I managed to catch a bit of info on Radio 4 recently, and although I heard the line... the earths magnetic fields are changing, I lost reception and could not get it back!

Does anyone know anthing about this, and if so, can someone post a link? I am desparate to know more...

Thanks.

the magnetic field is not stable

it changes all the time but i herd something that said that we are likly to have the polls switch soon

don't rember why

I thought they based that on geological research.. the way really small magnetic particles in sediments are polarized (polarised?) shows that about every 750.000 years (don't pin me on that one) the magnetic field flips, making the magnetic south pole the magnetic north pole and vice versa. As this happend last a little over 750.000 years ago (again not sure!), it should happen sometime soon... maybe someone who's more into the stff can tell more?

I am trying to find out more, but I have yet to find out what I need to know.

If this was to happen, does anyone know the consquences?

well there are countless.. a few I could think of in 5 minutes:

- all compasses work the wrong way; satellites will mess their orbit up, crashing on earth..
- (small) earthquakes due to the moving of all polarized/magnetic materials out there?
- some birds or other animals 'knowing their go-about' by magnetism might get lost..
- more compass problems, maybe some other climatological changes..

well i suppose there is more to think of

Anything catastrophic?

guess not, maybe an occasional satellite hitting tha head

Hi will try and find some stuff. But the report I heard said the scientists expected it soon, sometime in the next 5,000 to 10,000 years! (If a geophysicist says they will phone back soon - dont expect to hear from them :-)

Also no one is quite sure how long it takes to switch. We are reasonable sure it is less than 100 years, but we dont know if it takes 10 years or 10 minutes.

Questions:

1.) Where did the earth get it's magnetic field?
2.) Is there evidence of past pole shifting?
3.) Why would the earths poles move and where would they go?
4.) Could we survive such an event?

Some of this is talked about in another thread of mine. Click here to check it out.

Peace

1.) Where did the earth get it's magnetic field?
In simple terms the current <grin> theory is that the magma below the earths surface "boils" in loops. These contain enough charge to make a magnet.

2.) Is there evidence of past pole shifting?
As continents drift apart there are some magnetic materials deposited at the rifts as these cool they preserve a record of the field direction at the time they solidified. Mapping these and checking in different sites around the world shows the poles have reversed a few dozen times.

3.) Why would the earths poles move and where would they go?
Good question as to why. As for going they tend to end up near the poles! After the event is over the north pole becomes the south pole and vice versa, more or less.

How it gets there is still disputed. It could fade out and then reappear reversed. Or it could keep its strength and wander down past the equator. It seems to change too fast for the record described in 2 to give convincing evidence.

4.) Could we survive such an event?
Well dinosaurs and a few ancesters survived prior reversals. Though there is some evidence that some species ended at around the same time as the reversals, so it may be a bumpy ride. On the other hand the thing that caused the extinctions may be unrelated, but triggered the pole reversal.

A pole reversal would be a rather beneign thing. We'd have to readjust our compasses, but I dont think birds would be affected, they use compass only on a relative level, that is, "I went this way out, so I go the opposite way back", ---as far as we know, that is. Sattelites are not affected, they are governed by gravity, that has naught to do with magnetics.

We'll survive. All of us.

Hans

"Magnetic" pole reversals do not happen like clockwork. They can occur as often as every 12,000 or 60,000 years. The danger is the unprotected exposure to radiation while the electromagnetic field is near 0. The electromagnetic field bends many wavelengths and solar winds away from the Earth's surface.

A pole shift is another matter. Like watching a gyroscope slow down and produce a sudden tiny wobble or take on a 20 degree tilt. The earth's axis can be prone to such perturbations from a number of internal and external forces such as: 2 mile thick glaciers halfway to the equator, sun's gravity, differential rotation of core and mantle, asteroid strike, etc.

"Geographical" pole shifts tend to be catacysmic.

Welcome to sciforums, Dwayne D.L.Rabon.

I am afraid that I don't agree with you and you will have to show some sources on this.

When was radation acknowledged as being the source of a warming increase and why only in the south pacific? There have been many places that nuclear testing has occured and scientists still have not agreed that any warming above average has occured or is abnormally high considering the history of the earth.

How did you arrive at the idea the center of the earth's core is cold?

Please show sources where ozone has anything to do with warming the earths core, much less El Nino.

Please show sources where the sea is radioactive, beyond normal background radation or where the ozone hole has anything to do with it.

wth howdydoody that isn't readable at all

Man, I'd love to meet our dear friend Dwayne here in real life. I wonder what he looks like?

Maybe he's squirrely, with long unkempt hair and a four-day old beard. Maybe he smells funny because he hasn't showered in five days, and prefers to use women's perfume to repel the homosexual aliens in his closet that want to abuse him sexually. Perhaps he drinks heavily to fight the shakes.

I've never met someone so delusional in my entire life... I just have no idea how they look or act.

What's really funny is that I just posted my 12 Step Crackpot program on the Science & Society forum, and then I stop in here. I think Dwayne is on Step 9, working rapidly towards Step 10. Let's see how he does.

- Warren

Dwayne concludes:

El Nino and the ozone hole go hand in hand, as a result of nuclear testing.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/%7Ekessler/...stions.html#q2

I wasn't aware nuclear testing was being conducted back in the late 1800's.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/process.html

In your opinion, are these elements (CFC, ODS) the result of nuclear testing ?

Ah (Q), you stole my thunder...

Dwayne D.L.Rabon, what I was asking for was some form of scientific links where I could arrive at my own opinion through reading of factual data, other than what you yourself have proposed. You will notice that (Q) has done so that you might see whence his stance came from.

If you write or claim theory or factual data, you should be prepared to show evidence of where you arrive at your conclusions. Proof always rests with the claimant...

Dwayne rails:

BY the way i do not appreicate your slanders, iif you disagree then you just state so rather than useing such foul slander. plainly you foul words won't change a fact.

in fact i was so insulted by the sure ignornce of the comments and sarcasim that i think that i will leave you to play with your iron magnets and guessing games.

So, but pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument, you fly off the handle accusing us of insults. I instead, could have said something like, "Dwayne the bathtub, I'm dwowning." At least then you'd have something to complain about.

You need to show us there is a definitive link between el nino, the ozone and nuclear testing, without just using anecdotes. Provide some supporting evidence to back up your theory and maybe you'll change our minds. So far, you've not done that.

Not everyone responds in the same way, Dwayne. However, when claims are made then there should be something to go with it. As I stated at the onset, I do not agree.

Later when I have some time I will see if I can find something from the sites where the images came from that supports your claim as you did not see fit to respond with complete links that connect your statements to supportable facts.

I guess one of the problems I have here is that radation is stronger where it is concentrated. To have radation scattered to the four winds, so to say, dilutes the effects one heck of a lot.

As (Q) mentioned, El Nino and La Nina have been around for a long time. Far longer than we have had nuclear capability. Further, background radation has been present, on the earth for as long as the earth has been here. The seas show no increase of radation, that has been reported, to my knowledge. Not only has background radation been here but so has nuclear radation. It has been below the crust for just as long. There is no evidence that I know of shown where this problem has shown up before.

Lastly, I suspect that you have no verifiable background info to share or you would have done so by now. Verifiable background info is important for linkage to reputable science which is why I had asked for this several times before. Upon this ability, hinges the veracity of your ideas. Without some sort of studies that show there is the possibility to link to your claim, it devolves your claim into nothing as it can not be supported. I do not have all the answers. I am willing to learn new things. That does not mean that I will travel to the witch doctor to learn medicene. It is show and tell time...