Magnetic field reversals, global warming & mutations.

[Mokele]

If you have a specific point that you disagree with, please state it and back it up.

 

You missed my point. What I'm saying is "Where's the data that backs up your theory linking pole reversals to climate change?"

 

Theory is one thing, but theory is totally useless without experimental or observational verification. *That* is my objection. Unless you can actually provide some data that the two are correlated (from paleomagnetic records and paleoclimatic records), then it's just a hypothesis.

 

I linked a NASA study in a previous post relating to field reversal periods, please read it.

 

I've read all of the URLs you posted. They all say the same thing: the last reversal was 780,000 years ago.

 

As far as Ice ages, see above comment relating to increased/decreased solar radiation resulting in fluctuations in the magnetic field line terminators.

 

You're still missing my objection. Yes, pole shifts *could* influence climate. But "could influence" is not the same thing as "do influence". That's where data comes in. Your hypothesis predicts that pole reversals will correlate with climatological changes. Now, as anyone knows, the next step is to test the predictions of your hypothesis and display the results.

 

Nobody believes something built just on pretty words and equations. Science is about facts; about data. Your theory is plausible, but plausible does not mean correct; that's where the data comes in. That's what's really convincing.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong or right. I'm saying that I need to see observational data to be convinced one way or the other.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

Ok' date=' I'm tired of repeating myself. Can we agree or disagree on some things....

1. The planet's magnetic field blocks solar radiation.

2. Magnetic field lines do fluctuate.

3. Fluctuations in the magnetic field lines do cause more or less solar radiation into the planet's atmosphere.

4. Increased/decreased solar radiation can cause heating/cooling of the planet's surface.

 

I'm tired of typing this. If you have a specific point that you disagree with, please state it and back it up.

[/quote']

 

"Solar radiation" is a broad term. Are you referring to charged particles or EM radiation?

[RichF]

so the founders of marvel and DC are psychic? and can see the future??? i wana be a super hero. or maby, just maby be a super villan!!! dun dun dunnnnnn!!!! Muhuhahahaaaa!!!

 

Troll...

 

Anyways, found some time to look some stuff up tonight.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

[Guest JEF13BC]

 

Anyways' date=' found some time to look some stuff up tonight.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html

 

HEY RICH,

I'm Jef and I'm very interested in your thread about the polar magnetic shifts and how they would affect the world around us (thanks for all the URLs, btw; very helpful and informative).

 

I'm actually very interested in perhaps some brief postulating as to what might happen (particularly) to humans, physiologically in the shortterm {minutes to hours}) should transferring polar fields begin emanating over heavily populated areas.

 

As the shifting magnetic fields continue to weaken the protective aspects of our atmosphere and outer planetary fields, as I understand it, this will increase exposure to stronger and stronger levels of ultraviolet radiation, and even x-rays and some types of gamma rays.

 

So, if a person were to be caught directly under such a polar emanation, say in South America somewhere, and their exposure was in a time in our planet's future when our own species' activities have affected the ozone layer, etc., so that the combined affect has been magnified, wouldn't such a person (or animal for that matter) be subject to possibly enormous and concentrated levels of radiation for which the human body has not evolved to deflect, or survive?

 

Some of the scientific postulations I've heard of and/or read about are talking about the possibility of hundreds to thousands of times the amount one receives getting an X-ray, etc., so that there would/might be an immediate bodily reaction under such conditions. Do you (or anyone else reading) have any thoughts or information which might speak to such scenarios? I appreciate any clarity you can give, thanks.

[swansont]

As the shifting magnetic fields continue to weaken the protective aspects of our atmosphere and outer planetary fields' date=' as I understand it, this will increase exposure to stronger and stronger levels of ultraviolet radiation, and even x-rays and some types of gamma rays.

[/quote']

 

Exposure to direct EM radiation (UV, X and gamma rays that enter the atmosphere) will not change at all, as it is not affected by magnetic fields. "Some types of gamma rays" How many types do you think there are?

 

What may change is the EM radiation caused by charged particles. If the field is smaller, the charges will be accelerated less, and actually emit less radiation. However, the poles moving will mean that this will take place at different locations, and give radiation exposure where little existed before.

[Guest JEF13BC]

I appreciate the clarification. It's been a long time since I've actually studied that end of the spectrum - couldn't remember if there's more than one intensity or what. I just know they're not something you want to have passing through your body for any length of time. Anyway, thanks for the input.

[swansont]

Just ran across this FAQ on magnetic phenomena.

[RichF]

Thanks for the responses and info! I need to check my threads more often! Rather than starting a new thread I'd rather continue on this one. This stuff really intrigues me!!

 

A couple of questions...

 

When a polar shift or movement occurs, does the core itself shift or does the polarity move along the core?

 

Magma is magnetically polarized correct? If so, wouldn't movements in the polar magnetic locations cause the magma closest to the core to alter it's normal path?

 

Could alterations in the direction of magma cause an increase in volcanic activity on the surface?

 

A URL, for what it's worth, that I posted in an alcohol vested thread a while back..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/timeline.html

 

Anyone catch the Little Ice Age on the Disc Channel a couple of weeks back! I found it really interesting how they mapped the weather changes in the northern hemisphere to the movement of the magnetic pole!

 

 

Anyways..Thanks,

 

Rich

[swansont]

I noticed that the FAQ link from post 21 doesn't work anymore. Here is where it is now.

[RichF]

Cool,, thanks!