Thread: Magnetic pole reversal

What's the latest on the Earth's magnetic pole reversal?

Is its erratic start affecting parts of the Earth's crust, etc and causing odd periods of earthquakes and storms or eggagerated weather?

Are the effects starting to affect power grids and the Earth's upper atmosphere?

I've moved your thread to pseudoscience on the suspicion that you are referring to the 2012 Mayan calendar nonsense by which the magnetic poles are supposed to reverse causing all kinds of havoc. There is no pole reversal going on. Nothing is happening. That is the latest.

Thanks. I accept your re-allocation of the topic thread.
However, from my own investigations over the last 20 years, both astronomers and geological scientists have deduced this sort of behaviour in our planet, based on historical archaeological observation and deduction, and, in physics, theories and predictions based on the nature of the earth's iron core.
I've no idea what the Mayan calendar nonsense is that you refer to, since The Science Forum is the first search on this topic I have done in the last two years ...
Regards,
Andrew

Yes, the poles do reverse, but the last time it happened was about 780,000 years ago. It doesn't happen suddenly. It would take probably hundreds or thousands of years.

Geomagnetic reversal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What I was referring to was like this.
Geomagnetic Pole Reversal and 2012

I have to correct myself. I does appear that the magnetic field has gotten 10 % weaker since it was measured in 1845. Moving to earth science.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...hmagfield.html

the earth's magnetosphere suffers most when the sun flings reverse polarized flux at us
then it bounces back discharging at high latitudes(exact#?)

with the dozens of magnetic anomalies holding onto the magnetism when their ofttimes ancient shields formed
we already do not have steady nor stable poles

the current north pole is said to be galloping toward wrangle island with amazing geological speed
..............
(wild guess) orientation of our North and south magnetic poles is governed by the sun's magnetic poles, while location on our crust is part of the gestalt of plate tectonics
........
the only danger i see is a disruption of our magnetosphere during a pole reversal
let us pray that it be darned fast

"However, studies of lava flows on Steens Mountain, Oregon, indicate that the magnetic field could have shifted at a rate of up to 6 degrees per day about 15 million years ago"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

ok
30 days seems survivable

Inintelligible gibberish, and what I could manage to decode is wrong.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Inintelligible gibberish, and what I could manage to decode is wrong.

perhaps:
you intended to type, "unintelligible" ?

ah well
no one is perfect
or
are you french?

Yeah, the magnetic pole of the Earth reverses on somewhat of a regular basis. The average period of time between reversals has been calculated to be roughly 450,000 years, or roughly every 1/2 million years, but it varies widely between as little as a 100 thousand years, to longer than a million years. The last magnetic polar shift was calculated to have occurred about 780,000 years ago. Such shifts are not thought to produce or correlate with any Earthly traumatic occurrences during such a transition period.

Presently the strength of the magnetic field has been decreasing during recorded history, leading to speculation that before such reversals in the polar magnetic fields occur, changes in the strength of the magnetic field might become very weak.

any idea of the latitude where the magnetosphere discharges? (northern lights)
it seems to be above 60 degrees and below 80, but i've not found a specific latitudinal number
...........
as.re 450,000 years: we've had 24 reversals in the past 5 million years, ergo closer to 200,000 years for an average of the recent 5,000,000 years

edit:
coupl'a links:
http://solar.njit.edu/preprints/yurchyshyn2001a.pdf
http://deeptow.whoi.edu/gpts.html
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/terr_mag/pearmag.html
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/sci_hi/s...01/oct01b.html

bonadventure

Like you seem to imply there is not an actual latitude. Solar plasma ejections from the sun involving electrons and protons enter the Earth's atmosphere at the magnetic poles downward into the northern hemisphere from the north pole to Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska, Canada, etc. (the northern lights), and in the southern hemisphere from the south pole northward to primarily southern New Zealand, and the southern most part of Chile and Argentina down to cape Horn (the southern lights). Down to maybe 60 degrees northern and southern latitude The zone of highest observable interactions is where some moisture in the air remains, generally between 10 - 20 degrees latitude from the magnetic poles.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Like you seem to imply there is not an actual latitude. Solar plasma ejections from the sun involving electrons and protons enter the Earth's atmosphere at the magnetic poles downward into the northern hemisphere from the north pole to Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska, Canada, etc. (the northern lights), and in the southern hemisphere from the south pole northward to primarily southern New Zealand, and the southern most part of Chile and Argentina at cape Horn (the southern lights).

---correction
the discharge/interplay of the magnetosphere and the solid earth ain't quite at the poles(and i ain't sure but i suspect that here we should be focusing on latitude as though the north and south geomagnetic poles were the geographical north and south poles --- ergo a different map a different mindset?
the thing is:
I've been looking for an exact latitude(or a range of latitudes) and found no definitive answers---
has to do with global warming--movement of the grainbelts, flux, plasma, and ecology
if there is a specific latitude (in relation degrees from/to the magnet poles) where we are most likely to experience the reflex (or atmospheric introduction) of solar plasma from CMEs, then a closer look at that latitude both north and south may yield more/better appreciations of the interplay of the sun and the earth, and the strengths and weaknesses of the earth's atmospheric shields(eg; magnetosphere)
or
am i running up a blind alley?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Like you seem to imply there is not an actual latitude. Solar plasma ejections from the sun involving electrons and protons enter the Earth's atmosphere at the magnetic poles downward into the northern hemisphere from the north pole to Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska, Canada, etc. (the northern lights), and in the southern hemisphere from the south pole northward to primarily southern New Zealand, and the southern most part of Chile and Argentina at cape Horn (the southern lights).

---correction
the discharge/interplay of the magnetosphere and the solid earth ain't quite at the poles(and i ain't sure but i suspect that here we should be focusing on latitude as though the north and south geomagnetic poles were the geographical north and south poles --- ergo a different map a different mindset?
the thing is:
I've been looking for an exact latitude(or a range of latitudes) and found no definitive answers---
has to do with global warming--movement of the grainbelts, flux, plasma, and ecology
if there is a specific latitude (in relation degrees from/to the magnet poles) where we are most likely to experience the reflex (or atmospheric introduction) of solar plasma from CMEs, then a closer look at that latitude both north and south may yield more/better appreciations of the interplay of the sun and the earth, and the strengths and weaknesses of the earth's atmospheric shields(eg; magnetosphere)
or
am i running up a blind alley?

We may have crossed paths in our commentary. The addendum to my post stated that the most prominent electrical displays can be seen within 10-20 degrees latitude from the magnetic poles.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

...
We may have crossed paths in our commentary. The addendum to my post stated that the most prominent electrical displays can be seen within 10-20 degrees latitude from the magnetic poles.

oops missed that , so we're still in the range 60-80 degrees north and south(geomagnetic grid)
and the arctic circle is in the midst of that at @66 degrees-----
nothing more specific available?

any evidence of effects of the discharge beyond the auroras?

does discharge confine itself to atmospheric discharge? or is there a ground connection?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by forrest noble

...
We may have crossed paths in our commentary. The addendum to my post stated that the most prominent electrical displays can be seen within 10-20 degrees latitude from the magnetic poles.

oops missed that , so we're still in the range 60-80 degrees north and south(geomagnetic grid)
and the arctic circle is in the midst of that at @66 degrees-----
nothing more specific available?

any evidence of effects of the discharge beyond the auroras?

does discharge confine itself to atmospheric discharge? or is there a ground connection?

That's all the info I could find but occasionally I've heard of such minor auroral displays down to 45 degrees latitude in the northern-most central U.S.

(the aurora is) .....caused by the collision of energetic charged particles with atoms in the high altitude atmosphere (thermosphere).

(parenthesis added)

High velocity electrons and protons originate from the solar wind and are directed by the magnetosphere. As atmospheric atoms are energized by contact with this energetic plasma, their electrons increase their orbital diameters, as they lose this energy the electrons return to less energetic closer orbits and give off light which produces the aurora.

Hi Harold,
I also suspect that the current changeover, which I believe is accepted as being a bit overdue, is following the "erratic changeover" type of behaviour. This, I am fairly sure, will minimise the catastophic effects on our technology, as well as being gentler on Nature and our environment.
However, my own feeling is that, as the process of reversal proceeds, we will continue to see pockets of earthquakes and volcanic erruptions, violent weather patterns in random parts of the World, more serious effects on our over-stretched power grids, power generation systems and power stations, and erratic behaviour in electronic, computer and communication systems.
Regards,
Andrew

However, my own feeling is that, as the process of reversal proceeds, we will continue to see pockets of earthquakes and volcanic erruptions, violent weather patterns in random parts of the World,

Ok...but if you're inferring that their frequency will change, do you have any evidence?

How would it cause earthquakes and volcanoes?

And please explain the mechanism by which magnetic pole reverals will cause "pockets of earthquakes and volcanic erruptions, violent weather patterns in random parts of the World"

To Lynx-Fox:
Evidence doesn't come into it, really. Evidence is concrete, whereas the pole reversal, if it is taking place, has to be gentler than that, especially if it's not going to cause us severe disruption.
Take discussions about what God is - we cannot prove He exists, but there is alot of transient/historical/intellectual "evidence" - and our own personal experiences lead us to believe, or disbelieve in His/Its existance. I, personally, believe that God is the intelligence, the brain (cp the astrophysicists' " 'brane " or membrane, which has been used to portray this strange Universe in which we exist, live and progress.). But I digress, and that subject will need to be dealt with later in another thread ...
So, Lynx, my inference comes more from observation, experience and deduction, than from evidence. This, unfortunately, is the world in which a Pure Physicist (ie a Natural Philosopher, rather than a scientist) lives. But, once more, we tread another thread ... and the sublject will have to wait until later.
I fear that we're going to end up with alot of philosophical and scientific knitting in my replies; can the Moderator or Harold suggest how to minimise te confusion this may cause?

To Harold and Wayne:
As the magetic poles waver and start to reverse, it can be deduced that this activity will have a marked effect on the iron, copper, etc elements and components in the earth's body and crust. This, surely, must have a very disruptive effect on the semi-stable state of our geological and meterorlical environments. We, already, are seeing pockets of severe disruption that cannot only be blamed on climate change. And Man, bless his cotton socks, is no match for Nature in the arenas of disruption, disaster and climate change!

To Sculptor:
My own understanding is that the reversal is thought to be driven by the behaviour of our spinning molten iron core. Like any gyroscope, it precesses; being sperical, it has little stability; being within a structure composed of may different magnetic and electrical-conducting components means that there has to be alot of interference and reaction between the spinning core and the spinning Earth. Nature (God, the "brane/brain" that controls the Universe/Universes, or whatever ...) has designed a body that, surprisingly, is relatively stable. But, like forest fires are a necessary evil (for forest development - so it's foolish to live in a forest, or build towns and cities near them - but it's why countries with extensive forests have to tame them by controlled clrearance before they can inhabit their own countries), pole reversal is a necessary component of the activity of our Earth's core.
And that's before one starts to consider the external effects of the Sun and planets of our Solar System to which Sculptor is referring.

To Wayne:
You've a right to your opinion, but if that's what you think, so be it.
But, and it's a big BUT, we are, in this Thread, working in a philosophical arena rather than a purely scientific discussion. There is little real evidence for all our different contributions, since the Earth's core is inaccessible to us, and "Man" couldn't record his thoughts when it last happened. There was no technology to be affected then, just the Earth's own structure. Our ability to interpret the effects of the last pole reversal are severly limited; so we're back to using deducytion rather than evidence.

I should always trust my first instinct. Back to pseudo.

Andrew you are singularily ill-informed.

Science requires the application of imagination and intellect, not just imagination. Ideas that are sound are shown to be sound by contstant testing, not by constant repetition. A proper understanding of science requires effort and commitment, not self satisfied cherry picking. Gross misunderstanding of theory and misinterpretation of evidence doesn't actually entitle you to spout nonsense without consequence.

If you don't want to be laughed off the forum I recommend that you offer something of substance: you could start by detailing how a change in the field's ploarity could influence the weather in a significant way.

Originally Posted by Andrew Slack

To Harold and Wayne:
As the magetic poles waver and start to reverse, it can be deduced that this activity will have a marked effect on the iron, copper, etc elements and components in the earth's body and crust. This, surely, must have a very disruptive effect on the semi-stable state of our geological and meterorlical environments. We, already, are seeing pockets of severe disruption that cannot only be blamed on climate change. And Man, bless his cotton socks, is no match for Nature in the arenas of disruption, disaster and climate change!

That's ridiculous. The earth's magnetic field is far too weak to have any significant effect on the earth's metals...it is marely strong enough to deflect a free floating magnet (compass).

The one effect it would have is to allow more radiation to reach the earth's surface.

To John Galt:
I am not a meteorologist, and therefore can detail (or spout) nothing.
But I can explain what I think, from my own training in Physics, my experience, my listening to and reading what others around me are saying ... But at the end of the day, I can only give my opinion. And you are not interested in anyone's opinion.
Andrew

To Lynx:
Unfortunately we're not in an area where there IS any concrete evidence. The last time it happened was too long ago.
So we're left to our experiences, deductions and opinions.
Andrew

To All:
We all know that we cannot go around preceding everything we say with "It is my opinion that ...", but, in this thread of Pseudo-science, this is what we are dealing with - just opinions.
In many respects, neither is Pure Physics a true Science, either - known by it's old name, Natural Philosophy, one is warned that Physics is a thinking game. The true Science is done by chemists, biologists, mathematicians, theoretical physicists, astronomers, engineers, and the like.
Once a physicist has applied his "little grey cells", then he/she calls in the specialists to answer the remaining questions and complete the solution to the problem that no one else was able to resolve.
Andrew

coupl'a more links
Geodynamo

Origin of The Earth's Magnetism

from what I've read, and heard
a) the solid iron core of the earth is spinning faster that the surface by about 2 degrees---surrounded by a liquid iron ocean
that has weather patterns similar to those we experience in our atmosphere
b) the field is strong enough to effect(aligne) the molecules in any molten or semimolted magnetic metal--
c) when the poles do shift, we do not lose the magnetosphere, it just looses its conformity and, while shifting, current magnetic uncomformities will create lots of temporary north and south poles (and this part is speculation) creating a swiss cheese looking magnetosphere resembling the wild magnetic erruptions visible on the surface of the sun.

as to what would happen to us here on earth should the sun go very active with lots of and large CMEs during the disruptive chaos of a pole reversal must be left to speculation (anyone got an old tinfoil hat?)

To Lynx-Fox:
Evidence doesn't come into it, really. ....
So, Lynx, my inference comes more from observation, experience and deduction, than from evidence.

Originally Posted by Andrew Slack

To Lynx-Fox:
Evidence doesn't come into it, really. Evidence is concrete,

So in other words, pure speculation, scientifically worthless.

To Lynx-Fox:
Evidence doesn't come into it, really. ....

In that case, shouldn't you be posting in one of the religion threads?

To Sculptor:
These seem to me, too, to be a most likely scenario; I saw these sites last year. too.
The probability would be, I think, that Nature will manage to avoid any sudden changeover or catastrophic coincidence of other events.
I hate to think what would happen to our technology if the poles suddenly flipped.
The "pockets" of earthquake and volcanic activity, and other "pockets" of severe weather, seem to indicate that, perhaps, the changeover is gradual and incremental, and has already started ...
Once more, science is rather flummoxed by the absence of any facts, evidence or precedence, due to the length of time ago of its last occurrence.
Andrew

Yes.

To Sculptor,
I've just read up the two links in your May 28th post. Going to need time to ponder these, but it's good to see some solid science behind this subject.

my guess

thinking of the earths magnetic core and shield as steady state is of the same folly of assuming a steady state climate.
that being said:
it seems that most of the magnetic anomolies i've looked at are from magnetized rock in old cratons
there are, however other anomolies for which i cannot account.
Perhaps, these are the harbingers of the gradual changeover of which you typed,
The wyoming study, however, indicates a very fast changeover(up to 6 degrees/day---ergo my earlier "30 days" which would be the shortest so, not likely. Still for a geologic process, amazingly fast: ergo my suspicion that when we are ready for change, a flip in the suns north and south poles may be the irrisistable trigger (maybe even if'n we ain't ready)

anyway, i think the "500 year" charts in one of the links are likely wrong in their estimated duration of the chaos of a shift.

during a shift, i assume that the earth's magnetic shield will have lost much of what we consider it's uniformity, and be a much weaker force, then
the interplay of the non-craton anomolies, and the oceanic bands remains a mystery(and/or? the interplay of all magnetized rock, especially those at oblique angles to the centerline of the poles)

(Please pardon any spelling anomolies--when i hit the abc button, nothing happens?)

Even for a thread in pseudoscience this is unusally full of uninformed and ignorant commentary. Dangerously there are one or two 'truths' included along with the opinions, idle speculation and pure dross. These might be discarded by the discerning reader along with the rubbish, or give unwarranted credence to that. Would some of you like to actually learn something before expressing yourselves? Or would that be too much trouble?

I think we are try to learn, establish and prdict what's going on here in the way that a child learns - by picking on what they can see and understand, and ignoring what doesn't make sense or is nothing of interest. (In this environment, the children in a family gathering seem not to notice the "adult" bits of the adults' conversations.)
So, yes, I have to agree.

Which part were you agreeing with - taking the time to learn something, or agreeing that trying to do so would be too much trouble?

That seems like a very good topic but who am I... I am skeptic about everything even my own ideas the scietist evolves every day but with the suns magnectic field reaching far away past our own you do not have to worry the relationship between the planets magnetic field and the suns is so great that it would be sort of imposible to reverse the poles without stoping the earth from moving well since you probably are a skeptic yourself the magnetic field moves which may make it seem like the poles are reversed but because of the constant rotation of the earth revolving around the sun we have a seasoal change in the flow of our magnectic field ohhh and you should check out the weather the elctro magnetic fields have a lot to do with that... and check out radient enrgy to you might be on the verge of a new method of how to do things with the information i have just given you peace be with you

Have you ever heard of punctuation?

Well, I joined up to add my thoughts to this forum because of this interesting topic!
I have no answers only curiosity, but hope I can contribute something to this fascinating subject.

Firstly, despite some of the answer's I've read, science does not provide a perfect answer to everything. Although "science" likes to think it is the only authority it is not. I must agree with Andrew's comments that conjecture and opinion does play a very large part in helping to discover "the truth" whatever that may be.

Whilst the very crux of scientific theory is that "the truth" may be tested and replicated by others, as pointed out, since the last GMR (Geomagnetic Reversal) took place such a long time ago, empirical evidence is hard to come by and that which does exist can only relate to that period of time (in terms of the affect on our species and society). It's certainly impossible to test such an event to verify any theories or results.

Conclusion: It is therefore very difficult to know how such an event would affect our current global reliance on technology. In this respect conjecture and informed opinion seems sensible.

From what I have been reading, one thing is clear - it's certainly happening now and it's accelerating;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...arth-core.html

Life as we know today would change dramatically. But the one thing our species has been very good at is adapting.
Quite how well our species would adapt to a world without electronic technology (if that were to be the case) would remain to be seen!

My own conjecture would be that there would be a significant reduction in the global population as our infrastructures would cease to function. Bad news for your Great Great Grand Kids? Your Grand Kids? Your kids ? Maybe even you!
Perhaps not a bad thing! Who's going to put their hand up!!

Alex.

Originally Posted by iamhere2

Life as we know today would change dramatically.

Welcome. Why would it change dramatically?

But the one thing our species has been very good at is adapting.
Quite how well our species would adapt to a world without electronic technology (if that were to be the case) would remain to be seen!

Why would this cause the loss of all electronic Technology?

My own conjecture would be that there would be a significant reduction in the global population as our infrastructures would cease to function.

Alex.

Again, Why and How??

Wayne

The Earth's magnetic field continuously strengthens and weakens which based upon satellite monitoring, seems to correlate directly with solar activity. Probably for this reason there is no indication that it has ever disappeared completely. A weaker magnetic field would certainly lead to a small increase in the extent of solar ions on Earth -- as well as beautiful displays of aurora at lower latitudes -- but nothing deadly. Even with a weakened magnetic field the Earth's thick atmosphere also offers protection against the solar wind and cosmic rays.

There seems to be several direct correlations concerning solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field. First there seems to be a direct correlation between the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. As sun flairs and observable solar activity decreases, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field accordingly decreases as it has in recent years. Next there seems to be a direct correlation between decreased solar activity and decreasing temperatures on Earth as one might expect, and visa versa. Lastly the global cooling over the past several years may be related to the recent decrease in the strength of the solar wind pressure as indicated by the Ulysses satellite.

The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid 1990s. Although the speed of the million mph solar wind (primarily proton and electron plasma) has decreased only about 3% during this same period, this change seems to be related to a more significant reduction in the solar wind’s temperature and density. The solar wind is about 13% cooler and 20% less dense. The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to. This also means less shielding against cosmic rays. The Ulysses satellite also found that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s.

Only in recent years have we been able to closely monitor changes in the solar wind which may be related to polar magnetic drift. The magnetic poles have generally been getting closer to the axis of the Earth’s rotation for as long as we have been able to make such measurements. If solar activity starts increasing we might expect the last century's quasi-linear drifting to start changing its direction as well as increases in the mean temperatures on Earth.

NASA - 2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time

ESA Science & Technology: Ulysses

Personally I think reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field are caused by very large sun flairs and resulting plasma clouds which by their intensity in Gauss strength and relative position as it enters the Earth’s magnetic field, might accordingly overpower the prevailing field causing a field reversal. Such reversals I would expect would directly follow a period of decreased solar activity resulting in the weakened Earth's magnetic field like we are experiencing now.

Based upon the geologic records there seems to be no correlation between magnetic field reversals, extinctions, or climate changing trauma here on Earth. As long as the average solar activity remains about the same I would expect a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field to be uneventful – excepting that the business of new compass sales would be booming -- a tough business cycle, however, roughly renewing every 2-3 hundred thousand years.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There seems to be several direct correlations concerning solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field. First there seems to be a direct correlation between the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. As sun flairs and observable solar activity decreases, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field accordingly decreases as it has in recent years.

I'd like to see some support for that.

Originally Posted by iamhere2

Firstly, despite some of the answer's I've read, science does not provide a perfect answer to everything.

Of course it doesn't. It doesn't claim to.

I must agree with Andrew's comments that conjecture and opinion does play a very large part in helping to discover "the truth" whatever that may be.

Only if supported by evidence. I can conjecture my opinion that the magnetic poles are being moved by invisible pink unicorns. But the science is probably more reliable.

Whilst the very crux of scientific theory is that "the truth" may be tested and replicated by others, as pointed out, since the last GMR (Geomagnetic Reversal) took place such a long time ago, empirical evidence is hard to come by and that which does exist can only relate to that period of time (in terms of the affect on our species and society). It's certainly impossible to test such an event to verify any theories or results.

Nonsense. We have geological records. Otherwise how would we know such events had occurred in the past and how long they took?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There seems to be several direct correlations concerning solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field. First there seems to be a direct correlation between the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. As sun flairs and observable solar activity decreases, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field accordingly decreases as it has in recent years.

I'd like to see some support for that.

The earth’s magnetic field:

..globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century.

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field - NASA Science

Since we have been able to measure its strength via satellite, the sun’s:

,,,,magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/23sep_solarwind/
http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-running-out-of-juice.html

This is the data that I think supports this "seems to be a direct correlation" assertion concerning the strength of the sun's magnetic field with the earth's magnetic field. This is an aside from the regular solar magnetic polarity reversals every 11 years or so.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-11-years.html

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by forrest noble

There seems to be several direct correlations concerning solar activity and the Earth’s magnetic field. First there seems to be a direct correlation between the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. As sun flairs and observable solar activity decreases, the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field accordingly decreases as it has in recent years.

I'd like to see some support for that.

The earth’s magnetic field:

..globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century.

Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field - NASA Science

Since we have been able to measure its strength via satellite, the sun’s:

,,,,magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s.

So you think one indication that earth's magnetic field has weaked by 10% in 300 years is correlated by a short term 30% drop in the sun's magnetic field in 20 years supports your position. Are you serious?

And your weblog "support" says nothing of the kind.

MeteorWayne,

So you think one indication that earth's magnetic field has weaked by 10% in 300 years is correlated by a short term 30% drop in the sun's magnetic field in 20 years supports your position. Are you serious?

And your weblog "support" says nothing of the kind

(quote from link below)

…in the past 20 years the magnetic field has become so erratic and unstable that airport and aeroplane (and airplane) equipment has needed to be readjusted for this change in the Earth's geomagnetic field behavior.

http://www.science20.com/make_love_n...reversal-76775

Since we have been able to measure its strength via satellite, the sun’s:

(quotes from link below)

,,,,magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s.

In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more."

Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%.

In the past 20 years the Earth's magnetic field has diminished to such an extent that.........Cosmic rays have increased while/ because the Earth's magnetic field has substantially decreased ........ . During the same period of time the sun's magnetic field has weakened by more than 30%. If you do not see any direct correlation between the Earth's and sun's magnetic field after reading both links then you do not have to agree with my statement that "there seems to be a direct correlation" between the strength of the Earth's and sun's magnetic field.

Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low - NASA Science

Originally Posted by forrest noble

MeteorWayne,

So you think one indication that earth's magnetic field has weaked by 10% in 300 years is correlated by a short term 30% drop in the sun's magnetic field in 20 years supports your position. Are you serious?

And your weblog "support" says nothing of the kind

(quote from link below)

…in the past 20 years the magnetic field has become so erratic and unstable that airport and aeroplane (and airplane) equipment has needed to be readjusted for this change in the Earth's geomagnetic field behavior.

Again, what does that have to do with the last 300 years as you suggested?

http://www.science20.com/make_love_n...reversal-76775

Since we have been able to measure its strength via satellite, the sun’s:

(quotes from link below)

,,,,magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s.

In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more."

Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%.

In the past 20 years the Earth's magnetic field has diminished to such an extent that.........Cosmic rays have increased while/ because the Earth's magnetic field has substantially decreased ........ . During the same period of time the sun's magnetic field has weakened by more than 30%.

Ulysses measured the solar output, not the direct effects on earth.

If you do not see any direct correlation between the Earth's and sun's magnetic field after reading both links then you do not have to agree with my statement that "there seems to be a direct correlation" between the strength of the Earth's and sun's magnetic field.

Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low - NASA Science

No diresct correlation is demonstrated.

no offence intended :
but:

Sometimes, asking for someone's references is a really good idea,
however, at other times,
as/re the free give and take of intellectual/scientific repartee(inquiry), the same request is much like putting speed-bumps on an expressway.
It interferes with the flow and may leave some poor bastid upside-down in the ditch.
Discretion in the use of any rigorous requirement ofttimes leaves the door open to a broader understanding
and
progress
...............
while it is a good thing to parrot and share some one else's research,
never underestimate the value in extrapolating from known data
to form one's own conclusions,
and in a community of like minded individuals
allow the intillectual speculative flower to blossom
.................
i do not understand why anyone would assume that our climate, magnetosphere, etc. are not directly related to and ofttimes governed by the sun's myriad moods

Originally Posted by sculptor

while it is a good thing to parrot and share some one else's research,
never underestimate the value in extrapolating from known data
to form one's own conclusions,

Never underestimate the potential for un-scientific forum members to derail a scientific discussion.

.................
i do not understand why anyone would assume that our climate, magnetosphere, etc. are not directly related to and ofttimes governed by the sun's myriad moods

Perhaps because no physical mechanism has been proposed by which the sun's "moods" could affect the earth's magnetosphere. I don't think anyone assumes that the climate is not affected.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Never underestimate the potential for un-scientific forum members to derail a scientific discussion.

i do not understand why anyone would assume that our climate, magnetosphere, etc. are not directly related to and ofttimes governed by the sun's myriad moods

Perhaps because no physical mechanism has been proposed by which the sun's "moods" could affect the earth's magnetosphere. I don't think anyone assumes that the climate is not affected.

derail... fersure dadio, ergo the word "discretion" not abrogation

and:
the quantum view or Homer's Troy
Did Troy exist before Heinrich Schliemann found it?----(hint--according the the leaders of archaeology and anthropology of the time-----NO it did not exist)

sometimes you really do gotta think outside the box( the 9 dots/4 lines exercise)

Originally Posted by sculptor

[
Did Troy exist before Heinrich Schliemann found it?----(hint--according the the leaders of archaeology and anthropology of the time-----NO it did not exist)

sometimes you really do gotta think outside the box( the 9 dots/4 lines exercise)

The difference is, he found some evidence. I suppose you also believe that the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, and Atlantis will also turn up eventually.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

The difference is, he found some evidence. I suppose you also believe that the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, and Atlantis will also turn up eventually.

yes, first, Schliemann found Homer, then Frank Calvert, then Troy(almost)
but the point being, that he ignored the "experts" and, extrapolating from known data, looked to draw his own conclusions.

as/re the rest-----------------maybe atlantis maybe not------
as for troy, the stories tell of 2 generations who fought to gain access to tin from the caucasus(?) traded through Colchis and the black sea then into the greek lands-----the sons of the argonauts fought at troy---------much more compelling than the vague story of atlantis, but not wholly out of the question
Meanwhile, tin from Britian was making it's way into the medeterranian

and before agriculture, did we not all live in a garden of eden as hunter gatherers---

We must all prejudge what it is we intend to look for, and what we can do,
and if we assume the negative, and claim that we cannot do something we tend to create a self fulfilling prophesy.
For those who would expand our knowledge base, the choice becomes obvious
......................
hmmm
back to magnetosphere and magnetic pole reversal now?
cool?

On 03/08/12
The leading edge of the March 6 coronal mass ejection (CME) (from the sun), reached NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite at 5:42 AM EST. ACE sits just outside of Earth's magnetic environment, the magnetosphere. As magnetic fields from the CMEs connected up to the (Earth's) magnetosphere, instruments on Earth began to measure changes in our planet's magnetic fields – indicating the onset of a geomagnetic storm. At the time of writing this was still a minor storm, rated a G1 on a scale of G1 to G5. There will be updates as needed if the rating increases.

NASA - Geomagnetic Storm Strength Increases

The point is that there is much evidence that solar ejections as they reach our magnetosphere directly effect the strength of the Earth's magnetic field. The direct implication is that since the sun has been less active in the last 3 decades producing these ejections, there have been less effects of such ejections on the Earth's magnetosphere and accordingly less influences on the Earth's magnetic field which has also been decreasing in intensity over the same period. Yes, one could say that he believes this is just a coincidence but I would bet 10 to 1 that it is not.

The electro-magnetic influencing mechanisms are the speed, density, temperature, location, ebb and flow of solar wind and ejected solar ion clouds into the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I would expect a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field to be uneventful – excepting that the business of new compass sales would be booming -- a tough business cycle, however, roughly renewing every 2-3 hundred thousand years.

or, we could just change the references south america becomes north america---etc
and i could keep my old compass

Originally Posted by forrest noble

On 03/08/12
The leading edge of the March 6 coronal mass ejection (CME) (from the sun), reached NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite at 5:42 AM EST. ACE sits just outside of Earth's magnetic environment, the magnetosphere. As magnetic fields from the CMEs connected up to the (Earth's) magnetosphere, instruments on Earth began to measure changes in our planet's magnetic fields – indicating the onset of a geomagnetic storm. At the time of writing this was still a minor storm, rated a G1 on a scale of G1 to G5. There will be updates as needed if the rating increases.

NASA - Geomagnetic Storm Strength Increases

The point is that there is much evidence that solar ejections as they reach our magnetosphere directly effect the strength of the Earth's magnetic field.

No there isn't, unless you can provide some evidence to support that. To my knowledge, that has never been shown. That's what I've been asking for. Still waiting.

The direct implication is that since the sun has been less active in the last 3 decades producing these ejections, there have been less effects of such ejections on the Earth's magnetosphere and accordingly less influences on the Earth's magnetic field which has also been decreasing in intensity over the same period. Yes, one could say that he believes this is just a coincidence but I would be 10 to 1 that it is not.

The electro-magnetic influencing mechanisms are the speed, density, temperature, location, ebb and flow of solar wind and ejected solar ion clouds into the Earth's magnetosphere and atmosphere.

Again, there are still no studies showing the correlation you are saying. I am asking you to provide some research supporting that.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I would expect a reversal of the Earth's magnetic field to be uneventful – excepting that the business of new compass sales would be booming -- a tough business cycle, however, roughly renewing every 2-3 hundred thousand years.

or, we could just change the references south america becomes north america---etc
and i could keep my old compass

we're trying to have a scientific discussion here...

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

we're trying to have a scientific discussion here...

I appreciate that
literally

MeteorWayne,


(your quote)

...there are still no studies showing the correlation you are saying.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/su...0712-X5-4.html

(quote from link above)

...As magnetic fields from the CMEs (coronal mass ejections) connected up to the (Earth's) magnetosphere, instruments on Earth began to measure changes in our planet's magnetic fields...

I think this one sentence alone certainly justifies the statement that "there seems to be a correlation between the Earth and sun's magnetic field" activity.

That is in the case of highly energetec CME's, which are transient phenomena. You have yet to show a link with background solar levels

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by forrest noble

The point is that there is much evidence that solar ejections as they reach our magnetosphere directly effect the strength of the Earth's magnetic field.

No there isn't, unless you can provide some evidence to support that. To my knowledge, that has never been shown. That's what I've been asking for. Still waiting.

Meteor, what the heck are you trying to say? The influence on the Earth's magnetic field exerted by the suns field, the solar wind, solar flares and coronal mass ejections is so well established that asking for support for it is equivalent to asking for evidence for plate tectonics: unecessary and readily available, if required, in standard texts. I'm perplexed.

Is there a confusion here between the subject of the thread and the magnetosphere. The external magnetic field obviously interacts with the solar wind, CMEs, etc.

This is obviously irrelevant to the topic of magnetic pole reversal (or even, shift) which is, equally obviously, entirely uninfluenced by the sun.

Originally Posted by Strange

Is there a confusion here between the subject of the thread and the magnetosphere. The external magnetic field obviously interacts with the solar wind, CMEs, etc.

This is obviously irrelevant to the topic of magnetic pole reversal (or even, shift) which is, equally obviously, entirely uninfluenced by the sun.

This may be what Meteor is getting at. However, I would not entirely discount the possibility of external influences on the internal field. See for example page 692 of this paper in Nature, where the authors do not rule out the possibility. We need not only to avoid dogmatism, but the appearance of dogmatism.

I don't see how that paper supports Forrest's position. Or is that not what you meant?

The paper entertains the possibility of an external influence affecting the field strength and direction at the Earth's surface. Thus wholesale rejection of forrest's position as in your own "This is obviously irrelevant to the topic of magnetic pole reversal (or even, shift) which is, equally obviously, entirely uninfluenced by the sun. " is not something that experts working in the field would automatically subscribe to.

Originally Posted by John Galt

The paper entertains the possibility of an external influence affecting the field strength and direction at the Earth's surface. Thus wholesale rejection of forrest's position as in your own "This is obviously irrelevant to the topic of magnetic pole reversal (or even, shift) which is, equally obviously, entirely uninfluenced by the sun. " is not something that experts working in the field would automatically subscribe to.

Fair enough. I was being a bit too extreme. Time for a coffee, maybe.

I don't intend to specifically criticise you, although I have picked one of your statements to illustrate my point. I am genuinely concerned that those espousing the importance of science should avoid any appearance of dogmatism. Creationists, pseudoscientists and nutters routinely accuse us of being dogmatic. If we should lapse into something that smacks of dogmatism, even if it is only some well intentioned hyperbole, then we give them ammunition they can use to persuade an undecided reader we are no different from them and possibly worse.

Disturbingly I have seen many well respected members of the forum be guilty of this practice. I should not be surprised if you could find examples in my own posts. That is unacceptable and should be condemned. Indeed, it is even more important for scientists and those who are pro-science to avoid this behaviour.

Please note I was specifically asking the person proposing the idea to take the time and effort to defend it. That means understanding it and researching it. I am always happy to learn more (thank you John), but now forrest feels justified in making what were for him unfounded unsupported statements since one possible answer fell into his lap. So nothing was learned by him, though I did learn something.

MW

I don't think there has been any particular evidence that forrests possesses the mindset at present to learn anything. What I believe to be important, as I indicated in post #69, is that your justifiable attack on his position was improperly supported by a seriously flawed statement. That brought your entire argument into question: if you could be wrong on that basic point, what else were you wrong with? If we have afforded forrests some wriggle room for being foolish that is down to your flawed argument, not to my exposure of it.

If it seems that I am being critical, that's because I am. We have to get things right, or declare upfront when we are less than certain, or have no good reason to be certain. All it takes is a statement such as 'It is my understanding'. Or, in the case of a postlike this the acknowledgement that the points are debatable, but as expressed represent a strongly held opinion.

perspective matters
assumptions matter
if you start from an assumption that the earth's climate, magnetosphere, magnetic poles, etc.etc. are independent from the sun
you'll ofttimes come to a different conclusion (using the same data) as you would if you had started from the opposite assumption.
ergo, my earlier questioning of the assumption that our spaceship earth is independent of "the sun's moods"
and I, oftimes will adapt an opposite assumption from that which is obviously held by the majority, just to see if a different perspective yields different results
'tis an old habit and not intended as offense, but rather to open the doors to further inquiry

from what i've read from the nasa site, it seems that we are going into an ever more active phase(mood) of our sun
which, if i understand the implications, should excite the atmosphere and compress the side facing the sun much more than the "stable" shape we have recently been accustomed to

the question obtains, will we hit a peak of solar activity next year and go back to a "more quiet" sun, or will the level of activity continue to increase

imho, science is never static, there is no bottom line, there are only trends in understanding which build on themselves or alternate to different understandings
it is an adventure
to be enjoyed

Actually, overall the sun appears to be entering a long term (century long?) relatively quiet period.

The regular 11 year (technically double peaked 11 year) solar cycle is superimposed on that, but the overarching trend is toward reduced activity.

Edit:
zurich.jpg

Full size version:

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/images2009/zurich.gif

John Gault,

Attacking the perceived ability (or character) of a person, rather than what's being said, is the number one "NO NO" in all forums. And maybe the number one rule of decorum, manners, and salesmanship concerning what-not- to-do in discussions or debates in all venues.

(your quote) "I don't think there has been any particular evidence that forrest possesses the mindset at present to learn anything."

You should know better John, but I agree with most of your other comments

The point of my discussions on this subject simply is that the sun's activity regularly influences the Earth's magnetic field. There are those alternative theorists that believe this is the primary source/ cause of our magnetic field.

The Cause of the Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED

Of course the model suggested above is generally contrary to the mainstream theory, and it's not my theory either which is different again, but it politely discusses possible problems with the dynamo theory, and also discusses the proven ways that solar activity can effect our magnetic field. I have been a theoretical cosmologist and physicist for over 50 years which can be found on any search engine concerning the Pan Theory. One of my theories concerning planetary magnetism is a generally unknown alternative to the dynamo model of geomagnetism. I will not discuss my model here but one of its hypothesis is that the magnetic polar shifts not only can be caused by, but are primarily or solely caused by large solar mass ejections that interact with our magnetosphere, and by their strength, density, and relative position as they enter the upper atmosphere, can overpower the prevailing polarity orientation causing a polar magnetic shift, especially if this plasma ejection was/is one of the largest and if it occurs at a time when the Earth's magnetic field strength is weaker than normal.

As to what extent the sun's magnetic field might cause increases or decreases in the strength of the Earth's magnetic field would presently be very difficult to come to summary and undisputed conclusions. Our present level of monitoring both the Earth and sun's magnetic fields have only been possible on an overall ongoing basis, since the advent of such monitoring satellites.

This year or next, the sun's magnetic poles are expected to flip as they do about every 11 years. During these times of the sun's magnetic pole reversals their are more coronal storms and related sun spots which are known to be the primary source of solar mass ejections. In recent years we have seen much less solar activity, the lowest in the last 30 years or more. At the same time the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is near its lowest point in recorded history. Is there a direct correlation on an ongoing basis concerning the strength of the sun's and Earth's magnetic fields? who knows, but there is much evidence that the actions of the sun's magnetic field through the solar wind and mass ejections, regularly influences the Earth's magnetic field.

My point to all of this is that in my opinion there is much that we don't know about geomagnetism, and there's a lot of the present dynamo model of geomagnetism that does not seem to add up (along with present theories of planetary magnetism in general), including most of the mainstream's presently proposed models of magnetic pole reversals.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/485319a.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/sc...=2&ref=science

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Gault,

Attacking the perceived ability (or character) of a person, rather than what's being said, is the number one "NO NO" in all forums. And maybe the number one rule of decorum, manners, and salesmanship concerning what-not- to-do in discussions or debates in all venues.

(your quote) "I don't think there has been any particular evidence that forrest possesses the mindset at present to learn anything."

There was no attack, but rather a statement of fact based upon your willful and blatant application of an agenda in a hysterical and unscientific fashion, despite multiple warnings, in a vaiety of forum threads. Anyone willing to waste the time can readily confirm this by studying your contributions to the forum.

The tenor of the balance of your post represents the first time I can recall you presenting your thoughts in an objective manner while acknowledging it is non-standard thinking and that it could be wrong. Perhaps you are now of a mindset where you can learn. Time, as they say, will tell.

jeezzzzzzz guys
could you please leave the animosity out on the playground?

There is no animosity on my part and I don't detect any on forrest's part. I am objectively and openly commenting on serious concerns about forrest's posting style and complimenting him on, in his last post, having apparently changed that style. For his part he raised a concern about my actions in that regard, which he is fully entitled to do.

?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Gault,

Attacking the perceived ability (or character) of a person, rather than what's being said, is the number one "NO NO" in all forums. And maybe the number one rule of decorum, manners, and salesmanship concerning what-not- to-do in discussions or debates in all venues.

(your quote) "I don't think there has been any particular evidence that forrest possesses the mindset at present to learn anything."

There was no attack, but rather a statement of fact based upon your willful and blatant application of an agenda in a hysterical and unscientific fashion, despite multiple warnings, in a variety of forum threads. Anyone willing to waste the time can readily confirm this by studying your contributions to the forum.

The tenor of the balance of your post represents the first time I can recall you presenting your thoughts in an objective manner while acknowledging it is non-standard thinking and that it could be wrong. Perhaps you are now of a mindset where you can learn. Time, as they say, will tell.

"...your willful and blatant application of an agenda in a hysterical and unscientific fashion, despite multiple warnings, in a variety of forum threads."

This statement of yours is totally a misrepresentation of the facts, even though I am equally sure that such misrepresentations were unintensional. This is simply your opinion with no basis in fact. Again this is an attack on the poster and not specifically on anything being said -- which is against all forum rules. If you think you can back up your statement complain to the administration of the appropriate forum, or PM me. I'm sure if you do the work you will find out that your statement is incorrect.

You have not been paying close attention to my postings, John, nor should you be expected to. You are one of the ones not interested in a "waste the time" to find that your opinion and statement is incorrect. Even though I may not agree with a particular mainstream position, I often explain this mainstream position anyway or add a relevant comment, but do not give my own opinion. I will argue in favor of the mainstream position when I agree with it. When I express an alternative mainstream position I often explain other mainstream proposals that I know of, and if I express my own opinion which is altogether different from the mainstream model, I always include a qualification statement clarifying that it is my opinion.

If you possibly might find an exception on this or any other forum since about 2002 (my first postings in science forums), it would be a rare oversight on my part. I try to be very careful concerning my wording and edit nearly all of my longer postings within a day or so afterwards where I'm allowed to do so. In any non-standard comment in any thread you will accordingly see many qualifications of mine such as "I think" or "in my opinion" etc. You are wrongly lumping me with those which don't include such qualifications intentionally, or those that don't know any better.

Just like you explained to me and others, like yourself, I also in the same way sincerely strive to make my statements both valid and informative.

best regards, Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

You have not been paying close attention to my postings, John, nor should you be expected to. You are one of the ones not interested in a "waste the time" to find that your opinion and statement is incorrect. Even though I may not agree with a particular mainstream position, I often explain this mainstream position anyway or add a relevant comment, but do not give my own opinion.

Having engaged you in a couple of conversations here, I can attest to the fundamental fairness of John Galt's statements. Your enthusiasm for your pet notions frequently blinds you to truths that are obvious to nearly everyone else. Even when others point out gross errors in your logic, errors in your premises, and steadfast denial of rather definitive refutations of many of your arguments, you stubbornly persist in your ways. That's why you've acquired the reputation as a non-scientific thinker, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary.

If one performs a search on the web for your name, one is led to your many postings on other fora. Your rather astonishing behavior there fully supports JG's implications, and is in stark contrast to his (always) measured, logical tone. It is unfortunate that you chose to interpret a genuine statement of praise from him as an insult.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by forrest noble

You have not been paying close attention to my postings, John, nor should you be expected to. You are one of the ones not interested in a "waste the time" to find that your opinion and statement is incorrect. Even though I may not agree with a particular mainstream position, I often explain this mainstream position anyway or add a relevant comment, but do not give my own opinion.

Having engaged you in a couple of conversations here, I can attest to the fundamental fairness of John Gault's statements. Your enthusiasm for your pet notions frequently blinds you to truths that are obvious to nearly everyone else. Even when others point out gross errors in your logic, errors in your premises, and steadfast denial of rather definitive refutations of many of your arguments, you stubbornly persist in your ways. That's why you've acquired the reputation as a non-scientific thinker, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary.

If one performs a search on the web for your name, one is led to your many postings on other fora. Your rather astonishing behavior there fully supports JG's implications, and is in stark contrast to his (always) measured, logical tone. It is unfortunate that you chose to interpret a genuine statement of praise from him as an insult.

I can also attest to John's perception of fairness but everyone makes mistakes. His was making an assumption without adequate investigation. It is a major rule in every forum to never disparage another member, instead you should dispute what he is saying at the time if you think that it is wrong. One needs always to present specific examples and never generalize. Generalizations without specifics, is a logical flaw. I saw no compliment in his statements, only that this time he thought that I was not misbehaving

Again his intentions I'm sure are not bad, this much I know of him by experience. Instead one should address the topic at hand and forget your impressions of the past, if any, which should have been addressed at that time. I think we are all on the same page, but that John and now you don't seem to realize

Your enthusiasm for your pet notions frequently blinds you to truths that are obvious to nearly everyone else. Even when others point out gross errors in your logic, errors in your premises, and steadfast denial of rather definitive refutations of many of your arguments, you stubbornly persist in your ways. That's why you've acquired the reputation ...

Also your statement above and related opinion has no basis in fact, likewise it violates forum rules and is solely your opinion. Assertions of wrong information should be made/ challenged on thread at the time. It is also well known that those challenging statements often do not understand or misinterpret what has been said, or they may not realize the error in their own argument.

All of my postings have been very similar in quality and validity as in this thread, in my opinion. To review 400 such pages of my theories and related assertions, see the Pan Theory using any search engine.

I, for one, will not respond on thread to any further non-related comments so anyone who wishes can make a final comment or statement without consideration of my reply. If I think further unsupported allegations are being made on thread, I will contact a moderator. All should PM me, a moderator or administrator for any further comments since such extraneous discussions should not be on thread. Let's stick to Andrew Slack's presented topic at hand: Magnetic polar reversals and their possible implications

from forest's link: The Cause of the Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED

As soon as the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) arrives at a huge thermal area, it makes it much easier for a huge amount of magnetic "power lines" to align with with the rest of the crust. That certainly reinforces the global magnetic strength.

The heat of the Arctic Ocean causes magnetic structures in this area to be less ”frozen” (compared to colder underground places) and more magnetically flexible. As a result, such an area can adapt more easily to prevailing magnetic direction. It is very important to notice that when the MNP enters (and moves through) such a warm area, the strength of the global MF is bound to increase

any other support for that ?

I wouldn't even call that support, It's a misnamed "theory" (actually speculation without any scientific support).

Originally Posted by sculptor

from forest's link: The Cause of the Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED

As soon as the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) arrives at a huge thermal area, it makes it much easier for a huge amount of magnetic "power lines" to align with with the rest of the crust. That certainly reinforces the global magnetic strength.

The heat of the Arctic Ocean causes magnetic structures in this area to be less ”frozen” (compared to colder underground places) and more magnetically flexible. As a result, such an area can adapt more easily to prevailing magnetic direction. It is very important to notice that when the MNP enters (and moves through) such a warm area, the strength of the global MF is bound to increase

any other support for that ?

I think this is an interesting link sculptor, but it is a different model of geomagnetism, probably unknown to most mainstream theorists. I never heard of it before doing research for this thread. The above quote is based upon his model of geomagnetism, not the standard model of geomagnetism called the Dynamo model. The purpose of presenting this link was two-fold, first I think it showed other possibilities for geomagnetism other than the Dynamo model (but different from my own model), and secondly his model asserts that there are a great deal of solar influences on the Earth's magnetic field, and I think lots of data to support this contention -- which in this way is similar to my own model. His model also elaborates more detail than my own model.

I really don't understand the meaning of the first two sentences of this quote. Maybe if I studied it more? I don't know of any extraneous evidence for this model that he didn't already present but I suspect there probably is other such evidence.

btw, thanks for your support best regards, Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by sculptor

from forest's link: The Cause of the Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED

As soon as the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) arrives at a huge thermal area, it makes it much easier for a huge amount of magnetic "power lines" to align with with the rest of the crust. That certainly reinforces the global magnetic strength.

The heat of the Arctic Ocean causes magnetic structures in this area to be less ”frozen” (compared to colder underground places) and more magnetically flexible. As a result, such an area can adapt more easily to prevailing magnetic direction. It is very important to notice that when the MNP enters (and moves through) such a warm area, the strength of the global MF is bound to increase

any other support for that ?

I think this is an interesting link sculptor, but it is a different model of geomagnetism, probably unknown to most mainstream theorists. I never heard of it before doing research for this thread. The above quote is based upon his model of geomagnetism, not the standard model of geomagnetism called the Dynamo model. The purpose of presenting this link was two-fold, first I think it showed other possibilities for geomagnetism other than the Dynamo model (but different from my own model), and secondly his model asserts that there are a great deal of solar influences on the Earth's magnetic field, and I think lots of data to support this contention -- which in this way is similar to my own model. His model also elaborates more detail than my own model.

I really don't understand the meaning of the first two sentences of this quote. Maybe if I studied it more? I don't know of any extraneous evidence for this model that he didn't already present but I suspect there probably is other such evidence.

btw, thanks for your support best regards, Forrest

as/re the first 2 sentences. i assumed that he ment the magnetic lines astride the mid ocean ridges, but Tesla(one of my boyhood heroes) claimed to have found such energy lines on terra firma
and others have claimed the existence of energy lines ---but usually not alligned to the (mysteriously wandering) magnetic poles

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by sculptor

from forest's link: The Cause of the Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED

As soon as the Magnetic North Pole (MNP) arrives at a huge thermal area, it makes it much easier for a huge amount of magnetic "power lines" to align with with the rest of the crust. That certainly reinforces the global magnetic strength.

The heat of the Arctic Ocean causes magnetic structures in this area to be less ”frozen” (compared to colder underground places) and more magnetically flexible. As a result, such an area can adapt more easily to prevailing magnetic direction. It is very important to notice that when the MNP enters (and moves through) such a warm area, the strength of the global MF is bound to increase

any other support for that ?

I think this is an interesting link sculptor, but it is a different model of geomagnetism, probably unknown to most mainstream theorists. I never heard of it before doing research for this thread. The above quote is based upon his model of geomagnetism, not the standard model of geomagnetism called the Dynamo model. The purpose of presenting this link was two-fold, first I think it showed other possibilities for geomagnetism other than the Dynamo model (but different from my own model), and secondly his model asserts that there are a great deal of solar influences on the Earth's magnetic field, and I think lots of data to support this contention -- which in this way is similar to my own model. His model also elaborates more detail than my own model.

I really don't understand the meaning of the first two sentences of this quote. Maybe if I studied it more? I don't know of any extraneous evidence for this model that he didn't already present but I suspect there probably is other such evidence.

btw, thanks for your support best regards, Forrest

as/re the first 2 sentences. i assumed that he meant the magnetic lines astride the mid ocean ridges, but Tesla(one of my boyhood heroes) claimed to have found such energy lines on terra firma and others have claimed the existence of energy lines ---but usually not aligned to the (mysteriously wandering) magnetic poles

Yes, I also think upon consideration that the location that he meant is the mid Atlantic ridge above Iceland, but as to the rest of his meaning I'm guessing that in that location accordingly multi-magnetic centers can more easily merge together. From the same link:

The Cause of the Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED

one can see that presently there is an N1 and N2 north pole and a S1 and S2 south centers of plarity. I would expect if these polarity centers merged that the present strength of the Earth's magnetic field would increase. Accordingly there may have been times of multiple centers (more than 2) which maybe would indicate an overall very weak magnetic field, and when there were times when there would have been only one magnetic center for each pole then seemingly the strength of the magnetic field would have been greater.

So he says (Re N1 N2 S1 S2)
'
I'd like to see some actual science instead of some guy on Teh Interwebz sez so.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

So he says (Re N1 N2 S1 S2)
'
I'd like to see some actual science instead of some guy on Teh Interwebz sez so.

If one would read his entire link to better understand geomagnetism, it can be realized that his theory is separate. I learned a lot more via his link. The magnetic map that he shows was scientifically prepared by magnetic surveys and is available on many other websites concerning geomagnetism

magnetic map of earth - Google Search

Maps 3 and 4 (from left to right) are the same map as the one referenced in my posting, from his link. All the other geomagnetic information on his link were also prepared by others in the field. His theoretical conclusions, as far as I know, are the only part of his link that are generally his own.