Earth's Magnetic Field Weakening

[HOZ]

The voyages of Captain Cook have just yielded a new discovery: the gradual weakening of Earth’s magnetic field is a relatively recent phenomenon. The discovery has led experts to question whether the Earth is on track towards a polarity reversal.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...c-decline.html

[evman150]

I didn't read the article, but the magnetic field's polarity is oscillatory, so this really isn't a big deal.

And FYI, New Scientist is a rag. The scientific process is merely a guideline for the editors/writers/publishers.

[toonmaster]

that is nothing really new, the polarity of the Earth is long overdue for a reversal.

Every 300,000 years on average, the north and south poles of the Earth's magnetic field swap places. The field must weaken and go to zero before it can reverse itself. The last such reversal occurred roughly 780,000 years ago, so we are long overdue for another magnetic flip.

they can also verify this with mineral alignment of metalics on the sea bed

so i guess that geology class wasn't a complete waste of time

[White Doors]

Hmmm.. I wonder if there will be any research done in regards to this being related to glogal warming? The weakening of the magnetic field around our planet directly affects the strength of the suns rays.

Interesting anyways.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Actually, as been posted, it is normal for the poles to swtich every 150,000 years, so global warming has nothing to due with it. The magnetic field directs radiation and ionic particals toward the poles. The problem is, it usually takes a few thousand years for the poles to reverse. During that time there may be no polar opposites or the polar opposites may land deep down the latitude lines directing the radiation toward populated areas. Thats the scary part.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Actually, as been posted, it is normal for the poles to swtich every 150,000 years, so global warming has nothing to due with it. The magnetic field directs radiation and ionic particals toward the poles. The problem is, it usually takes a few thousand years for the poles to reverse. During that time there may be no polar opposites or the polar opposites may land deep down the latitude lines directing the radiation toward populated areas. Thats the scary part.

I was speaking of Global Warming perhaps being a symptom of the declining strength of the magnetic field that protects the earth. The Earth, in it's ancient past, has been MUCH warmer than it is now.

Coincidence? perhaps. Should it be studied? absolutely.

[jolinar of malkshor]

IC, good question.

[photon]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...neticfield.htm

Probably wouldn't wipe out life as we know it. Navigation by compass would be pretty difficult, and it would be hard on migratory species that are thought to use the magenetic field to navigate (or so I've heard, haven't read too much on that).

[jolinar of malkshor]

Good illustration.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by photon

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...neticfield.htm

Probably wouldn't wipe out life as we know it. Navigation by compass would be pretty difficult, and it would be hard on migratory species that are thought to use the magenetic field to navigate (or so I've heard, haven't read too much on that).

I think there will be a huge impact on the environment. If just one animal species goes extinct it can upset everything.

For example the lobster population would go down since they use the magnetic field as a guide to get back into the protection of their hole in the reef/rocks before daylight. Its difficult to say how this would effect some marine environments...

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by photon

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...neticfield.htm

Probably wouldn't wipe out life as we know it. Navigation by compass would be pretty difficult, and it would be hard on migratory species that are thought to use the magenetic field to navigate (or so I've heard, haven't read too much on that).

As long as that chaotic field still protects us from solar radiation, we'd be okay.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I was speaking of Global Warming perhaps being a symptom of the declining strength of the magnetic field that protects the earth. The Earth, in it's ancient past, has been MUCH warmer than it is now.

Coincidence? perhaps. Should it be studied? absolutely.

I think it's pretty clear that global climate change is a result of human impact on the environment. Only the Oil lobby and the Bush administration believe otherwise--and they probably don't actually believe it, they just refuse to admit that their industries are one of the causes of climate change, and slowing it down or reversing it would cost a lot of money.

Should we study every possibility? Sure. But let's not use it as an excuse to take our eye off the ball here.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I think it's pretty clear that global climate change is a result of human impact on the environment. Only the Oil lobby and the Bush administration believe otherwise--and they probably don't actually believe it, they just refuse to admit that their industries are one of the causes of climate change, and slowing it down or reversing it would cost a lot of money.

Should we study every possibility? Sure. But let's not use it as an excuse to take our eye off the ball here.

I am not convinced that increased CO2 emissions are the culprit. Human based CO2 emissions make up 0.14% of the greenhouse gasses.. How can that warm the climate?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I am not convinced that increased CO2 emissions are the culprit. Human based CO2 emissions make up 0.14% of the greenhouse gasses.. How can that warm the climate?

I suppose the fact that every reputable scientist believes that humans are causing global climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy? But you're right, let's try to figure out if magnetic processes in the earth are somehow the real culprits, and then we can continue burning every hydrocarbon we can find to our heart's content.

Or maybe trees are causing global warming. That is what Reagan thought.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The earth has been much warmer in the past with oceans covering large portions of North America. Global warming and cooling is cyclical. And there are just as many reputable scientists that disagree with humans causing global warming.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I suppose the fact that every reputable scientist believes that humans are causing global climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy? But you're right, let's try to figure out if magnetic processes in the earth are somehow the real culprits, and then we can continue burning every hydrocarbon we can find to our heart's content.

Or maybe trees are causing global warming. That is what Reagan thought.

I'd dispute the fact that every reputable scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. If we are, that's fine - but we should be questioning it. Myself, I'm more worried about toxic emissions into our air, water and soil. I'm also more concerned about deforestation in the tropics and the loss of habitat for wildlife. Happily for the CO2 bandwagoner, addressing those concerns will also help them slay their 'global warming' dragon.

The majority of reputable scientists in the 70's were also convinced of global cooling, if you can recall.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I suppose the fact that every reputable scientist believes that humans are causing global climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy? But you're right, let's try to figure out if magnetic processes in the earth are somehow the real culprits, and then we can continue burning every hydrocarbon we can find to our heart's content.

Or maybe trees are causing global warming. That is what Reagan thought.

You remove any credibility for your argument when you claim that EVERY reputable scientist believes humans are the cause of global warming.

Give your head a shake

[White Doors]

ie: you can lighten up on your 'left wing conspiracy' hyperbole.

[evman150]

As you people know, I am about as left wing as one can be, but I do not wholly believe in global warming. There are just too many experts that do not believe it. I had a guest lecturer in one of my classes in October and the lecture was on adaptive optics and atmospheric effects/distortion etc. He all but said global warming was BS. I am not saying I believe him or that I believe anybody else, I'm just saying we can't be sure.

So please don't paint all of us on the left with the same brush.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Give your head a shake

You know, "give your head a shake" isn't really an argument. Let's try to have a civilized discussion.

Aside from that, you make what is quite possibly a good point. I may well have overstated my case, in saying that every reputable scientist believes this. So let me retract and slightly modify my statement, and say instead that the CONSENSUS among scientists is that global warming is happening, and that it is likely due to human factors rather than naturally occurring phenomena. Of course, there will be some scientists who disagree. There are also scientists who attempt to discredit evolution, in spite of all the evidence. This is, in fact, healthy, even though it sometimes gets manipulated to create the illusion of uncertainty on issues where there really isn't much uncertainty at all.

But instead of exchanging epithets, why don't we exchange links. I eagerly await a nondiscredited, recent publication from a reputable journal which disputes global warming or its causes.

In the meantime, from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, this summary of the prevailing science on this topic.

The growing scientific consensus is that this warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Projections of future warming suggest a global increase of 2.5ºF (1.4ºC) to 10.4ºF (5.8ºC) by 2100, with warming in the United States expected to be even higher. In addition to warming, increases in sea level and changes in precipitation, including more frequent floods and droughts, are likely. These changes, over time, are referred to broadly as "climate change".

There's lots of information at their site. Check it out, if you're interested.

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...basic_science/