Dont know if anyone here has been following the news this morning. Have a look here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/30/climate.study/index.html

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

Magnetic pole moving story : http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/20/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/12/12/magnetic.poles.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?

Sorry if this has been covered a 100 times over, if it has, im looking at all decent research about it. Any urls and suggestions would eb great.

Dont know if anyone here has been following the news this morning. Have a look here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/30/climate.study/index.html

Magnetic poles flip:
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/venus/RevScience.htmlThe first article definitely contributes to the concern about Global Warming since the warming Atlantic current cycle towards Northwest Europe is weakening.

The second article is about the magnetic pole reversals and states:

"The Brunhes-Matuyama reversal happened 730,000 years ago during what paleontologists call the Middle Pleistocene Era (100,000 to 1 million years ago). There were no major changes in plant and animal life during this time, so the magnetic reversal did not lead to planet-wide extinctions, or other calamities that would have impacted existing life."

I have read two other articles that also state that they think a pole reversal will not cause much problem to life on Earth or climatic trends.

From main link

Statement A
>> The Atlantic Conveyor works because the cold water of the North Atlantic gets saltier and more dense, causing it to sink to the bottom of the ocean and flow south.

Warmer surface water then flows north from the tropics until it gets cold and sinks Then the process starts over.>>

Statement B
>> Melting ice caps would add freshwater to the ocean, which would reduce seawater salinity, which in turn reduces seawater density.>>

Statement A... [less dense water (warm) flows north, more dense water (cold) flows south]
Statement B.... fresh water is less dense

so fresh water (less dense) should flow north

BUT

>> found that the Atlantic Conveyor flow slowed by about 30 percent between 1957 and 2004. >>>
>> Overall, there was a reduction in the net northward transport of warm upper waters, and a reduction also in the net amount of southward transport of cold, deep waters," Bryden said.>> [observation]

then the conclusion

>> Less dense water would reduce the flow.>>

Is not really supported. Their logic is confounding, IMO

The observations can only mean that the difference in temperature of the warm water to cold salty water is not so marked as in 1957. The whole sea is warming up.

What is happening in the Northern Hemisphere is that the submerged Arctic ice is melting releasing a fresh water layer over the salty sea...... this remains under an oil microlayer...

Increased direct evaporation of the Arctic ice surface is leading to good precipitation over the Northern hemisphere... clouds and some cooling and ice formation.

Once the Arctic is melted the situation will reverse and heat and drought will become major concerns for the land masses.

No deep freeze yet

this will happen once the world heats up sufficiently to produce massive cloud banks... but this may not happen, because of the wild card... oil.

The picture is really confused... and so am I.

*all in my opinion..*

I am sure no firm conclusions can be drawn until crisis time.... because what is happening in the world climate wise, has never happened before.

But, I will say, ultimately this will precipitate an ice age, but a good while from now (if the oil is removed)..... if it remains then all over drought must follow, until the world heats up enough to create massive cloud banks.
IMO

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.

I have this thread going on another forum, and I think someone there who knew what they are talking about descibed the general idea I was getting at:

"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.

The magnetic field never goes away, even when it flips, it just goes through a period of uneven patches, where positive and negative don't reside in their normal places.

ok, but i still believe its effecthing the current and climate at the moment. and the pace of it is increasing. wouldnt even a reduced field allow enough radioation in to cause the poles to melt?

It feels a lot more plausable than the green house gas theory doesn it?

>> The increased water lowers the temperature and the world freezes.

You don't get an ice age from cold.

You get an ice age from heat.... massive cloud banks depositing snow at a high latitude etc (from heated evaporated water at another latitude)

To move water onto a land mass heat must be applied to it.

Much more likely the big chill--particularly in the northern hemisphere--will come from the collapse of the Greenland ice-sheet, whenever that occurs. That will release about 600,000 cubic miles of fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean, and completely shut down the thermohaline circulation regime which drives the Gulf Stream. That will create equilatitudinal climatic conditions for Britain and western Europe, Russia and China. By equilatitudinal I mean the climate in Britain will be the same as the Labrador, which is on the same latitude but is not influenced by the presence of the Gulf Stream off its shores. In other words, Britain and Europe are going to become bloody cold--way worse than presently.

Statement A... [less dense water (warm) flows north, more dense water (cold) flows south]
Statement B.... fresh water is less dense

so fresh water (less dense) should flow northNo, this reasoning is incorrect. It is not that fresh water or less dense water "should flow north."

The reason why the ocean currents circulate northward is due to the wind cycle at the ocean's surface which goes in a clockwise direction in the Atlantic, due to the Coriolis effect. This produces the Gulf Stream that warms Northwestern Europe from the warmer currents coming up from the tropics. When these warmer currents become less dense then they drop to the deep ocean where they recirculate back to the tropics, thus completing the cycle. As the author states, this cycle of flow, is "technically known as the "Atlantic meridional overturning current." It also referred to as a "conveyor belt" or the "thermohaline circulation."

"Less dense water would reduce the flow.This is because if it were less dense, then it would not sink, and then would stay at the surface. This would impede the overall circulation. It would act as a barrier to the northeastern moving surface Gulf Stream currents.

What is happening in the Northern Hemisphere is that the submerged Arctic ice is melting releasing a fresh water layer over the salty sea...... this remains under an oil microlayer... ...but this may not happen, because of the wild card... oil.
As we established on the other forum, this oil microlayer does not extend over the entire ocean - only in certain places. I'm still not ecxactly sure what Light meant by this. In any case, this new "fresh water" from the Arctic ice would "mix" with the salt water and make it less dense.

No deep freeze yetI don't understand why the author is suggesting this. She states "If the Atlantic conveyor belt were to break down, many scientists say it could trigger an ice age in which northern Europe comes to resemble Siberia." I suspect that the reporter here is misquoing or misunderstanding what she was told by the researchers. Certainly if this circulation pattern were to break down it would not lead to a "global" ice age! Northwestern Europe would become colder, temporarily. This would not "precipitate an ice age."

The fact is that ever since the last glacier period 15,000 years ago the Earth is undergoing a warming trend that is being accelerated by human green house gases (Global Warming). Before this period, during the Pleistocene, beginning 1.8 mya, there were four major and about twenty minor glaciation periods: a lot of climatic fluctuation. We are not headed toward another "Ice Age."

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?)

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.The article that you cited above has no author??? He makes reference to two other newspaper articles which themselves are then referenced to three scientists. The articles states:

"Hundreds of years could pass before a flip-flopped field returned to where it was 780,000 years ago. But scientists at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union cautioned that scenario is an unlikely one. "The chances are it will not," Bloxham said Thursday. "Reversals are a rare event."

Instead, the weakening, measured since 1845, could represent little more than an "excursion," or lull, which can last for hundreds of years, said John Tarduno of the University of Rochester. Such a lull could still have significant effects, especially in regions where the weakening is most pronounced.

Over the southern Atlantic Ocean, a continued weakening of the magnetic field has diminished the shielding effect it has locally in protecting the Earth from the natural radiation that bombards our planet from space, scientists said. The weakening -- if coupled with a subsequently large influx of radiation in the form of protons streaming from the sun -- can also affect the chemistry of the atmosphere, said Charles Jackman of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. That can lead to significant but temporary losses of atmospheric ozone, he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/12/magnetic.poles.ap/index.html

Keep in mind that the depletion of the ozone layer has been directly correlated to the emission of greenhouse gases. How weakening of the magnetic field effects the ozone layer is a mystery to me. As stated above, the conveyor belt circulation of the Atlantic Ocean towards Northeast Europe is caused by surface winds across the ocean that move the water in that direction, and also due to the Coriolis effect. However, the Coriolis effect is itself caused by the magnetic field produced by the circulation of molten iron in the Earth's core. The Earth's core circulation and the magnetic field that it produces it what causes the differences in between the North and South Poles and their gradual shifts, and the periodic reversals. But in regard to the reversals, were talking periods of hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/sunspmax.html

This article is a bit ambiguous. It states that "sunspots and other disruptions of the Sun's surface, affects the Earth's climate and can seriously disrupt satellite communication, telephones, power grids and space flight."

Sun spots are geographic areas on the sun that appear as dark spots due to their intense magnetic activity and may or may not affect Earth. They can only affect the Earth if the solar radiation emitted from these sun spots are directed toward Earth. The author of this article fails to even address this as point, instead, even though he is a scientist, he is talking like he is assuming that ALL sun spots affect the Earth???

There is no doubt that solar radiation from sunspots cause magnetic interference with communication devices on Earth, but I've never heard that it affects climate change. Again, the author does not give us even the slightest hint as to how this affects climate change?

Milankovitch Cycles:

"Milankovitch cycles is the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 22,000 years cycle in the equinoxes. In addition, the Earth's tilt relative to the Sun changes between 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000 year cycle. The Earth's axis today is tilted 23.5 degrees relative to the normal to the plane of the ecliptic.

The Milankovitch Theory of Climate Change is not perfectly worked out: in particular the largest response is at the 100,000 year timescale but the forcing is apparently small at this scale - see Ice age for more discussion. Various feedbacks (from CO2, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy.

As the Earth spins around its axis and orbits around the Sun, several quasi-periodic variations occur....Such changes in movement and orientation change the amount and location of solar radiation reaching the Earth. This is known as solar forcing (an example of radiative forcing). Changes near the north polar area are considered important due to the large amount of land, which reacts to such changes more quickly than the oceans do."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

URI: Sorry, I meant to say that the water then sinks in the North because it become more dense, not less dense, and also because it becomes colder. Then it sinks and recirculates at the bottom of the ocean back to the South:

"The Atlantic Conveyor works because the cold water of the North Atlantic gets saltier and more dense, causing it to sink to the bottom of the ocean and flow south. Warmer surface water then flows north from the tropics until it gets cold and sinks Then the process starts over."

The water gets saltier because the winds evaporate fresh water out of the salt water along the way and because when it reaches near the poles it gives up even more fresh water due to the formation of ice. Global Warming would prevent this from happening and prevent it from getting colder.

Estimates of an Earth's magnetic pole reversal range from a few centuries to 200,000 years from now, so it is nothing that we have to worry about in our life time. Humans have been on the planet for millions of years and there have been many reversals: we are still here.

Apparently there is an outer magnetic field beyond the ionesphere called the magnetopause that consists of plasma. This forms an inner radiation belt and a larger belt of lower energy particles, deposited mainly by magnetic storms, forming its own magnetic field (not attributed to the Earth's inner core magnetic field) that deflects much of the solar radiation.

"NASA predicts that, rather than declining to zero gauss, the magnetic field would become disordered. Thus we might for short time have more than one north and south pole on the planet. This official scientific stance says that the magnetosphere which shields us from cosmic radiation would not entirely disappear either. Thus, while communications would be erratic and perhaps at times completely inactivated, humans would find ways to survive. However, there are dissenters in the ranks, pointing to the vast South Atlantic magnetic anomaly and radiation damage to satellites over that region attributed to weakening of the protective magnetosphere.

The disorderly-flip theory is supported by evidence from geology that in past reversals the decline was not total. Lava flows that solidified at Steen's Mountain during a lengthy reversal process show that the magnetic poles wandered across the equator three times. Though strength of the field was reduced to about 20% of maximum, there is no record that it fell to zero gauss during that transitional period."
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/

"Is there any danger to life?
Almost certainly not. The Earth's magnetic field is contained within a region of space, known as the magnetosphere, by the action of the solar wind. The magnetosphere deflects many, but not all, of the high-energy particles that flow from the Sun in the solar wind and from other sources in the galaxy. Sometimes the Sun is particularly active, for example when there are many sunspots, and it may send clouds of high-energy particles in the direction of the Earth. During such solar 'flares' and 'coronal mass ejections', astronauts in Earth orbit may need extra shelter to avoid higher doses of radiation. Therefore we know that the Earth's magnetic field offers only some, rather than complete, resistance to particle radiation from space. Indeed high-energy particles can actually be accelerated within the magnetosphere.
At the Earth's surface, the atmosphere acts as an extra blanket to stop all but the most energetic of the solar and galactic radiation. In the absence of a magnetic field, the atmosphere would still stop most of the radiation. Indeed the atmosphere shields us from high-energy radiation as effectively as a concrete layer some 13 feet thick.

Human beings have been on the Earth for a number of million years, during which there have been many reversals, and there is no obvious correlation between human development and reversals. Similarly, reversal patterns do not match patterns in species extinction during geological history.

Some animals, such as pigeons and whales, may use the Earth's magnetic field for direction finding. Assuming that a reversal takes a number of thousand years, that is, over many generations of each species, each animal may well adapt to the changing magnetic environment, or develop different methods of navigation."
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/reversals.html

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

"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/global/planetophysical2.html Im not ashamed to say I had to wikipedia a lot of the words. (What dies antropohenedus mean?).. and that lead me to here: http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/printthread.php?threadid=6042

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.

Well you could find that out in another dozen milleniums or two. But the average Paleo magnetic excursion has lasted some 6000 years. The number you'd find back in the scholar publications.

And, no, there are neither proven correlations between climate and magnetic field nor extinctions nor other disasters associated with magnetic flips, although coming to think of it, :eek: the recent oceanic foraminifera extinction, known as the "stilostomella" event (http://jfr.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/3/274) intensified at the start of the magnetic reversal known as the Jaramillo Subchron around one million years ago and ended around the Matuyama - Brunhes magnetic flip some 780,000 years ago.

:bugeye: perhaps we're heading for disaster after all :D

Sorry, Im going to disagree with that point. Firstly Ive often found school textbooks to have government agreed education, and growing up in Aparteid in south africa, I quickly learnt not to believe everything I read, and to always question. That aside.

From all the information I am getting in from a lot of different sources, the argument that there is going be massive climate changes are a hell of a lot more convincing than those against.

Also, I believe that before 2020, massive changes will have occured across the world as a result of what is happening. Everyone like me is basically guessing when this is going to happen, and as I mentioned dates range from less than 5 years to more than 100 000 years. Due to the acceleration of the pole, the increased loss or distortion of the magnetosphere, and major current changes, I get the feeling its a lot closer than we all thought.

Why w1z4rd,

Ever heard of fallacies (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/)? :) Out of time right now but perhaps tomorrow we could go over your post and learn about the power of fallacies. :D

Sure would like that, no need to be condecending though. As you proove sources of information incorrect, i will go and look for more information. i thought that was the point of all of this.

However, you havent given me relevant information to work with yet, so I will wait on that and continue looking for more data in the mean time. Though its kinda wierd that a couple of decent sources seem to link climate changes with pole flips. While its in contention, its still the most viable point in my view until a point with better merit and more conclusive evidence is given to me.

Dropping a link like fallacies with no reference in that link is not very useful.

Hi W1z4rd,

The point of the fallacy link is that you used several fallacies and no real substantiation at all to disagree with me. Just an observation.

Considering some scientific work about the correlation between climate and magnetic field (that's what this thread is all about right?) try this one:

http://www.geo.uu.nl/Research/Paleomagnetism/publications/Related_pubs/Guyodo99.pdf

The above link concludes:

"Most studies conclude that a 30-50 kyr [thousand years] geomagnetic pulse exists, or that there is a no dominant period...Our composite Sint-800 curve shows that the Earth's dipoled field over the last 800 kyr was dominated by changes of very large (and various) amplitude but does not indicate the presence of any dominant periodicity."

And so? What does this mean? They're suggesting that there is no "dominant periodicity" = no big thing = nothing to worry about.

There study supports what I stated above. Please read my post:
"Estimates of an Earth's magnetic pole reversal range from a few centuries to 200,000 years from now, so it is nothing that we have to worry about in our life time. Humans have been on the planet for millions of years and there have been many reversals: we are still here."

Earth's magnetic field is mainly due to the Sun's field induction....

we have basically no input.

That's absolutely not true. Read my post above on page 1.

The Earth's magnetic field is almost entirely due to the outer iron magma circulation around the Earth's solid core. This produces the North and South Poles, the Coriolis effect, and blocks a lot of the sun's ultraviolet rays.

But, "there is an outer magnetic field beyond the ionesphere called the magnetopause that consists of plasma. This forms an inner radiation belt and a larger belt of lower energy particles, deposited mainly by magnetic storms, forming its own magnetic field (not attributed to the Earth's inner core magnetic field) that deflects some of the solar radiation."

>> That's absolutely not true.

as far as the Sun is concerned the planets are specks of dust. The Earth's magnetic field, only extends a few million kms either way from earth centre.... the Sun's magnetic field is effective out to the heliopause...... billions of kms (?)

As for orbital mechanics, the Earth's intrinsic field(s) can be considered negligible.

So what proportion of the Earth's intrinsic field is intrinsic magnetism, and what part is induced from the solar magnetic field ?

Is the magnetism of a "magnet" (bar, etc) real or is it an artifact like a metal wire carrying current..... is a "magnet" only the conductor for ubiquitous cosmic magnetism ?

some conductors carry the energy flow better than others....... where the energy is transformed to electricity or magnetism is the real source... in this case it is the Sun.

URI: Posting personal fantasy. Sources please?

Locked.

Valich

And so? What does this mean? They're suggesting that there is no "dominant periodicity" = no big thing = nothing to worry about

It means that the cycles in the geomagnetic field do not synchronize with climate changes, hence the magnetic field has nothing to do with climate, so my post was highly on the topic, answering to the opening question.

URI,

You're trolling. There's loads of evidence for Valich to be right. The solar generated magnitic field is true for Venus, which has no magnetic field of its own. Earth has it's own field. And it's easy to proof. The solar magnetic field flips at every solar maximum (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm) roughly a dozen years but the Earth magnetic field does not.

The solar field has many poles, at least eight.... of course Earth has a small insignificant magnetic field, but is is of no consequence in solar mechanics.

Why then does Venus have a magnetopause ?

>> Unlike the Earth, Venus's ionosphere, not a magnetosphere deflects the solar wind flow However, as on the Earth, this deflection is accomplished with the formation of a bow shock, which heats and compresses the solar wind flow The shock is both closer to the planet and weaker than would be expected for an ideal gas dynamic interaction with a perfectly reflecting obstacle..

>> Finally, Venus, like Earth, has a magnetotail but not for the same reason. The mass loading of the flow in the magnetosheath slows the transport of magnetic flux tubes past the planet, while the ends of the tubes continue to travel rapidly in the solar wind. Thus the planet accretes interplanetary magnetic flux. This process is the dominant source for the magnetotail flux, not unipolar induction, although the latter process is present at least when the solar wind dynamic pressure is high. On the whole, the solar wind interaction with Venus is more comet-like than Earth-like.
http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/interact_solwind/

>> But Venus's magnetic field, which is less than one-twentieth of one percent of Earth's field, is insufficient to deflect the solar wind as Earth's field does. This very small and irregular magnetic field is insufficient also to trap stable populations of particles such as found in the radiation belts of Earth and Jupiter. Yet Mariner 10 showed that the solar wind is greatly modified by the presence of Venus. This effect was particularly noticeable because, for at least three days prior to and during the encounter with Venus, general conditions in interplanetary space were unusually quiet.

Mariner 10 confirmed the earlier findings of Mariner 5 and Venera 4, which had discovered a bow shock-a wave in front of the planet like the bow wave of a ship in water. Somehow the ionosphere of Venus forms this bow shock in the solar wind and stops the wind from plunging directly into the atmosphere of the planet. How and why this bow shock occurs is not fully understood............
It may alternatively arise because the solar wind induces magnetic fields and produces thereby a pseudo, or false, magnetopause, as though Venus had a magnetic field like the Earth. >>
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-424/ch6.htm

so Venus has a magnetopause... pseudo or not.... because of the sun's induction...
not so different to Earth which has a small magnetic field of its own.... but inconsequential in cosmic terms.

IMO, Earth magnetic pole flips will not affect life on Earth. However for us the trend of a weakening of the magnetic field coupled with the phenomenon of the leap second could be a signature of deep seismic events, which could have a direct effect on us.

Earth's magnetic field is mainly due to the Sun's field induction....

we have basically no input.UPI: This is absurd unscientific nonsense!

Again, cite your sources! Cite your sources then reply or else stop corrupting these forums! You're stating uncited opinions just like a crack-pot lunatic.

As such, you belong on a childish fantasy chat-room: not on an "intellectual forum." You have not once shown yourself to be scientifically intellectually. Cite your sources!

First source:

"The magnetosheath slows the transport of magnetic flux tubes past the planet, while the ends of the tubes continue to travel rapidly in the solar wind. Thus the planet accretes interplanetary magnetic flux. This process is the dominant source for the magnetotail flux, not unipolar induction, although the latter process is present at least when the solar wind dynamic pressure is high. On the whole, the solar wind interaction with Venus is more comet-like than Earth-like."

Second Source:

"Venus disturbs the magnetic field in interplanetary space and the flow of charged particles-electrons and protons-from the Sun, known as the solar wind. Venus causes a tail-like disturbance in the solar wind's charged particles, stretching behind the planet away from the Sun. At the same time, Mariner's magnetometer found that the magnetic field in space was twisted by the presence of Venus so that it pointed toward the planet along the tail of charged particles.

But Venus's magnetic field, which is less than one-twentieth of one percent of Earth's field, is insufficient to deflect the solar wind as Earth's field does. This very small and irregular magnetic field is insufficient also to trap stable populations of particles such as found in the radiation belts of Earth and Jupiter. Yet Mariner 10 showed that the solar wind is greatly modified by the presence of Venus. This effect was particularly noticeable because, for at least three days prior to and during the encounter with Venus, general conditions in interplanetary space were unusually quiet.

Mariner 10 confirmed the earlier findings of Mariner 5 and Venera 4, which had discovered a bow shock-a wave in front of the planet like the bow wave of a ship in water. Somehow the ionosphere of Venus forms this bow shock in the solar wind and stops the wind from plunging directly into the atmosphere of the planet. How and why this bow shock occurs is not fully understood. The charged particle experiment did not detect any high-energy protons or electrons within the bow shock, up to several Venus radii downstream.

Certainly the effect is very different from that on Earth, Moon, Mars, and Jupiter. The Venus bow shock might be a direct interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere of Venus, or with just the ionosphere. It may alternatively arise because the solar wind induces magnetic fields and produces thereby a pseudo, or false, magnetopause, as though ."

Notice the last words: "psuedo or false."

However, I do compliment you on providing a scientific source. Thank you VERY much. And the later article was extremely interesting.

There is no doubt that a rotating physical body will produce an electro-magnetic effect. But with all due respect, I don't see what you're trying to get at.

Again, I am not trying to put you down in any way. I am very sincere. And I am very glad that you posted the links to the articles that you did. But I don't think that they substantiate your originial point. Although it does prove that you do have an intelligent inquiring scientific mind. Thanks.

URI: "The solar field has many poles, at least eight.... of course Earth has a small insignificant magnetic field, but is is of no consequence in solar mechanics."

Again though, this is absurd. Cite your sources. Where did you hear his???

I posted: "The Earth's magnetic field is almost entirely due to the outer iron magma circulation around the Earth's solid core. This produces the North and South Poles, the Coriolis effect, and blocks a lot of the sun's ultraviolet rays.

But, "there is an outer magnetic field beyond the ionesphere called the magnetopause that consists of plasma. This forms an inner radiation belt and a larger belt of lower energy particles, deposited mainly by magnetic storms, forming its own magnetic field (not attributed to the Earth's inner core magnetic field) that deflects some of the solar radiation."

Then you posted:

>> That's absolutely not true.

as far as the Sun is concerned the planets are specks of dust. The Earth's magnetic field, only extends a few million kms either way from earth centre.... the Sun's magnetic field is effective out to the heliopause...... billions of kmsWhat part of what I posted above is not true.

Also, the magnetosphere is shaped in a figure eight pattern, but this does not mean it has 8 poles. Only during a magnetic reversal does the Earth have multiple magnetic poles.

"In the upper (northern) half of the plasma sheet, the magnetic field is directed toward Earth; in the lower (southern) half, the field is directed away from the Earth. As long as the impact of the solar wind on the magnetosphere remains fairly steady, the plasma sheet exists in equilibrium."
http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/lectures/magnetosphere/index.html

"Earth's magnetic field originates in its liquid core, where electric currents are excited by fluid flows by a dynamo process....At the surface, the field resembles a dipole with irregular components added, and the field is largely dipole like to distances of 5 to 8 radii of Earth (RE).

Earth's field forms an obstacle to the solar wind, which confines its field lines and plasmas into an elongated cavity, known as Earth's magnetosphere. The boundary between the two is called the magnetopause. Outside the magnetopause is the bow shock, when the velocity of the solar wind abruptly drops as it approaches the magnetosphere.

The magnetosphere contains magnetically trapped plasma (gas of free ions and electrons). One distinguishes the inner radiation belt, a by-product of cosmic radiation [Van Allen Radiation Belt], and the ring current, a large belt of lower energy particles deposited mainly by magnetic storms, source of a widespread magnetic field of its own. The trapped plasma interacts with the low-density conductive plasma of the ionosphere, the upper layer of the atmosphere. The ionosphere is formed as sunlight, especially ultraviolet, hits the upper atmosphere. It is used to reflect radio waves for communications.

Some scientists believe that without a magnetosphere, Earth would have lost the majority of its water and atmosphere, and resemble Mars or Mercury. However, Venus retains a dense atmosphere even though it lacks any magnetic field.
Source: Wikipedia: Magnetosphere

>> Somehow the ionosphere of Venus forms this bow shock ..

the magnetosphere, protects the planet.... Venuses bow wave many be less than Earth's, but its there, intrinsic magnetic field or not.

Thus if Earth's field collapsed, we would still have a bow wave, we would still be quite protected.

a bit of background
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_051209_pole_shift.html

No one is denying that the poles oscillate and eventually undergo a reversal. And during this reversal there are suggestions that there are multiple poles. The next reversal is predicted at several centuries to 20,000 years away from now: the last reversal was 780,000 years ago.

"So far the strength of the earth's field has decreased by 10 to 15 percent over the last 150 years, and approximately 35% over the last 2000 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

"500,000 years ago, the south magnetic pole was at the South Pole. It is thought that this occurs when the circulation of liquid nickel/iron in the Earth's outer core is disrupted and then reestablishes itself in the opposite direction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_pole

The Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Mercury are all magnetized, but most are too weakly self-magnetized to trap plasma. The self-magnetied field of Earth is "greatly modified by the solar wind, a hot outflow from the sun, consisting of solar ions (mainly hydrogen)....Earth's field forms an obstacle to the solar wind, which confines its field lines and plasmas into an elongated cavity, known as Earth's magnetosphere. The boundary between the two is called the magnetopause."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere

The magnetosphere is present arround some other planets, but not nearly as strong as Earth's.

The magnetosphere is present arround some other planets, but not nearly as strong as Earth's.
Taking the Earth's magnetosphere as unity here are the relative field strengths:

Mercury_____0.01
Venus_______0.0009
Earth_______1
Mars________0.002
Jupiter______20,000
Saturn______500 to 1000
Uranus______50 to 100

Source: http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/module4_solarmax/solarmax_planets.html

Form your own conclusions.

I do wonder about Venus though, perhaps the 0.0009 is the upper error limit:

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/Venus_fluxgate/

Finally, we have not yet found any evidence for a planetary field. The upper limit to the Venus magnetic dipole moment is now much less than theoretical expectations.

(No it's entirely in concurrence with my theoretical expectation.)

http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/at3/AT30906.HTM

The lack of any detectable magnetic field on Venus, then, is almost surely the result of the planet's extremely slow rotation and consequent lack of dynamo action.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm

Venus has no magnetic field (or one so weak, it hasn't been detected yet). ...
The reason why Venus does not have a magnetic field is that it spins very s-l-o-w-l-y (about once every 243 Earth days!).

Sort of, but perhaps a little bit more completely different.

For instance the Earth magnetic field is thought to be related to convection activity in the outer core and has little to do with the rotation. However there are ideas about the influence of coriolis forces and precession on those convection cells, which are -of course- both rotation related.

The most likely reason for Venus not to have a magnetic field seems to be that the temperature gradient is not enough to cause convection activity and that the temperature of complete planet was above the curie point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_point) when that convection activity ceased, leaving no permanent magnetism when the planet cooled to the present temperature.

The switch is >> 3rd Dimension >> 4th Dimension >> ''What the Bleep''.

regards,

loki

Andre, you are probably aware that the ionosphere of Venus can, at times, be magnetised. This appears to be associated with high dynamic pressures in the solar wind.

>> Taking the Earth's magnetosphere as unity here are the relative field strengths:...

puny compared to the Sun's interplanetary magnetic field...

The intrinsic magnetic fields of the planets are way below the induced magnetic moment induced by the Sun. The magnetic fields of the planets can be ignored.

A magnetopause will be formed in front of any 'magnetic (normal) matter' body and this is entirely due to the body's motion in the Sun's magnetic field.

Even if you just look at Ophiolite's data above, you can see the wide fluctuations in the magnetospheres between the planets, with Earth's being much more powerful to deflect solar winds than that of Venus, Mercury, and Mars.

However, his dated on Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus are slightly misleading. As the article he refers to states - and it is a very reputable source (the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory):

"Jupiters magnetosphere is about 20,000 greater than that of Earth's [because it's] solar Extremely high-energy electrons have been found in an enormous disk-shaped region of its radiation belts. The density of Jupiter's charged particles is several orders of magnitude greater than that of Earth's., However, Jupiter's solar wind pressure is only 4% that of Earth's."

Jupiter's magnetosphere is attributed to its enormous "disk-shaped region of radiation belts" and has 4% of the solar wind that Earth has. The farther out you go from the sun, the less the solar wind in our solar sytem.

Saturn too has a stronger magnetosphere because it is "populated with charged particles.....[It has a] low solar wind pressures at 9.5 AUs from the sun, the bow shock is found 1.44 million km from the center."

Finally, the "aurora-like emissions in Uranus' upper atmosphere, lead us to think that this planet has a magnetosphere. Voyage 2 found that Uranus has a magnetic field that is about 0.1 that of Saturn....It appears to be comprised of plasma ad a large population of energetic particles. Uranus' upper ionosphere seems to be the primary source of energized particles, but helium and heavier nuclei that characterize the solar wind are conspicuously absent."

No slower wind, no problem.

As far a Venus goes, "Venus' very weak magnetosphere is no more than 0.09% the strength of the Earth's and no radiation belts surround the planet. There is a well-developed bow shock in Venus' outer atmospere, but there is is no evidence of charged particles being trapped. The solar wind approaches Venus much more closely than it does the Earth. When the solar wind encounters a nonmagnetic planet with an atmosphere, the planet's ionosphere creates forces that slow and divert the flow. Venus' dense atmosphere and the large-scale currents induced in its conducting ionosphere prevent the solar wind from reaching its surface."
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/science/module4_solarmax/solarmax_planets.html

In short, not only the overall magnetosphere has to be taken into consideration, but how, where, and why it is produced; distance from the sun, degree of solar wind and solar wind penetration, and surrounding bow shock. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the Earth has the strongest "all-encompassing" surrounding magnetosphere relative to the much stronger amount of solar wind that it receives from the sun. This is one reason the Earth has a habitat conducive to life.

However, his dated on Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus are slightly misleading. ..........
In short, not only the overall magnetosphere has to be taken into consideration, but how, where, and why it is produced; distance from the sun, degree of solar wind and solar wind penetration, and surrounding bow shock. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the Earth has the strongest "all-encompassing" surrounding magnetosphere relative to the much stronger amount of solar wind that it receives from the sun. .
You stated the Earth had the strongest magnetosphere. The data I posted clearly show it does not. All the specious wriggling you do will not change that fact. If you do not like criticism of this sort just accept quietly and politely when you are wrong.
Please do not waste any more time and space defending the indefensible.

Andre, you are probably aware that the ionosphere of Venus can, at times, be magnetised. This appears to be associated with high dynamic pressures in the solar wind.

Absolutely but the point is that Venus itself does not generate any measurablr magnetic field.

Hey guys, I found an article that would be of interest to you all on the earth magnetic field. when you get the time, pls read it and give some imput.
thanks, the webaddress is http://www.trueinsight.com

All I get is a "website under construction" notice.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/051215_ozone_mount.html

>> In addition to thin air and sub-zero temperatures, climbers scaling Mount Everest face another challenge. Mountains in the Tibetan plateau where Everest is located contains levels of ozone as high as that of heavily polluted cities.

Most of the Earth's ozone is found in the stratosphere, from about 8 to 30 miles above the planet's surface. Mount Everest is 5.5 miles high at its peak.

Ozone in the stratosphere helps protect the globe from the Sun's ultraviolet rays. But closer to the ground, where it is produced when auto emissions and other pollutants interact with sunlight, ozone is a major component of smog.

"Most people think about the mountains as one of the areas you can go to get clean air," Semple said. "It may be that when you're up high in the mountains that the good ozone actually becomes bad ozone—because no matter where the ozone comes from you don't want to breathe it."

To explain Semple's findings, Moore examined satellite measurements of ozone above the plateau between 1997 and 2004. He found that while ozone levels were low over the center of the Tibetan plateau, a concentrated ring was evident around the edges, where the mountains are located. >>>

Seems ozone production is not a worry....

I am sorry I gave the wrong link. Pls check out this website and the article about poleshift as he has info that I have not been aware of and would like some imput from you guys
Thanks,
Proto
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_2htm

You stated the Earth had the strongest magnetosphere. The data I posted clearly show it does not. All the specious wriggling you do will not change that fact. If you do not like criticism of this sort just accept quietly and politely when you are wrong.
Please do not waste any more time and space defending the indefensible.Ophiolite: Please read ALL of what is in the sentence and not just pick out two words from them and repost them as if that is what I said. You know that's not true. You know how innacurate that is to repeat it as such without posting the entire sentence. Come on: that's just ignorant, and you can't deny it. You've constantly boasted you're degree, but I find it hard to believe that you wrote a thesis or even replied to another scientist's remark when you pull a silly little stunt like that, else I guarantee you the scientist or professor would just take your note, crumble it up, and toss it in the waste bin. So why do I even reply?

I posted, "the Earth has the strongest "all-encompassing" surrounding magnetosphere relative to the much stronger amount of solar wind that it receives from the sun."

The key word in this sentence is "relative." And this is true. But actually, if you were to read more critically into what I posted, you would have found that I did make some real mistakes in what I posted! But noone seems to have noticed, as I post in haste.

The article you cited was excellent, but even though the author may work for - more likely is a media representive of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory - he shows a limitation in understanding the subject: the magnetosphere is made up "in part" by the planet's magmetism. Yet when he talks about Uranus's magnetosphere, he talks as if the planet's magnetism and magnetosphere are the same!:

"The "aurora-like emissions in Uranus' upper atmosphere, lead us to think that this planet has a magnetosphere. Voyage 2 found that Uranus has a magnetic field that is about 0.1 that of Saturn....It appears to be comprised of plasma."

Then, to further add to the confusion, you extracted this "0.1 magnetic field" directly into being a magnetosphere, where the author clearly states that they do not know!

Then, if you look at Saturn, well we all know Saturn consists of numerous rings around it. The magneto-"sphere" is calculated as Saturn's entire magnetic field: "Saturn too has a stronger magnetosphere because it is "populated with charged particles." How can this be a sphere? And the entire field is constituted from a plasma. Saturn is like a sunny-side over fried egg: it's not a sphere, it's magnetosphere would have to be extremelly oval. No one caught this error on my part.

The point is, I forgot to mention that the larger the planet: the larger the magnetosphere will be, and Saturn and Jupiter are a lot larger than Earth. Further, any magnetospere has to depend on the compositional make-up: is the planet a rock or entirely a gaseous planets. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are large gaseous planets - not like Earth - and their internal magnetism that contributes to their magnetosphere is caused by plasma circulation: Mercury is magnetized, but too weakly to trap plasma; Mars has patchy surfaces of magnetization.


Andre: We know that Venus DOES generate a magnetosphere. You can very easily research this on your own, but the magnetic field and magnetosphere are much less than that of Earth's, both because of it's size and it's plasma composition. It does not have an atmosphere to trap in plasma and ionized gases in a stratosphere/ionosphere/exosphere like the Earth does.