not dubious internet sources. You may find that no real scientists are 'flipping out' over this subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    yeah, well sorry, the coincidence seems might large. I will however take your advice and read further, prehaps the correct references will set me straight?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Actually it could set off a new ice age much the same way that global warming may. The field flipping is not the big deal, as in up being down and down being up. The problem is there's a period in between where the magnetic field is virtually non-existent. The magnetic field shields us, and everything else on earth, from copious amounts of solar radition. This time in between, with all of this new radiation, could potentially have major consequences.

    The scenario that makes the most sense concerning this that I've heard when it comes to how an ice age begins starts with the ice caps melting and dilluting ocean currents and changing the climate all over the world. The increased water lowers the temperature and the world freezes. The time in between of the magnetic flip can certainly do this.

    This is drastically oversimplified, but I hope you get the idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Interesting subject Wizard! One of the links you provided ( http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/RevScience.html ) allready seems to answer a lot of the questions.

    According to the article there could very well be a magnetic field flip in the near future, but this will not be dangerous to us:

    "So, it seems that we may be headed for another magnetic reversal event in perhaps the next few thousand years. This event, based on past fossil and geological history, will not cause planet-wide catastrophies. The biosphere will not become extinct. Radiation from space will not cause horrible mutations everywhere. Ocean tides will not devastate coastal regions, and there will certainly not be volcanic activity that leads to global warming.

    Of course, scientists cannot predict which minor effects may take place. A magnetic reversal could be a big nuisance to many organisms that will not lead to their extinction, but it just might lead to temporary changes in the way they would normally conduct themselves. The fossil record doesn't record how a species reacted to minor nuisances!"

    Silkworm, it seems that the article confirms your argument about a flip causing a higher level of radiation. However, it doesn't seem to be big enough to cause any problems:

    "The magnetic field of Earth shields us from cosmic rays, so losing this shield may seem like a big deal, but it really isn't. Cosmic rays are not the same kind of radiation as light, instead it consists of fast-moving particles of matter such as electrons, protons and the nuclei of some atoms. Our atmosphere is actually a far better shield of cosmic radiation than Earth's magnetic field. Losing the magnetic field during a reversal would only increase our natural radiation background exposure on the ground by a small amount - perhaps not more than 10%. The long term result might be a few thousand additional cases of cancer every year, but certainly not the extinction of the human race."

    So this event, if it will happen in our livetimes, would be a very interesting episode for us, but certainly not our last one :wink:

    Still, what I don't understand is: why does the magnetic field flip at all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    ... perhaps not more than 10%...
    If 10% isn't a lot I don't know what is. Sure, 10% more radiations with just you and I hanging out by ourselves on the beach looking at girls and drinking booze, no big whoop. A few more sunburns and our chances of skin cancer rise. But if you look at the whole (fairly) isolated system that is the earth and the effect that 10% more radiation would have and I'm thinking 1% is enough to raise concern.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    This is basically how what I have got going in my head:

    1) The magnetic north pole is moving and lateley its been increasing speed.

    2) The magnetic field is depleting at roughly the same speed as what the speed of the pole is increasing by.

    3) That in about the same period of time of the pole acceleration, currents are changing direction.

    4) Mini Ice-Ages have been linked to pole flips.

    Couple of other points I am noticing (but due to my lack of education on the matter may be of no consiquence)

    If you have a look at the current maps at (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...udy/index.html) you will notice a big red circle in the mid-north atlantic. Is this whats creating the hurricances? The hurricanes that seem to be spinning off seems to rotate in the same clockwise direction of the currents. Or am I just missing the mark here?

    NASA says that the Sun will flip on its poll in 2012 again. Could this speed up our already happening magnetic pole flip? I know from playing with smaller magnets this is basically possible. Prehaps the reason why not all pole flips have not been linked constantly to a definite "ice-age" has been because sometimes the pole shifts are slow and normal, and sometimes they may speed up due to a solar pole flip?

    Who is willing to put money that Epsilon is the last hurricane of the season? If it is, how will the next season go, because if I am guessing right here, its just going downhill for the next 20 years or so from here.

    All information and points of view are most welcome. I really want to be wrong on all of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Dont know if anyone can assist me here, I want to research this a lot more, and get in a lot more data on whats happening. If anyone can help me with the following, I would greatly appretiate it:

    1) Images taken of our earth and as much information on the molten core that is creating this electomagnetic field around us.
    2) Artic and Antartic weather and temp`s for the last 30-50 years. (I want to see if there is a corilation between the speed up of the magnetic pole and changes in temp. and weather in certain areas.
    3) Dates of all the sun`s polar flips, or guestimated dates on the flips (I want to see what the corilations between the sun magnetic polar flip and the earths.. specificaly I want to see what happened when they both flipped together (as is what is currently happening)

    Or if anyone knows of any insitutes or people who are currently researching this in depth, I would love to be put in contact with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    NASA.gov

    But we have no idea what is at the center of the Earth. That's still very much up in the air. I'm of the thought with a very small minority of scientists that uranium is down there.

    Actually, we have no idea what is just a few kilometers down. Geology is very very very difficult.

    The information for the artic and antartic over the last 30-50 years will show a slow but sure rise due to global warming and CFCs from aerosols destroying the ozone in the antartic.

    But I'm sure NASA has all of the information you want on the sun. Viva SOHO.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Here is some interesting reading I have found about the electomagnetic field around the earth and its reversal:

    http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

    I bet if we got all the data we could get our hands on, we would find a pretty definitive link between the speed at which the magnetic pole has increased, the depletion of the magnetic field and the current changes in weather.

    I have emailed every insitute I can think of for more data so I can get some graphs working on a timeline.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    This is basically how what I have got going in my head:

    1) The magnetic north pole is moving and lateley its been increasing speed.
    The magnetic north has always been moving and I'm aware of no evidence that it is increasing. Have you a source for this?

    2) The magnetic field is depleting at roughly the same speed as what the speed of the pole is increasing by.
    Again, source?

    3) That in about the same period of time of the pole acceleration, currents are changing direction.
    Source?

    4) Mini Ice-Ages have been linked to pole flips.
    No they haven't. Geomagnetic reversals have, of course, occurred during glacial periods, but they have not been positively correlated with them. Nor is there any evidence that we should look in this direction.

    The hurricanes that seem to be spinning off seems to rotate in the same clockwise direction of the currents. Or am I just missing the mark here?
    It's called the coriolis effect. If you look in the southern hemisphere, you'll see typhoons and currents spinning in the opposite direction.

    NASA says that the Sun will flip on its poll in 2012 again. Could this speed up our already happening magnetic pole flip?
    It hasn't in the past. But understanding the Sun's magnetic reversal might provide more information about the hows & whys of Earth's. What force would you suggest exists between the sun and the earth that would influence each other's magnetic fields to that degree? The magnetic fields are both relatively weak with both the sun and earth. The Earth's magnetic field has a strength of about 0.5 gauss (Marshall and Skitek 1987). The field's strength is, at best, 0.68 gauss at the poles and at its weakest along the field's equator, around 0.31 gauss (Bagenal, 1992).

    Who is willing to put money that Epsilon is the last hurricane of the season? If it is, how will the next season go, because if I am guessing right here, its just going downhill for the next 20 years or so from here.
    The correlation of hurricanes with geomagnetic polar reversals is a spurious one. There is no connection. Hurricanes increase in frequency and intensity due to water temperatures. There is no evidence to suggest a correlation between water temperature and geomagnetic reversal. Recent models have indicated that virtual geomagnetic poles -VGPs- (Glatzmaier et al, 1998) simply wander from their positions to new ones, leaving the magnetic field intact.

    According to Bouligand et al (2005), during a reversal -which could take a thousand years or more- the field doesn't "stop," it gets more complicated. It still exists, it is simply not as clearly defined.

    Some references that you might find helpful:

    Bagenal, Fran, (1992) Magnetospheres of the giant planets. Annual Review of Earth & Planetary Science, 20, 289-328

    Bouligand, C.; Hulot, G.; Khokhlov, A.; Glatzmaier, G. A. (2005) Statistical palaeomagnetic field modelling and dynamo numerical simulation Geophysical Journal International, 161(3), 603-626

    Glatzmaier, Gary A., Coe, R., Hongre, L., and Roberts, P. (1998) The role of the Earth's mantle controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals, Nature, 401, 885-90

    Harrison, C G A (1987) Marine Magnetic Anomalies--The Origin of the Stripes. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 15, 505-543

    Marshall, S. V,. and G. G. Skitek (1987). Electromagnetic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    The magnetic north has always been moving and I'm aware of no evidence that it is increasing. Have you a source for this?
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...20/north.pole/

    Again, source?
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science....ap/index.html

    Source?
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sp...20/north.pole/ + http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science....ap/index.html + http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science...udy/index.html

    Its seriously conincidental that all these things are following a very similar time line


    [
    "Mini Ice Age" May Be Coming Soon, Sea Study Warns

    James Owen
    for National Geographic News

    November 30, 2005
    Chilling new evidence from the Atlantic Ocean is raising fears that western Europe could soon be gripped by a mini ice age.

    Global warming is slowing down the ocean current that carries warm waters from the tropics to the North Atlantic, scientists say.


    In the 2004 eco-disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow, a similar scenario spurred sudden, catastrophic climate change, with much of Europe and the United Stated transformed into frozen wastelands within days.

    That scenario remains far-fetched. But British scientists say their new findings indicate that the threat looks all too real for northern Europe and marine animals.

    Researchers at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, England, found that the flow of warm ocean currents toward northwest Europe has declined by 30 percent since the 1950s.

    The research, to be published tomorrow in the journal Nature, is based on data collected in a great swath of the Atlantic between West Africa and Florida.

    Led by oceanographer Harry Bryden, the team detected other key changes in the overall Atlantic circulation system.

    For one thing, there appears to be a 50 percent reduction in the amount of cold, deep water flowing from the North Atlantic to the tropics, the team says.

    Also, the researchers found a 50 percent increase in currents circulating within subtropical seas without reaching higher latitudes. More warm waters, that is, are staying put in the tropics.

    The study supports computer model predictions suggesting that global warming will switch off the North Atlantic current in the next 50 to 100 years. (See "Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says.")

    "This provides the first evidence that such a slowdown is actually occurring," said Detlef Quadfasel, oceanographer at the University of Hamburg in Germany
    Real coincidence we get all the above happening during a polar shift.


    What would be your opinions on this data I found? :
    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/glo...physical2.html (link reffered to again later) Im not ashamed to say I had to wikipedia a lot of the words. (What dies antropohenedus mean?)..

    I am just trying to look at all points of view on this, from every source I can find, so exscuse me if I post silly links. The only way I can get an idea on the quality of the information they contain is by posting it here, and seen the opposing points of view.

    Also got this out of wikipedia:

    At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the field to disappear, albeit temporarily, by about 3000-4000 AD. The rapid deterioration began at least 150 years ago and has accelerated in the past several years, with a total decrease of 10-15% over these 150 years. This change is within the normal range of variation, as shown by study of magnetic fields in rocks, and need not necessarily lead to a reversal. However, it is known from models done on supercomputers that reversals occur when the earth's magnetic field is at is weakest.

    A polar shift would coincide with more solar radiation striking the Earth's surface. The earth could also develop mutiple poles on both sides of the equator for a period of time. It is theorized that due to the increased exposure to radiation, many could succumb to cancer.
    Almost every different source I reads has a different time frame for all this happening... dates ranging for thousands of years, to less than hundreds of years, wonder who`s the closest.


    http://www.iceagenow.com/Magnetic_Reversal_Chart.htm 12 out of 16 is enough for me. Though I know the source is not reliable, if it can be prooven incorrect i will remove it from the information I am working with.


    Also, there is some interesting reading here : http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/glo...ophysical.html and http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/s...?threadid=6042 (discussion on the afore mentioned link)



    Thank you for the reference's, I will be reading all of that, and adding it to the information I currently have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    49
    I'm no climate or weather expert so I can't really give my opinion on this. All I know is that weather has been a little strange. I live in Kentucky and it's been cold, not cold enough for there to be allot of snow, but just below 35 degrees. But a few nights ago it was about 35 degrees and we had lightning and thunder like it was summer, it was wild. It only lasted about ten minutes. Is it common to have lightning and thunder when its that cold?
    "Nature is an infinite sphere whos center is everywhere and whose circumferense is nowhere."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    I just ran across a story about this so I'll post the link here.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051209/..._magnetic_pole

    It says that the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that Alaska will lose the Northern Lights in the next 50 years. The Northern Lights are expected to become visible in Siberia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Umm... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    I am obviously not an academic like some people here, but it looks mighty funny like something is about to change.
    Look, the thing is that you - . You know what - nevermind. forget it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    130
    CNN and other popular, and often commercially corrupted sources, are hardly reliable scientific sources. It's simply a mistake to believe that what one sees or reads on these news services is either accurate or reliable. National Geographic has some nice pictures & interesting articles, but it's not a scientific source of information.

    Suggest NewScientist, Nature, Science News, and so forth. These are far, far more reliable science news sources than the 'stuff' in Time, Newsweek, the NYT, and the Reader's Digest, for example.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    "Steve"
    CNN and other popular, and often commercially corrupted sources, are hardly reliable scientific sources. It's simply a mistake to believe that what one sees or reads on these news services is either accurate or reliable. National Geographic has some nice pictures & interesting articles, but it's not a scientific source of information.
    I hear you steve, especially about National Geographic. I also have some experience about how they go about getting a lot of those pictures (kidnapping). I do still like them, but it's unfortunate when these forces attach doomsday story lines and zen like behavior to unconcious things in order to put butts in the seats, but at the price of corrupting the information and generating a lot of misperception.

    I'm retired media so I can tell how reliable a source is just by how the story is presented. It's a skill I wish to teach to other people, but I don't really know how to here. Maybe I'll think of something.

    With that said, I feel that NASA and the USGS are reliable sources. The link I gave was told second hand via the AP from the American Geophysical Union. Although it obviously had some dramatic flair to it, it's written in a form that is more accessible for non geologists, and still appears to be valid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    I'm retired media so I can tell how reliable a source is just by how the story is presented. It's a skill I wish to teach to other people, but I don't really know how to here. Maybe I'll think of something.
    I hope you do. THATs a thread I'd like to read. Perhaps you could begin with some examples that can be linked to or cited with the indicators of reliability/unreliability. At the very least, a discussion like this could confirm some of my own assumptions about source reliability.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    It says that the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that Alaska will lose the Northern Lights in the next 50 years. The Northern Lights are expected to become visible in Siberia.
    The Northern Lights aren't visible in Siberia! Damn, I must tell my Russian buddies to stop taking the vodka.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior silkworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    337
    "Skinwalker"

    I hope you do. THATs a thread I'd like to read. Perhaps you could begin with some examples that can be linked to or cited with the indicators of reliability/unreliability. At the very least, a discussion like this could confirm some of my own assumptions about source reliability.
    I'll give this considerable thought, but I'm not going to do it if I can't do it right. It would be easier for us to read the paper, watch TV, and listen to the radio together, which is something I've actually done pretty effectively with my 7 year old niece, however I fear I've made her a little bit paranoid.

    This one time, when she was about 4 she wanted me to play with her and I told her to give me a minute or two because I'm watching the news. She said, "Why are you watching the news, don't they just lie?" And she smiled real big and I remembered it was something I told her when she was like 3 or so. I told her, "It's still important to watch the news." She asked why, and I answered, "Because the way they lie tells you what the truth is." She's pretty good at it now for being 7, but far from as good at it as I'd like her to be.

    I have to think of a way to do it here and do it right. Thinking about it there seems to be a lot of material, and I don't have any of it organized. But I'll think about it because I feel that seeing these things is good for society, and will make them demand more from the media, which I'd very much like to see.

    I'm pretty much illiterate when it comes to forums (like putting in special characters, pictures, stuff like that) and that'll be a handicap. But I'm working on it. When I finish this effort it must be comprehensive and simple, but thanks for telling me your interested.

    "Ophiolite"
    The Northern Lights aren't visible in Siberia!
    Are they? I have no idea. I know I've seen them all the way down here a very few times when I was younger. Have you ever seen them over there?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    The Northern Lights aren't visible in Siberia!
    Are they? I have no idea. I know I've seen them all the way down here a very few times when I was younger. Have you ever seen them over there?
    Based upon latitude they have to be visible in Siberia. During my only trip to there I was more concerned about keeping warm at -35 celsius, than looking at the sky.
    I have seen them from northern Scotland several times. Quite spectacular.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/arti...MAMMALS-DC.XML

    I came across this today... hmmmmmm.

    Would not a flip in the magnetic core and a change of polar axis cause a change in possible orbit.

    Also take into consideration that in 2012 the sun is going to do a magnetic polar flip (according to NASA).

    With the sun doing a polar flip, their would surely be some type of reprocrusions on the heliosphere as it reorganizes itself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    107
    The sun reverses polarity every roughly 12 years with some regularity (so say, between 10 and 15 years, with an average of 12). Now I'v been alive for 25 years, so have lived through 3 of these. I don't remember being dead anytime in my life.

    Magnetism is not Gravity, If Earth even lost it's entire magnetic field it's not going to suddenly weigh less, the only way that can happen is if huge mountains are suddenly thrust into space. Weight and Inertia influence orbits. The only way to change the earth's orbit is to drastically change it's weight, or it's speed by accelerating it somehow, for instance by a collision with another body such as a moon-sized protoplanet (which would likley destroy the planet and all life on it) or removing changing the weight of the planet (again the only natural way of this happening is collision)


    As far as hurricanes, these are mostly build from standard low pressure (storm) systems which gain more and more energy from time spent over warm/hot ocean, or where warm and cold ocean and air mix. Jetstream air systems (where air can be moving in excess of 200km an hour at high altitude, say 9km - 14km high) can also effect and drive hurricanes and are a normal part of everyday weather systems (the most obvious example is the North Atlantic System where jetstream winds often move from west to east... the major factor for the difference in time it takes to fly from London to New York compared to the other way around (sometimes around 2 hours difference in flight times)

    Jetstreams are well documented due to their importance in Aviation flightplanning, a 4 times daily chart called the SIGWX is one usefull source for understanding these systems and developing a good feel for how they act on a day to day basis, one internet site which has SIGWX charts available for free is:
    http://aviationweather.gov/products/swm/
    (Green arrows are Jetstreams, the Tags show speed, Large, Thick tags are 50 knots, thin tags are 10 knots and half-length thin tags are 5 knots)
    marked in the vicinity is a value "FLxxx" this shows height of the jetstream in feet... FL310 would be "31,000ft"
    Red "cloud" shapes are thunderstorm systems, with the height of the highest clouds also shown with abbreviations on the amount of clouds.

    "OCNL EMBD CB 460" shows that there are Occasional Towering Cumulonimbus clouds with tops of 46,000ft high. If that was close to a 115 knot jetstream at FL350, you could well imagine that some of those clouds would develop quite some speed, and given enough heat might well have the ability to develop into a tropical depression or stronger system. This system is driven, at the simplest level, by HEAT, and the effects it has on air (Warm air becomes less dense, making an unequal pressure system) A cyclone is an exaggurated version of the standard heat and pressure regulating system.

    So why does heat do this to the atmosphere? Well the sun is the source of heat on the earth. (all the others are insignificant to the point of being non-existant). However the sun warms different surfaces differently. Some surfaces absorb more heat than others, Clouds can cause the sun to not heat up the surface below them, The sun is more efficient at heating at local noon, and less efficient when the angle of the sun is not directly overhead. The sun cannot heat the surface at local night. The World is roughly spherical and so at any given time there is ALWAYS exactly one place recieving direct overhead sunlight and heat, and always a large portion of the earth recieving no heat. Wind is a way of transferring this heat to regulate temperature. If there were no wind, it would drop to well below -100 degrees celcius in the negitave at night, and possibly be far hotter during the day.

    However this heat transferrence is not 100% efficient. If it were, the earth's temperature would be the same the world over, day, night, North Pole, Equator. And as such some places retain heat more readily and others divulge it more readily. When a storm develops it usually creates cloud, which tends to lower the temperature in it's local region. Heat creates Storms, and storms reduce heat. usually the balance is such that heat will create a storm which then reduces the local temperature, eventually dissipating the storm. However in some cases the heat can either remain, or can be fed by another system, such as the Warm North Atlantic Sea Currents, or indeed the Atmospheric Jetstreams. In this case the heat is being fed into the storm, and the storm continues to gain energy from this energy being inputted from another location. The natural process of cooling only cools the local area where the clouds exist, however with the Current moving warm water or air into the storm, the heat energy remains in the system, being fed from abroard, leading to a hurricane system which is trying to equalize the pressure difference between cold and hot air. In a normal storm this means moving the hot air out into the surrouding cold air, but in a developed depression or hurricane the cold air tends to become trapped in the cloud with the hot air being fed into the system from outside.

    If you are looking for a culprit for more Hurricanes, Magnetism is well off the mark. Global Warming and Climate Change are so closeley linked it is like saying "Air" and "Wind"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Well said, musicalaviator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by silkworm
    NASA.gov

    But we have no idea what is at the center of the Earth. That's still very much up in the air.
    Or more precisely buried deep beneath us...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    107
    *laughs at the strange "hollow earth theory" reference*

    and thanks to Skinwalker - nice to be given some validation on my first day here

    Finally although it is true that we don't exactly know what IS in the centre of the earth... we can rule out some things that ARE NOT. Those things being:
    1: Nothing and
    2: Just average everyday atmospheric air.

    The world cannot be hollow. otherwise it would break under it's own weight like an egg with all of it's contents removed would if it were under the ocean. What is there would have to be under alot of pressure, regardless of weather it is liquid or solid. Maybe it is liquid recompressed back into sold.

    What we do know is that we certainly cannot go there as humans. and due to the pressure it might be wise not to drill into it (apart from the fact that we can't anyway with current technology).

    We do however know it's something that seems to produce a large magnetic field (Visual evidence - the aurorae - and compasses). we also know it has to be made of naturally occuring things, although considering the denseness of the expected pressure, some of those things might be rather heavy and exotic relitavley speaking. We also know that at some depth below the ground there is hot liquified rock which occasionally pops up in volcanos. Weather the material in the core is related to this or not is not 100% verifiable but it would probably be a good start.

    Im not a geologist, I never really studied it myself. I guess I like things that move a bit faster than geological processes. I unfortunatley never discussed geology with the one person who was interested in geology that I knew.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Would not a depletion in the earths magnetosphere allow more solar "winds" in at the poles, which could then cause heating of the polar caps, and as the caps melted (IE wheres the north pole ice cap?), more fresh water into the ocean.

    Since fresh water and salt water have different density it would then effect the ocean currents, and thereby effect the wind?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    107
    Solar wind is radiation, not heat. It'd probably increase risk of skin cancer for people that lived in scandinavia, russia, alaska and canada (and new zealand and argentina etc), but subatomic particles arn't exactly going to start heating the icecaps up as far as I can tell from my understanding of solar wind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. william's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Wherever I go, there I am
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by musicalaviator
    Solar wind is radiation, not heat. It'd probably increase risk of skin cancer for people that lived in scandinavia, russia, alaska and canada (and new zealand and argentina etc), but subatomic particles arn't exactly going to start heating the icecaps up as far as I can tell from my understanding of solar wind.
    I don't mean to split hairs here but when you say radiation, it usually means photons. "Solar wind," however, refers to charged particles (mostly electrons and protons). You are correct though in that it is not heat.

    Cheers,
    william
    "... the polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the invariable plane."
    ~Footnote in Goldstein's Mechanics, 3rd ed. p. 202
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    We know the density of the core, we know the seismic velocity of the core, we have a pretty good idea of the chemistry of the core, it's iron. The last element that stars create by fusion before they collapse and go bang in type II supernovae. The iron cooled crystallized and sunk to the centre of a molten earth 4 billion year ago as the earth differentiated its elemental soup into layers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    We know the density of the core, we know the seismic velocity of the core, we have a pretty good idea of the chemistry of the core, it's iron. The last element that stars create by fusion before they collapse and go bang in type II supernovae. The iron cooled crystallized and sunk to the centre of a molten earth 4 billion year ago as the earth differentiated its elemental soup into layers.
    Yeah Yeah, next you'll be telling us all the water and gas got to the surface and formed the atmosphere and oceans I suppose?

    Everybody, knows we are at the Centre of the earth, this double whiskey celebrating a succussful Stereo lift-off tells me!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by musicalaviator
    Solar wind is radiation, not heat. It'd probably increase risk of skin cancer for people that lived in scandinavia, russia, alaska and canada (and new zealand and argentina etc), but subatomic particles arn't exactly going to start heating the icecaps up as far as I can tell from my understanding of solar wind.
    I got to researching more about this, to find out more about your statement, and I think it looks like solar radiation DOES cause the ice to melt.

    Onset of snow melt: All large scale sea ice melting is triggered by the solar radiation.
    This can be found at an alaskan site http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~eicken/he_...t/melt_www.htm

    So once again, it stand to reason that a depletion in the magnetosphere will allow more solar radiation (winds) in, that will increase the rate of the ice melt, which in turn will cause more fresh water to enter the ocean, and due to the density change will cause the major current(s) to change directions.

    Also regarding the flip[ in the poles, and related information I ask that you please visit this website : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/

    They have excellent information that I do think has major relevance to this information.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    I got to researching more about this, to find out more about your statement, and I think it looks like solar radiation DOES cause the ice to melt.
    Onset of snow melt: All large scale sea ice melting is triggered by the solar radiation.
    Yes. Electromagnetic radiation, especially in the infra-red range, will tend to melt polar ice. The magnetosphere, however, has absolutely no effect upon electromagnetic radiation. All it can do is to divert charged particles of the solar wind.
    Where is your evidence that such particles can significantly raise the surface temperature? Given that these particles interact with the upper layers of the atmosphere and tend not make it ground level, your claim is even more surprising.
    Moreover, even if we grant that such an effect is present, these particles are currently directed towards the poles. Loss of the magnetosphere might well spread them out more evenly over the surface of the Earth, so that there was less effect on the polar ice caps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by w1z4rd
    I got to researching more about this, to find out more about your statement, and I think it looks like solar radiation DOES cause the ice to melt.
    Onset of snow melt: All large scale sea ice melting is triggered by the solar radiation.
    Yes. Electromagnetic radiation, especially in the infra-red range, will tend to melt polar ice. The magnetosphere, however, has absolutely no effect upon electromagnetic radiation. All it can do is to divert charged particles of the solar wind.
    Where is your evidence that such particles can significantly raise the surface temperature? Given that these particles interact with the upper layers of the atmosphere and tend not make it ground level, your claim is even more surprising.
    Moreover, even if we grant that such an effect is present, these particles are currently directed towards the poles. Loss of the magnetosphere might well spread them out more evenly over the surface of the Earth, so that there was less effect on the polar ice caps.

    Is this the radiation you are looking for?

    A magnetopause flows along the boundary between a magnetic field, and surrounding plasma. It behaves roughly like a droplet of liquid exposed to supersonic flow. The magnetopause will ripple, flap, and sometimes droplets will break off.

    In terms of planetary science, the magnetopause is the location where the outward magnetic pressure of the Earth's magnetic field is counterbalanced by the solar wind, a plasma. Most of the solar particles are deflected to either side of the magnetopause, much like water is deflected before the bow of a ship. However, some particles become trapped within the Earth's magnetic field and form radiation belts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by ophiolite
    The magnetosphere, however, has absolutely no effect upon electromagnetic radiation.
    Other than produce many different types of EM radiation (eg ion cyclotron,whistlers,vlf and elf radiation and others), have significant effect upon their destiny, and the ionosphere (part of the innermost area of the magnetosphere), has a complex relationship with radio waves still not fully understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    I have no idea whether or not an Ice-Age will occur as a result of the flipping of our magnetic poles. However, I do know that during this process there WILL be a drastic increase in the number of deaths from cancer.

    The poles, as they are, shield the Earth from dangerous space radiation and direct the worst of it to the poles. There is evidence to suggest that there could be 3,000 years between stable magnetic fields (just saw this on NOVA). That means that the magnetic shield that protects us will have spots all throughout the globe that allow in the dangerous radiation.

    The progam I saw by NOVA predicted 100,000 deaths a year from cancer directly related to this event.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    I do know that during this process there WILL be a drastic increase in the number of deaths from cancer.

    You don't know that. You might speculate it, but you don't know it.

    The progam I saw by NOVA predicted 100,000 deaths a year from cancer directly related to this event.
    I watched the same program, and you have to remember that that comment was probably made in the context of if the magnetic field completely disappeared.

    There have been numerous poler reversals in Earth's history, and there have been flora and fauna for many of them, certainly all the ones that occurred in the last 300 million years. There have been 20 or so in the last 5 million years alone. Modeling conducted on magnetic reversal shows that the field doesn't disappear, it just becomes complex. It still exists, it just cannot be defined as a simple dipole field. It goes through tripole, quadrapole, and even octapole phases.

    The Earth's magnetic field is also very weak, only about 0.5 Gauss, so it doesn't take much to deflect proton radiation away from the Earth's surface. Actually, people at high altitudes and in high-flying aircraft have always been exposed to more than usual proton radiation, and the effects are apparently negligible. The portion of the Sun's radiation that is linked to causing cancer is in the ultraviolet portion of the EM spectrum, and it isn't affected by the Earths mag field.

    In short, there are no reasons to panic about a polar reversal. Unless you make your living with a compass.

    Article for Reference:

    Bouligand, C.; Hulot, G.; Khokhlov, A.; Glatzmaier, G. A. (2005) Statistical palaeomagnetic field modelling and dynamo numerical simulation Geophysical Journal International, 161(3), 603-626
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    I do know that during this process there WILL be a drastic increase in the number of deaths from cancer.

    You don't know that. You might speculate it, but you don't know it.

    The progam I saw by NOVA predicted 100,000 deaths a year from cancer directly related to this event.
    I watched the same program, and you have to remember that that comment was probably made in the context of if the magnetic field completely disappeared.

    There have been numerous poler reversals in Earth's history, and there have been flora and fauna for many of them, certainly all the ones that occurred in the last 300 million years. There have been 20 or so in the last 5 million years alone. Modeling conducted on magnetic reversal shows that the field doesn't disappear, it just becomes complex. It still exists, it just cannot be defined as a simple dipole field. It goes through tripole, quadrapole, and even octapole phases.

    The Earth's magnetic field is also very weak, only about 0.5 Gauss, so it doesn't take much to deflect proton radiation away from the Earth's surface. Actually, people at high altitudes and in high-flying aircraft have always been exposed to more than usual proton radiation, and the effects are apparently negligible. The portion of the Sun's radiation that is linked to causing cancer is in the ultraviolet portion of the EM spectrum, and it isn't affected by the Earths mag field.

    In short, there are no reasons to panic about a polar reversal. Unless you make your living with a compass.

    Article for Reference:

    Bouligand, C.; Hulot, G.; Khokhlov, A.; Glatzmaier, G. A. (2005) Statistical palaeomagnetic field modelling and dynamo numerical simulation Geophysical Journal International, 161(3), 603-626
    Ah, I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression that during the transition period, there could be several poles on the globe. As a result, these spots have little protection from harmful radiation.

    (note: From what I saw on NOVA, at the poles, there is no protection at a certain point? I'm not sure if I'm understanding that right.

    Here is a pic: http://www.scifun.ed.ac.uk/card/imag...h-magfield.jpg

    So at the poles. radiation is not stopped?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Kosta
    I do know that during this process there WILL be a drastic increase in the number of deaths from cancer.

    You don't know that. You might speculate it, but you don't know it.

    The progam I saw by NOVA predicted 100,000 deaths a year from cancer directly related to this event.
    I watched the same program, and you have to remember that that comment was probably made in the context of if the magnetic field completely disappeared.

    There have been numerous poler reversals in Earth's history, and there have been flora and fauna for many of them, certainly all the ones that occurred in the last 300 million years. There have been 20 or so in the last 5 million years alone. Modeling conducted on magnetic reversal shows that the field doesn't disappear, it just becomes complex. It still exists, it just cannot be defined as a simple dipole field. It goes through tripole, quadrapole, and even octapole phases.

    The Earth's magnetic field is also very weak, only about 0.5 Gauss, so it doesn't take much to deflect proton radiation away from the Earth's surface. Actually, people at high altitudes and in high-flying aircraft have always been exposed to more than usual proton radiation, and the effects are apparently negligible. The portion of the Sun's radiation that is linked to causing cancer is in the ultraviolet portion of the EM spectrum, and it isn't affected by the Earths mag field.

    In short, there are no reasons to panic about a polar reversal. Unless you make your living with a compass.

    Article for Reference:

    Bouligand, C.; Hulot, G.; Khokhlov, A.; Glatzmaier, G. A. (2005) Statistical palaeomagnetic field modelling and dynamo numerical simulation Geophysical Journal International, 161(3), 603-626
    Could you tell me what keeps our atmosphere from being blasted away by solar winds?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman w1z4rd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    25
    B. M. Vladimirsky1, V. P. Bobova1, N. M. Bondarenko1 and V. K. Veretennikova1
    (1) Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, 334413 Nauchny, Crimea, U.S.S.R.

    Abstract The measurements of the amplitudes envelope of Pc 3–4 geomagnetic micropulsations obtained at the Borok Geophysical Observatory were analysed by the cosinor method to search for magnetospheric pulsations with a period of about 160 m. 216 days of observations in 1974–1978 were used. It was found that Pc 3–4 amplitudes are modulated by the period 160.010 m with a stable phase. The maximum of the Pc 3–4 amplitudes follows approximately 20 m after the maximum of the solar expansion velocity (for the center of the disk) in the optical observations of Severny et al. This modulation of the Pc 3–4 amplitudes could be caused by the presence of an oscillating component in solar UV radiation over the wavelength range 100–900 Å. The amplitude of the UV flux variation may be as large as 2–4%.
    Proceedings of the 66th IAU Colloquium: Problems in Solar and Stellar Oscillations, held at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory, U.S.S.R., 1–5 September, 1981.
    If I am reading this right, the russians seem to think that there is UV radiation involved with the magnetosphere

    Solar extreme ultraviolet radiation ionizes the upper atmospheres of all planets to varying degrees. If the thermal pressure of this ionosphere exceeds the solar wind momentum flux or dynamic pressure, a quantity proportional to the density times the square of the velocity, then the ionosphere can stand off the solar wind and it remains unmagnetized. A magnetic lid or cap forms on the ionosphere called the magnetic barrier and this barrier in turn deflects the solar wind. The solar wind as mentioned above is supersonic and thus this deflection must involve the formation of a detached bow shock. This bow shock, which interestingly forms without the aid of collisions in the gas, slows, heats and deflects the solar wind. Figure 1 shows a cross section of this interaction.
    Seems the magnetosphere and ionosphere are inolved with each other. They seem to work together against the radiation?

    What would happen if those solar winds hit out atmosphere? If hypotheticaly speaking it was not there.

    I dont think I magnetosphere is going to completely dissapear... just weaken and warp. Would not the warps and their angles effect the effeciency of stopping the solar winds?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman Kosta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    86
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geomag/icons/solarexp.jpg

    I do not know the answer to your question, but I thought this was an interesting rendering of solar winds bombarding the Earth
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Guest
    er, look chaps, the poles of the earth have flipped many times, it is not thought they dissappear then re-emerge the other way up, it requires only subtle changes in the dynamo effect to reverse, this reversal could happen is as little as a few seconds, or if the system were to 'rotate' maybe a few days at no time is the magnetospere likely to dissappear.

    The worst thing?

    You'll need a new compass next time you go hunting, if you are out hunting when it happens, you'll need to navigate by the sun or stars.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Mek
    Mek is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    13
    The Science channel did a very good show on this.
    I would also recomend healthy doses of pbs.

    The magnetic field, as I understand it, has no choice but to re establish itself.It seeks to do this. Its the nature of magnetic fields
    If it were to coincide with a solar flare ,directed at us, of geologic time proportions, well, that may well suck, but ze odds are astronomical. lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    er, look chaps, the poles of the earth have flipped many times, it is not thought they dissappear then re-emerge the other way up, it requires only subtle changes in the dynamo effect to reverse, this reversal could happen is as little as a few seconds, or if the system were to 'rotate' maybe a few days at no time is the magnetospere likely to dissappear.
    Geophysicists beleive the reversal will be spread over several thousand years. I have no idea where you got your 'few seconds' estimate from. I should be very interested to see citations of articles that make this claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Yeah there are geophysicists who study the remnant palaeomagnetism of basalts from the intermitent periods that have been calculated to last on the order of thousands of years. I know little of the technicalities but I don't believe the field weakens significantly as it reverses, although I admit I'm basing this on more of a gut feeling than a recent flick through a text book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •