Who cares about Earth's magnetic field and ozone layer?

[Jon Richfield]

It seems to me that concern occasioned by the risks attendant on loss of the Earth's magnetic field is very nearly totally misplaced. Could someone please help me worry?
I realize that popular science is largely hooey, but some items are so widely circulated that it is hard to find anything authoritative to debunk it. We are told that without the Earth's magnetic field deflecting radiation from space, we would all be dead anyway, and if we were dead we wouldn't even be alive because there would be nothing for us to breathe, or something like that.!)
Now, I am sure that this makes good sense; how could it not, given that everybody knows it? And yet, the more I think about it, the more worried I am about not dying and all that. First of all, what radiation do we get from outer space? Neutrons? I hardly think so! There are not many fast neutron sources out there, especially not very close to the Earth. It would take a very, very fast neutron from say, the Sun to reach us in less than a few days, and a neutron’s half life, last time I didn't measure it, probably was around eight or 10 minutes. Never mind neutrons from neutron stars or anything like that!
So let's accept (unless you know different!) That neutrons from space are not much of a worry. The rest of the nuclear zoo have even shorter half lives, except for the commoner nuclei, especially hydrogen (a.k.a. protons, and if you like, antiprotons), helium (a.k.a. Alpha particles), electrons (and of course positrons, a.k.a. beta particles if you like), and neutrinos. Am I forgetting any of note?
Oh yes! And let's not forget all those photons bulleting at us! Mustn't forget the photons!
Now, far be it from me to be negative, positronic though my brain is not, but I find it very difficult to get excited about the protective effect of our geomagnetic field on say, neutrinos, photons and the like. They may not be indifferent to magnetic fields, but I cannot imagine their being seriously affected by Earth's magnetic field. If they were going to hit us, it would not be the geomagnetic field that would deflect them, but the atmosphere. There are certain complications of course, such as ozone, but neutrinos pass through us routinely. Quite a few sneaked through while I was writing this, and serve me right no doubt! Gammas, x-rays, and most ultraviolet rarely get very far through the troposphere; in fact, most don't get very far through the stratosphere, geomagnetic field or no geomagnetic field.
Not to make too much of a meal of it, non-charged intruders either get stopped in the atmosphere or hit us anyway.
Now the charged particles. Protons and electrons currently (suit yourself about puns) get deflected by the geomagnetic field, and spiral into entertain us with auroras in reds or blues and greens, depending on how far north or south we might be watching them. That is all very nice for people living on the equator, but for those near the poles it amounts, not so much to protection, as to concentrated incoming. Not much to thank our magnetic field for! What is it that makes me think that without the field we would get more (and more diffuse) auroras and more diffuse exposure to charged particles. And then in any case, how many protons, electrons and alphas will get through the atmosphere except as hydrogen and helium? In which form they might be expected to do exactly what harm?
I remark in passing that very likely our planet has had something like one or two thousand magnetic reversals since we (certain of our ancestors anyway) originally crawled out onto land. Each time, as far as we can tell, our projection was severely compromised at least, and yet none of our major extinctions seems to have had anything to do with space radiation. (Not that I was there to check, so if you know different, please tell us!)
Bottom line to that bit: apart from homing pigeons and Boy Scouts with pocket compasses, who should care what happens to our magnetic field? (Actually, I would, but mostly because I like homing pigeons and scouts (Girl Scouts for preference!)) and in particular I love auroras.)
Some people say that without our magnetic field, our atmosphere would be stripped away by charged particles. Perhaps, but I would love to see a cogent defence of that assertion. Surely it would be rather a slow process? After all most of the particles would simply be sopped up by the atmosphere, charged or not.
And then again, what about the ozone layer? If we removed it, as some people claim we very nearly did, that would have no effect on our ultraviolet C in the stratosphere. How much effect would it have on our flux of ultraviolet B? And ultraviolet A? One hears such dread pronouncements on how sheep will be blinded and plants will be destroyed and plankton will be wiped out, and yet all of those sound to me like rubbish!
Please correct me and tell me why I should run, not walk, to the nearest nuclear bomb shelter.
Jon

 

[timewasted]

I think there is more to it then complete death or nothing. Its more about how humans' everyday life, effects on weather, technology etc. would have to change. There are studies that show Earth's magnetic field affects our brain's functionality/internal communication on the neuron level, not just birds and boyscout compasses. Shifts have happened multiple times through out Earth's history. Its just that man has never been here when it did. Whats more alarming IMO, is that atmospheric conditions are changing fast on all the planets in our solar system with our sun now towards the peak for sun spots and entering into an area of the galaxy that it hasn't been in for 26K years. A lot of debate on that too, near an energized cloud in space and what that means.

In the recent years there was a solar flare that was the size of Jupiter (then separated into smaller ones) that reached the Earth in 30 mins. Thats 97% the speed of light, scientists never thought it was possible or how it happened. Electronic signals on Earth were only disrupted. Now research shows the sun's solar flares could be even more powerful as it enters this new place in our galaxy and Earth at the weakest magnetic field in its history and/or ready to flip polls.

The Magnetic field has to do with what happens at the center of the Earth's core as much as it does in space, maybe more...

"In the center of the Earth, a di-pole magnet known as the Geo-Dynamo powers a magnetic current which, among other things, shields life from some lethal solar and cosmic rays, guides migration for many species, and protects our telecommunication systems. Between the gravitational tides of the moon (80%) and the sun (20%), the Earth gyrates in one direction. The core has two layers of molten Nickel Iron, spinning in opposite directions. Part of the problem is scientists have many competing theories why the Geo-Dynamo behaves the way it does. Some believe, since the moon moves further and further away from us every year that our core may slow down. Others speculate that when the Sun’s magnetic field aligns with Earth’s (North facing South) that this further destabilizes the magnetosphere.



By measuring the magnetic polarity of sub-ocean volcanoes solidifying lava to rock, paleo-magnet-ologist determined that our planet’s poles reverse every few hundred thousand years. Although humans have never witnessed such an event, many believe that, since the last one occurred 780,000 years ago, a Geomagnetic Reversal is long overdue. According to the Associated Press,

“The strength of the Earth’s magnetic field has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years, raising the remote possibility that it may collapse and later reverse, flipping the planet’s poles for the first time in nearly a million years.”

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



Now, if the magnetic poles swapped places, the magnetosphere would never vanish at near ground level. Although the currents may shrink in size due to entangling and destabilization for roughly 2,000-10,000 years, scientist have never correlated a pole switch to a mass extinction.

(computer model of what a poll shift would look like in limbo) http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/20617.aspx?image=47800



That said, even just the weakening of the magnetosphere has already caused problems around the globe. Almost all life possesses magnetite in their brains to orient themselves, even human beings (though we seem to have lost the ability to use it). The process already wreaks havoc on the humpback whales, according to NOVA: Magnetic Storm—Impact on Animals:

In the early 1980s, a British biologist named Margaret Klinowska first noticed a correlation between where whale strandings tended to occur along the coasts of England and where magnetic lineations written into the seafloor intersect those coasts...Whales, it seems, follow these magnetic lineations during migration.”

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

Our technology in Earth’s orbit may be at risk as well. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, now must shut down when crossing over Brazil to compensate for the intense pocket of radiation known as the South Atlantic Anomaly. If the magnetosphere dips any lower, the weakening could affect international flights next.



Much speculation follows the scenario of full-blown magnetic reversal. Conservatives argue not much will change at all, that it will happen so gradually that we will adapt. Others believe Earth would be susceptible to solar flares short-circuiting our power grid and that New York City may see its own aura borealis. Still, even more radical, some pseudo-scientists claim that a field inverse may trigger the release of the natural psychedelic molecule, Dimethyltryptamine (or DMT). Regardless, nobody wants the magnetic field to change anytime soon.



Though the ebbs and flows of the magnetic currents may be natural, I feel it is unwise to leave it there and move on. Without causing doomsday panic, the general public should know more about the Geo-Dynamo that sustains them. Public awareness leads to pressure on the scientific community to understand polar shifts and the magnetosphere’s numerous implications.

~D. Neumann"


So no, there is no need to "run for the hills" That would just be silly. All you can do is watch, wait and hope you have good seats.

 

[Evo]

Welcome to the forum timewasted.

Due to copyright violations, when you quote from a published source, you must clearly show the quoted material and then please provide a link back to the original article. I have fixed two quotes for you and provided links so that you can see how it should be done. Please make any further changes needed to your post and follow this procedure going forward.

Very nice post btw, nicely thought out, well researched, and informative. I look forward to seeing more contributions from you.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are studies that show Earth's magnetic field affects our brain's functionality/internal communication on the neuron level, not just birds and boyscout compasses.

Could you provide a citation please.

Whats more alarming IMO, is that atmospheric conditions are changing fast on all the planets in our solar system with our sun now towards the peak for sun spots and entering into an area of the galaxy that it hasn't been in for 26K years. A lot of debate on that too, near an energized cloud in space and what that means.

What alarms you about this? What do you suggest is unusual about weather patterns on the planets? I am not aware of any evidence that would support your contention. Could you offer some citations please? For reference this is how I see it:
Mercury: No significant atmosphere, so irrelevant.
Venus: Minor changes that may be due to active volcanism
Mars: Some suggestion of warming, but nothing that is beyond what might be reasonably expected
Jupiter: Loss/intermingling of one of the zones. This has been observed at others times in the past and is quite normal.
Saturn, Neptune, Uranus: No changes I am aware of.
Pluto: Unexpected warming when it should be cooling. But we know so little of this former planet that it would not be surprising if our model was wrong.

What do you mean by saying we are about to enter an area of the galaxy we have not been in for 26,000 years? That makes no astronomical sense whatsoever.Can you explain it please?

The core has two layers of molten Nickel Iron, spinning in opposite directions.

I'm not sure where you got this quote, but it is simply wrong.

 

[Andre]

I guess a bit too much ground is covered in these posts and a lot is indeed questionable.

About the core having two layers of molten Nickel Iron, spinning in opposite directions, in some models it is assumed that convection currents in the liquid outer, originate on the surface of the solid inner core, if that's where the core heat is generated. That could be causing the misinterpretation. Furthermore this convection would generate counterrotating convexion cells, somewhat comparable to the http://www.meteohistory.org/2006historyofmeteorology3/2persson_hadley.pdf along the equator. That could cause the confusion about counter rotating.

See also Gary Glatzmaier's model

Moreover, considering that the geomagnetic field has been highly (unusual) variable in the recent geologic Pleistocene past ( Guyodo and valet 1999 ), it would be rather premature to draw all kind of conclusions about biota being dependent on a more or less stable Earth magnetic field.

 

[Ophiolite]

About the core having two layers of molten Nickel Iron, spinning in opposite directions, in some models it is assumed that convection currents in the liquid outer, originate on the surface of the solid inner core, if that's where the core heat is generated. That could be causing the misinterpretation. Furthermore this convection would generate counterrotating convexion cells, somewhat comparable to the http://www.meteohistory.org/2006historyofmeteorology3/2persson_hadley.pdf along the equator. That could cause the confusion about counter rotating.

I agree with this Andre. I think it is more likely bad phrasing rather than a grossly incorrect statement. Regardless it is at best very misleading.

As to much of the rest I am just perpelexed by what smacks of pop-pseudoscience. I hope I am mistaken and timewasted will return with some intriguing citations, but I am not optimistic.

 

[Jon Richfield]

I think there is more to it then complete death or nothing. Its more about how humans' everyday life, effects on weather, technology etc. would have to change. There are studies that show Earth's magnetic field affects our brain's functionality/internal communication on the neuron level, not just birds and boyscout compasses.

Sorry TW, a lot of stuff has hit my fan, so my response is at once tardy and cursory, if you will forgive the confusion of concepts. I did not intend to suggest that it is a binary matter of death-or-dismissal (though a lot of popular screeds on the subject suggest nothing less dramatic.)

I regard the plausibility of Earth's magnetic field affecting our brain's functionality/internal communication on the neuron level practically dismissively. Those studies had better be pretty brass-bound to convince me that a half-Gauss change of field would have significant physiological effects on most mammals for a start.

Shifts have happened multiple times through out Earth's history. Its just that man has never been here when it did.

Sure. And?:uhh:

Whats more alarming IMO, is that atmospheric conditions are changing fast on all the planets in our solar system with our sun now towards the peak for sun spots and entering into an area of the galaxy that it hasn't been in for 26K years. A lot of debate on that too, near an energized cloud in space and what that means.

Errr... Really? TW, would you excuse me if I found that a bit Velikovskian, as proposals go? I really would need you to present something cogent even for me to take it seriously, never mind look on it kindly.

In the recent years there was a solar flare that was the size of Jupiter (then separated into smaller ones) that reached the Earth in 30 mins. Thats 97% the speed of light, scientists never thought it was possible or how it happened. Electronic signals on Earth were only disrupted. Now research shows the sun's solar flares could be even more powerful as it enters this new place in our galaxy and Earth at the weakest magnetic field in its history and/or ready to flip polls.

I am not sure what you had in mind here. In fact, solar flares do actually cause far greater damage to large electrical distribution networks than I read into "Electronic signals on Earth were only disrupted" but for example, do you have any firm evidence that the effects would have been any worse if our magnetic field had been off at the time? After all, the electric fields are mediated by the motion of electrons and protons, neither of which penetrate the atmosphere very well. In fact, one might wonder whether, by concentrating the showers around the poles, the field was not concentrating and increasing the intensity of the damage as well. Did your studies evaluate that? If not, why not?

The Magnetic field has to do with what happens at the center of the Earth's core as much as it does in space, maybe more...

Sure. That is where the field is generated after all, not in space.

"In the center of the Earth, a di-pole magnet known as the Geo-Dynamo powers a magnetic current which, among other things, shields life from some lethal solar and cosmic rays...

Do tell. Do tell. Which rays would these be? I can't think of any that would be affected by the magnetic field that could get through the atmosphere anyway. :zzz:

... and protects our telecommunication systems. Between the gravitational tides of the moon (80%) and the sun (20%), the Earth gyrates in one direction. The core has two layers of molten Nickel Iron, spinning in opposite directions. Part of the problem is scientists have many competing theories why the Geo-Dynamo behaves the way it does. Some believe, since the moon moves further and further away from us every year that our core may slow down. Others speculate that when the Sun’s magnetic field aligns with Earth’s (North facing South) that this further destabilizes the magnetosphere.

This all sounds very learned, but lacks the more conviction, the more one analyses it. Maybe it is as well that I am rushed.

That said, even just the weakening of the magnetosphere has already caused problems around the globe. Almost all life possesses magnetite in their brains to orient themselves, even human beings (though we seem to have lost the ability to use it). The process already wreaks havoc on the humpback whales, according to NOVA: Magnetic Storm—Impact on Animals

This too sounds terribly glib. Such work as I have seen was far less confidently assertive.

If the magnetosphere dips any lower, the weakening could affect international flights next.

Maybe, but it doesn't sound very alarming. We have a lot of options before planes start falling out of the sky or gyro-compasses stop working. Always assuming they do. If the stratosphere won't stop the charged particles, then flying a little deeper in that troposphere should fix it, no?

Regardless, nobody wants the magnetic field to change anytime soon.

Would you settle for "almost nobody"? It sounds very interesting to me, and not very threatening. I reckon it is high time we gave some serious attention to technologies that are a bit less electromagnetically vulnerable for a start. My bet is that magnetically navigating species would manage better than we suspect too. After all, some seem to be following quite ancient migration paths, compared to the dates of recent magnetopolar reversals.
No?

Though the ebbs and flows of the magnetic currents may be natural...

May be...?

There are alternatives?

I feel it is unwise to leave it there and move on. Without causing doomsday panic, the general public should know more about the Geo-Dynamo that sustains them. Public awareness leads to pressure on the scientific community to understand polar shifts and the magnetosphere’s numerous implications.

Errr... right. The general public should lean on the general scientist and shake him out of his ignorance and make him understand how vital it is and make him find out these important things. (Tsk! These stupid, irresponsible scientists!) :grumpy:

So no, there is no need to "run for the hills" That would just be silly. All you can do is watch, wait and hope you have good seats.

Well, that sounds very reassuring, although it sounds a lot more reassuring than the material you quoted.

What I still am wondering though, is why we should be worrying about the extraterrestrial threats that our current magnetosphere has been averting all our lives so far. Which are the ones that matter? Have our ozone layer and magnetosphere been doing more good or more harm?

And while your quotes have been very interesting, I must admit that before I took that source at all seriously, he would have to tighten up his logic and erudition pretty radically!

Any ideas?

Cheers,

Jon

 

[Evo]

Thanks guys, the moderators had all agreed to delete or fix the rest of wasted's post the yesterday since they didn't return to fix it, and none of us got around to it.

 

[timewasted]

Well after all is said and done, I haven't heard of anyone that cared to read your original thread-header much less post a reply. So I thought I'd post some food for thought to make it less of a ghost-thread and it now actually has activity. I'll research what is said to be wrong and grow from here, but with so much sarcasm to read through it might be awhile. Oh and when I use "IMO" (In My Opinion) its not meant for rebuttal ffs just fyi.

thx again for the lol,

Timewasted, where my name says it all

 

[jreelawg]

Without a magnetic field, the solar wind would interact directly with the upper atmosphere. Would this cause the ionosphere to be closer to the surface like it is on Venus? If so, would that have any effect on atmospheric pressure? Would lighting interact differently with the ionosphere? Would increased solar wind buffeting raise the Earth's temperature?

 

[Jon Richfield]

Without a magnetic field, the solar wind would interact directly with the upper atmosphere. Would this cause the ionosphere to be closer to the surface like it is on Venus?

Very likely.

If so, would that have any effect on atmospheric pressure?

I don't see how it could or why it should; it would neither increase nor decrease the mass of gas in the air column.

Would lighting interact differently with the ionosphere?

I suppose lightning might, but just how would be a complex question. There might for example be less lightning because it discharged more easily nearer the ground where pressures were higher, and dissipated more easily in the conductive air at lower altitudes.
Or there might be more lightning of lower intensity because it discharged more easily. I wouldn't bet it either way.

Would increased solar wind buffeting raise the Earth's temperature?

Hmmm... I would not expect the effect to be very strong, but it would be conceivable. Whether it would be only at high altitudes if it occurred at all, I am not at all sure.
Sorry to be so vague!

 

[Jon Richfield]

Well after all is said and done, I haven't heard of anyone that cared to read your original thread-header much less post a reply. So I thought I'd post some food for thought to make it less of a ghost-thread and it now actually has activity. I'll research what is said to be wrong and grow from here, but with so much sarcasm to read through it might be awhile. Oh and when I use "IMO" (In My Opinion) its not meant for rebuttal ffs just fyi.

TW,
I definitely appreciated your contribution, and for much the same reasons as the monitor did. You do however present some of us with something of a dilemma. This forum certainly is intended to be serious, but hardly solemn. It is intended to be courteous, but not formal. It is intended to be polite, but not hypocritically so.
Now, you presented some points of view and quoted some material in apparent good faith. For that, much thanks. However some of us, including myself, had our reservations on your opinions and were largely nonplussed by the material you quoted. This was not, please note, in snotty reaction to a newcomer having the utter gall to present an opinion (believe me, newcomers are more than welcome, and not just as a matter of form!) It was rather in reaction to some of the claims and declamations in the quoted material. You will note that I was not the only one to react sceptically, if not actually dismissively.
If this forum had been a formal debate under parliamentary rules, no doubt the chairperson might have wrapped us over the knuckles for informality, but really, the exchanges are supposed to amount to a friendly general discussion of matters at issue. If every time that anyone felt sceptical, he were required to formulate his reactions in diplomatic language, lest it be interpreted as sarcasm, both the value and the tone of the forum would suffer.
So, not to make too much of a meal of it, I request that you take the replies more lightly and less personally. Having seen several other contributions from the others who added their remarks and evaluations, I think I can safely vouch for their friendly and constructive spirit.

All the best,
Jon

 

[Gokul43201]

Without a magnetic field, the solar wind would interact directly with the upper atmosphere. Would this cause the ionosphere to be closer to the surface like it is on Venus? If so, would that have any effect on atmospheric pressure? Would lighting interact differently with the ionosphere? Would increased solar wind buffeting raise the Earth's temperature?

Those of these issues that involve short time-scale responses (to the terrestrial field - solar wind interaction) can be examined by looking at the windward and leeward sides of the magnetosphere, which are very different from each other. For instance, is there a difference in atmospheric pressure between the two halves?

 

[Gokul43201]

Well after all is said and done, I haven't heard of anyone that cared to read your original thread-header much less post a reply. So I thought I'd post some food for thought to make it less of a ghost-thread and it now actually has activity.

And that could be a good thing, but it does not relieve you of the responsibility of conscientiously sourcing your claims. There are so many unsourced claims in your post that it may be more dangerous than helpful to leave it open. I can help by pointing out where citations are needed. (see next post)

 

[Gokul43201]

There are studies that show Earth's magnetic field affects our brain's functionality/internal communication on the neuron level, not just birds and boyscout compasses.

Needs citation.

Whats more alarming IMO, is that atmospheric conditions are changing fast on all the planets in our solar system with our sun now towards the peak for sun spots and entering into an area of the galaxy that it hasn't been in for 26K years. A lot of debate on that too, near an energized cloud in space and what that means.

Need citations.

In the recent years there was a solar flare that was the size of Jupiter (then separated into smaller ones) that reached the Earth in 30 mins.

Needs either a citation or a better description.

Thats 97% the speed of light, scientists never thought it was possible or how it happened.

97% is a miscalculation. 1AU is about 8 light-minutes. The part about what scientists thought was possible or not possible needs citation.

Now research shows the sun's solar flares could be even more powerful as it enters this new place in our galaxy and Earth at the weakest magnetic field in its history and/or ready to flip polls.

Needs citation.

Beyond this point, I can not tell which part of the post is your own writing, and which is a quotation, so I'm stopping here. But this should be sufficient to show you how to proceed.

 

[billiards]

Furthermore this convection would generate counterrotating convexion cells, somewhat comparable to the http://www.meteohistory.org/2006historyofmeteorology3/2persson_hadley.pdf along the equator.

Really? I thought it was Taylor columns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_columns

 

[billiards]

First of all, what radiation do we get from outer space?

The solar wind.

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 eV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

The Earth's magnetosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere protects us from the solar wind, by deflecting, slowing, and trapping damaging particles from the solar wind.

Don't believe the particles are damaging? Look up the damage done by the solar flare in March 1989, which evidently broke through the magnetosphere, and toasted a transformer in a nuclear powerstation causing millions of dollars worth of damage.

Some people say that without our magnetic field, our atmosphere would be stripped away by charged particles. Perhaps, but I would love to see a cogent defence of that assertion.

Have you done any research?

 

[Andre]

Really? I thought it was Taylor columns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_columns

Maybe not. Taylor columns don't seem to rely on convection mechanisms. The idea was to explain http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-earth-core.html, which transport heat like a conveyer belt. In the Earth atmosphere this is done for instance by the Hadley Cells.

But certainly the currents in the fluid outer core are a bit hard to model especially since there seems to be some discussion about the real heat source in the core and it's location, see for instance the attempts of James Vanyo

http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo/computational.pdf
http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo/core_mantle.pdf

 

[billiards]

Maybe not. Taylor columns don't seem to rely on convection mechanisms. The idea was to explain http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-earth-core.html, which transport heat like a conveyer belt. In the Earth atmosphere this is done for instance by the Hadley Cells.

But certainly the currents in the fluid outer core are a bit hard to model especially since there seems to be some discussion about the real heat source in the core and it's location, see for instance the attempts of James Vanyo

http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo/computational.pdf
http://www.me.ucsb.edu/dept_site/vanyo/core_mantle.pdf

Andre, I have looked through the links you posted, but I cannot find the bit that talks explicitly about outer core convection, nor any mention of Hadley Cells. Please could you bring them to my attention.

The key difference between the core and the atmosphere is that at the core you do not get a bias towards equatorial heating.

Taylor Columns are well documented convection mechanisms, that arise in rotating annuli, which is the situation we have in the outer core. Here is a video of Taylor Columns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETUoik9Yd4&feature=player_embedded

 

[Andre]

Andre, I have looked through the links you posted, but I cannot find the bit that talks explicitly about outer core convection, nor any mention of Hadley Cells. Please could you bring them to my attention.

I don't think we disagree. I may have explained poorly.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Phys-earth-core.html

Most scientists agree that Earth's magnetic field arises from convection currents in the liquid outer core,...Convection probably starts as iron crystallizes on the surface of the inner core, about 5,000 kilometers beneath Earth's surface...
The sinking iron would perturb the geodynamo's convection cells,...

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~glatz/geodynamo.html

..The convection in the fluid outer core is thought to be driven by both thermal and compositional buoyancy sources at the inner core boundary...

The reference to the hadley cell was merely intending to illustrate the counter-rotating of the northerly and southerly convection cells, albeit that hypothetical outer core convection cells are assumed to be orientated North-South.

more about the core convection:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7208/full/nature07227.html


Note that the references do not talk about taylor colums and that the wikipedia article about Taylor Columns does not mention convection. So all the elements of misunderstanding are here.

 

[billiards]

I don't think we disagree. I may have explained poorly.

Note that the references do not talk about taylor colums and that the wikipedia article about Taylor Columns does not mention convection. So all the elements of misunderstanding are here.

Andre,

I think we are converging on the opinion that Taylor columns are the most likely mode of convection for outer core convection??

My initial contention was with your assertion that convection in the outer core formed Hadley cells - like in the atmosphere. I challenged that, pointing out instead that Taylor columns are more likely (admittedly the wiki article I linked to is not fantastic), you responded "maybe not".

I find it immensely interersting that the convection in the outer core may well (and evidence suggests it does) manifest in the form of N-S aligned helical columns (Taylor columns) -- and indeed hydromagnetodynamic models which invoke Taylor columns in the outer core can explain 90% of Earth's field with the residual 10% being due to eddies (no online reference for that, I'm afraid). Taylor columns are wildly different from Hadley cells, and for a discussion on the geomagnetic field I think it is important that we get these things straight.

 

[Andre]

Agreed, misunderstanding but again, mind that none of my sources (Glatzmeier - Muller) mentioned Taylor columns while wiki did not mention convection explaining Taylor columns.

Anyway, there could still be some considerations.

We assume that the logic of the total Earth precession of the equinoxes is the sum of the precession of all indivudual shells within the Earth, due to gravity differential of the far and near side of the equatoral bulge of the Earth and sun and moon. Hmm is that sentence too complex?

Hard to illustrate without unreliable wikipedia, but try:

http://www.answers.com/topic/precession

But the parameters of this process is different for the indivivual shells, so the inner and outer cores will have other precession logics than the crust / mantle. This should lead to friction at the boundaries between the shells. To what extent would that influence core and mantle interaction and fluid dynamics? Is it significant or irrelevant (the 10% eddies)? Or would the reality be much more complex? What for instance if a significant part of the core heat is generated at the core mantle boundary, due to that friction, that would certainly modify the taylor convection cells

I asked Glatzmeier that several years ago and he responded that this would be too complicated to model it. Note that Vanyo also addresses core mantle friction.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Bill, I hope you will excuse me if I say that your remarks as quoted here are among the most opaque I have yet encountered on this blog. Please assist with their interpretation. The wikipedia references are of course rightfully influential, but I am sure that you would not regard them as beyond critical evaluation and clarification.

The solar wind.
...
The Earth's magnetosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere protects us from the solar wind, by deflecting, slowing, and trapping damaging particles from the solar wind.

So far, I am sure you will agree that this is unexceptionable as far as it goes, but that it doesn't go very far, and that it leaves room for several questions and reservations, yes?

For example:
1) Who are you and I to discriminate against the poles? (The Poles, as a modern first-world nation, can look after themselves, I am sure, but the polar regions experience considerably intensified particle bombardment as a result of our magnetosphere, right?) Have you done any research to evaluate how much their protection would improve if the magnetosphere were reduced to levels more typical of our fellow-minor-planets? After all, it is a longer way for an undeflected particle to pass through dense atmosphere to a pole, than to the equator, right?

2) In fact, how sure are you that the magnetosphere doesn't deflect more particles onto the planet (including into the atmosphere of course) than we would have intercepted if there had been no magnetosphere? The cross-sectional area intercepted is far larger than the cross-sectional area of the planet, after all!

3) As for the particles trapped in our v. Allen belts, that either would have by passed or struck our atmosphere, what happens to them? Do they stay there for ever? If they all stay till they leak out into space, that would be impressively effective protection I am sure, but if they are so energetic, then what are they doing trapped there in the first place? Why didn't they just go spinning off after a whirl or two? Are you sure they don't mostly go down into our poor, battered exosphere and boil it off? Thereby abusing it far more than if the belts had been somewhere else? Preferably round say, Jupiter?

4) It is nice to think of the magnetosphere keeping our ionosphere cool of course, to prevent our atmosphere from boiling off into space, but is our uncritical gratitude justified? If our magnetism intercepts so much of the solar wind, then on what basis do you assert that we are receiving a gentler bombardment in our ionosphere than we would without a magnetic field? Even if the magnetosphere brakes particles, their energy does not vanish; it would mainly heat our atmosphere anyway as photons, right? And how fast do we lose how much atmosphere during inversion events, compared to how fast we are losing it now? I am sure you are right about the relative magnitudes of course, but please share your information. There are members of the forum who have a need.

5) Bearing in mind that the magnetosphere affects mainly charged-particle incomings (right?) then if we have a great deal of concern for dodging those particles down here, why is it that so much of the heating of our atmosphere occurs above the mesosphere? Surely it could not have anything to do with the particles' failure to penetrate much deeper than that? (Ballistically anyway?) After all, in the scheme of things, we are not much worried about thermalised electrons, protons and light nuclei and ions, are we? And how much more deeply would they penetrate if we had no magnetosphere? (Hm. Lightning... Sprites... Elves... Do you suppose...?)


I am sure you could multiply the foregoing questions considerably; after all they deal with just a few aspects out of many, but let us not spoil the discussion by delaying it until we have attained an unattainable comprehensivity.

Don't believe the particles are damaging? Look up the damage done by the solar flare in March 1989, which evidently broke through the magnetosphere, and toasted a transformer in a nuclear powerstation causing millions of dollars worth of damage.

Sought out a nuclear transformer? Bad! But tell me Bill, where did I go wrong in assuming that the "toasting" of the transformer (not to mention the occasional flashovers and fires and transmission network failures over half of Canada, among other regions) was caused, not by currents penetrating the atmosphere once the magnetosphere failed us, but by currents induced in our electrical systems near ground level by the flow of charged particles high up in the atmosphere? And how did this one differ from a lot of similar events, apart from in size, compared to most recent rival events? Do you suppose it would in fact have reached down to toast everyone in its way if the magnetosphere had not been there?

Have you done any research?

You know, Bill, this was the most opaque, as well as the most crushing remark in your whole (much appreciated, of course) note. It left me so gobsmacked and humble. Then I reflected that no doubt you intended it didactically, helpfully, and accordingly would be happy to direct my footsteps in the paths of falsification. What sort of research did you have in mind? Something more original and penetrating than consulting wiki, surely? Something beyond checking citations in the books of words? Something along the lines of controlled experimental investigation? If so, something less financially challenging (I hope!) than sending up my own personal spacecraft ?

Then again, I assumed that you had some particular objective in mind for the research. In my experience aimless research has a low yield of decisive results along the lines of interest to the topic under discussion. For example, do you suggest that we compare the rate of atmospheric loss in the presence of the magnetosphere with that in its absence?

Or what? And how?

Many thanks for your attention,

Jon

 

[Gokul43201]

2) In fact, how sure are you that the magnetosphere doesn't deflect more particles onto the planet (including into the atmosphere of course) than we would have intercepted if there had been no magnetosphere? The cross-sectional area intercepted is far larger than the cross-sectional area of the planet, after all!

Just from doing the Lorentz Force right-hand-rule for different points around the Earth, you can see that the vast majority of the impinging charged particle flux gets deflected along the azimuthal direction and NOT towards the poles. Only the small fraction that enters the region of space around the Earth (near the poles, where the magnetic field is far from tangential) does not get deflected away from the Earth.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Just from doing the Lorentz Force right-hand-rule for different points around the Earth, you can see that the vast majority of the impinging charged particle flux gets deflected along the azimuthal direction and NOT towards the poles. Only the small fraction that enters the region of space around the Earth (near the poles, where the magnetic field is far from tangential) does not get deflected away from the Earth.

Gokul, that is puzzling; could you please elaborate? After all, in the first place, the right hand rule does not imply a right-angled turn when a particle hits a line of force (you know what I mean, I am not trying to be precise here) and even if it did, particles of a given charge that struck the magnetosphere on one side of the planet would bend away of course, but those on the other side would bend towards Earth. Have I missed a point?

Secondly, not to misinterpret your intention by parodying it with irrelevant right angles , any charged particle that remains in the tangential field will spiral (notionally circle of course, but we can ignore the limiting case. Even if some did start in a circle, movements in the field would soon put a stop to that.) Wouldn't that have something to do with the charging of the vA belts? And surely most of the leakage of the belts would be Earthwards? And in particular largely polewards? Even those in the half of the magnetosphere that bent their path away from Earth, except those that are beyond some pretty remote limiting distance, will bend till they too are heading inwards. If in the process they lose energy, they too might well be captured after a few turns.
No?

Next, that spiraling would have a strong helical component for all but a few extreme cases. Please clarify why such a particle would not follow "lines of force" towards the nearer pole, no matter how dominant the azimuthal component.

I am not sure to what extent I misunderstand you and to what extent I misunderstand the physics of the matter, so I should really appreciate your assistance.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[billiards]

Bill, I hope you will excuse me if I say that your remarks as quoted here are among the most opaque I have yet encountered on this blog. Please assist with their interpretation. The wikipedia references are of course rightfully influential, but I am sure that you would not regard them as beyond critical evaluation and clarification.



So far, I am sure you will agree that this is unexceptionable as far as it goes, but that it doesn't go very far, and that it leaves room for several questions and reservations, yes?

For example:
1) Who are you and I to discriminate against the poles? (The Poles, as a modern first-world nation, can look after themselves, I am sure, but the polar regions experience considerably intensified particle bombardment as a result of our magnetosphere, right?) Have you done any research to evaluate how much their protection would improve if the magnetosphere were reduced to levels more typical of our fellow-minor-planets? After all, it is a longer way for an undeflected particle to pass through dense atmosphere to a pole, than to the equator, right?

2) In fact, how sure are you that the magnetosphere doesn't deflect more particles onto the planet (including into the atmosphere of course) than we would have intercepted if there had been no magnetosphere? The cross-sectional area intercepted is far larger than the cross-sectional area of the planet, after all!

3) As for the particles trapped in our v. Allen belts, that either would have by passed or struck our atmosphere, what happens to them? Do they stay there for ever? If they all stay till they leak out into space, that would be impressively effective protection I am sure, but if they are so energetic, then what are they doing trapped there in the first place? Why didn't they just go spinning off after a whirl or two? Are you sure they don't mostly go down into our poor, battered exosphere and boil it off? Thereby abusing it far more than if the belts had been somewhere else? Preferably round say, Jupiter?

4) It is nice to think of the magnetosphere keeping our ionosphere cool of course, to prevent our atmosphere from boiling off into space, but is our uncritical gratitude justified? If our magnetism intercepts so much of the solar wind, then on what basis do you assert that we are receiving a gentler bombardment in our ionosphere than we would without a magnetic field? Even if the magnetosphere brakes particles, their energy does not vanish; it would mainly heat our atmosphere anyway as photons, right? And how fast do we lose how much atmosphere during inversion events, compared to how fast we are losing it now? I am sure you are right about the relative magnitudes of course, but please share your information. There are members of the forum who have a need.

5) Bearing in mind that the magnetosphere affects mainly charged-particle incomings (right?) then if we have a great deal of concern for dodging those particles down here, why is it that so much of the heating of our atmosphere occurs above the mesosphere? Surely it could not have anything to do with the particles' failure to penetrate much deeper than that? (Ballistically anyway?) After all, in the scheme of things, we are not much worried about thermalised electrons, protons and light nuclei and ions, are we? And how much more deeply would they penetrate if we had no magnetosphere? (Hm. Lightning... Sprites... Elves... Do you suppose...?)


I am sure you could multiply the foregoing questions considerably; after all they deal with just a few aspects out of many, but let us not spoil the discussion by delaying it until we have attained an unattainable comprehensivity.



Sought out a nuclear transformer? Bad! But tell me Bill, where did I go wrong in assuming that the "toasting" of the transformer (not to mention the occasional flashovers and fires and transmission network failures over half of Canada, among other regions) was caused, not by currents penetrating the atmosphere once the magnetosphere failed us, but by currents induced in our electrical systems near ground level by the flow of charged particles high up in the atmosphere? And how did this one differ from a lot of similar events, apart from in size, compared to most recent rival events? Do you suppose it would in fact have reached down to toast everyone in its way if the magnetosphere had not been there?





You know, Bill, this was the most opaque, as well as the most crushing remark in your whole (much appreciated, of course) note. It left me so gobsmacked and humble. Then I reflected that no doubt you intended it didactically, helpfully, and accordingly would be happy to direct my footsteps in the paths of falsification. What sort of research did you have in mind? Something more original and penetrating than consulting wiki, surely? Something beyond checking citations in the books of words? Something along the lines of controlled experimental investigation? If so, something less financially challenging (I hope!) than sending up my own personal spacecraft ?

Then again, I assumed that you had some particular objective in mind for the research. In my experience aimless research has a low yield of decisive results along the lines of interest to the topic under discussion. For example, do you suggest that we compare the rate of atmospheric loss in the presence of the magnetosphere with that in its absence?

Or what? And how?

Many thanks for your attention,

Jon

Jon, sorry for being "opaque", and sorry for "crushing" you.

By "research" I simply meant that you can find the answers to your questions with a bit of digging around online. Of course, if you'd prefer to do your own experiments, and you are ingenious enough to follow that path, then that would be super -- please report back with your findings!

It seems that all your questions can more-or-less be more concisely put: does the Earth's magnetic field protect us from the solar wind?

The answer is yes it does by deflecting, slowing, and trapping particles.

Question: what is the direction of particles at the Northern lights?

The second question you allude to is: how damaging is the solar wind?

The transformer blowout due to the magnetic storm served to illustrate the power of the solar wind to destroy electrical appliances. A world without the magnetosphere would be significantly constricted in its ability to function with electronic technology.

Biologically we could expect higher rates of skin cancer (which wasn't so much a problem 780 thousand years ago when the life expectancy of our ancestors was probably about 20 years), and perhaps also faster speciation due to increased mutation rates in genes.

 

[Jon Richfield]

By "research" I simply meant that you can find the answers to your questions with a bit of digging around online. Of course, if you'd prefer to do your own experiments, and you are ingenious enough to follow that path, then that would be super -- please report back with your findings!

Ah, good. Reference work. I have in fact done a little of that, but you know, when I do real research, formal or informal, I tend to be more definite about it. I tell people what I have found. When I discuss matters that people have said, or failed to say compellingly, or have come to regard as common currency, it only seems to be worth going into details when the references in question are likely to be of particular interest.
In the current connection the protective effect of the magnetosphere seems to be widely accepted as a truism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel welcome to contradict me, and I'll try to find convincing references to make good my lack of specific citations.

It seems that all your questions can more-or-less be more concisely put

To put either questions or answers more concisely than I customarily do is no great feat, but as Einstein famously never said, "Everything should be put as concisely as possible, but no more concisely." I fear that your amendments sail perilously close to the non-Einsteinian wind. For example:

"does the Earth's magnetic field protect us from the solar wind?

The answer is yes it does by deflecting, slowing, and trapping particles."

As an assertion that seems unobjectionable, but it errs on the side of simplisticity, quite apart from failing to mention relevance of the charge on particles. That is a crucial point in context, both physical and biological. More directly, it does not mention whether the protection against the particles in question (charged) is of practical importance, and if so, in what way, whether biological (how?) or physical (infrastructural), and on what scale, given the presence of the atmosphere. I seem to remember mentioning those points in my original prolixity.
Note that I do not assert the relevance of the magnetosphere, or lack thereof, but that no one so far has supported the hypothesis more substantially than might give nervous low-stratospheric air-travelers slight pause.

Extensiveness 1: Concision 0

"Question: what is the direction of particles at the Northern lights?"

Oh.
I don't remember asking that one. If you are asking me, I should say that the question is ambiguous, but that I guess (of charged particles) that it is helical with a net downwards component, and in the extreme case, directly downward when parallel to the lines of force. Is that what you had in mind? I do not pretend to guess what prompted the question. Sorry!

The second question you allude to is: how damaging is the solar wind?

The transformer blowout due to the magnetic storm served to illustrate the power of the solar wind to destroy electrical appliances. A world without the magnetosphere would be significantly constricted in its ability to function with electronic technology.

For a start, that conclusion is a little over the top, don't you think? Exactly why you are focusing on the one transformer, I am unsure, because there was a lot more damage than that. However, none of the assertions that I have read on the subject seemed more cogent than late-nineteenth-century dismissal of the practicality of long-distance electricity distribution in view of the problems associated with DC. The effects you mention are problems of induction. My own guess is that they would cost a certain amount of money and ingenuity to circumvent. Many of the precautions might seem excessive in a context of a world where no solar excursions were to be expected, but since we do not live in such a world, we could write off much of the expenditure against steps that are overdue anyway. (Wasn't there a recent case involving a transformer...?)
If the effect of such excursions were to become routine, we might even find them worth tapping for power. Then after a few years or centuries of no magnetosphere, people could start bleating because of the lost source of power when the poles begin to re-establish...? No?


Extensiveness 2: Concision 0

Biologically we could expect higher rates of skin cancer (which wasn't so much a problem 780 thousand years ago when the life expectancy of our ancestors was probably about 20 years), and perhaps also faster speciation due to increased mutation rates in genes.

Now, now Bill! Right back into opacity! Skin cancer? You surely are not about to suggest that our magnetosphere protects us from UVA and UVB, are you? If so, could you please defend the idea that it does so on some substantial scale? Alternatively, do you have some other uncharged particles in mind?


Extensiveness 3: Concision 0

You surely could not be thinking in terms of skin cancer caused by electrons, positrons, protons, antiprotons, Alpha particles and the like? From the solar wind? Penetrating our atmosphere in some carcinogenic form? Please elaborate. Here you lose me utterly!


Extensiveness 4: Concision 0

And faster speciation? This is a joke? From external, low energy, generally thermalised electrons, hydrogen and helium? Please remember that we are not discussing ultra-high-energy cosmic ray showers, but solar wind! Just what did you think causes mutations?

And assuming that all those rogue hydrogens and heliums and wandering electrons that we don't have on the planet nowadays really did in some way promote mutation, what exactly did you think that would have to do with speciation rates? Particularly in vertebrates? Would you care to give us a brief lecture on speciation mechanisms in contexts such as molecular biology and Darwinism?


Extensiveness 5: Concision 0

Perhaps better not, on reflection.


Extensiveness 5: Concision 1

But of course, thank you for your assistance in matters non-biological.

Go well,
Jon

 

[billiards]

Ah, good. Reference work. I have in fact done a little of that, but you know, when I do real research, formal or informal, I tend to be more definite about it. I tell people what I have found. When I discuss matters that people have said, or failed to say compellingly, or have come to regard as common currency, it only seems to be worth going into details when the references in question are likely to be of particular interest.
In the current connection the protective effect of the magnetosphere seems to be widely accepted as a truism. If you have evidence to the contrary, please feel welcome to contradict me, and I'll try to find convincing references to make good my lack of specific citations.




To put either questions or answers more concisely than I customarily do is no great feat, but as Einstein famously never said, "Everything should be put as concisely as possible, but no more concisely." I fear that your amendments sail perilously close to the non-Einsteinian wind. For example:

"does the Earth's magnetic field protect us from the solar wind?

The answer is yes it does by deflecting, slowing, and trapping particles."

As an assertion that seems unobjectionable, but it errs on the side of simplisticity, quite apart from failing to mention relevance of the charge on particles. That is a crucial point in context, both physical and biological. More directly, it does not mention whether the protection against the particles in question (charged) is of practical importance, and if so, in what way, whether biological (how?) or physical (infrastructural), and on what scale, given the presence of the atmosphere. I seem to remember mentioning those points in my original prolixity.
Note that I do not assert the relevance of the magnetosphere, or lack thereof, but that no one so far has supported the hypothesis more substantially than might give nervous low-stratospheric air-travelers slight pause.

Extensiveness 1: Concision 0

"Question: what is the direction of particles at the Northern lights?"

Oh.
I don't remember asking that one. If you are asking me, I should say that the question is ambiguous, but that I guess (of charged particles) that it is helical with a net downwards component, and in the extreme case, directly downward when parallel to the lines of force. Is that what you had in mind? I do not pretend to guess what prompted the question. Sorry!



For a start, that conclusion is a little over the top, don't you think? Exactly why you are focusing on the one transformer, I am unsure, because there was a lot more damage than that. However, none of the assertions that I have read on the subject seemed more cogent than late-nineteenth-century dismissal of the practicality of long-distance electricity distribution in view of the problems associated with DC. The effects you mention are problems of induction. My own guess is that they would cost a certain amount of money and ingenuity to circumvent. Many of the precautions might seem excessive in a context of a world where no solar excursions were to be expected, but since we do not live in such a world, we could write off much of the expenditure against steps that are overdue anyway. (Wasn't there a recent case involving a transformer...?)
If the effect of such excursions were to become routine, we might even find them worth tapping for power. Then after a few years or centuries of no magnetosphere, people could start bleating because of the lost source of power when the poles begin to re-establish...? No?


Extensiveness 2: Concision 0



Now, now Bill! Right back into opacity! Skin cancer? You surely are not about to suggest that our magnetosphere protects us from UVA and UVB, are you? If so, could you please defend the idea that it does so on some substantial scale? Alternatively, do you have some other uncharged particles in mind?


Extensiveness 3: Concision 0

You surely could not be thinking in terms of skin cancer caused by electrons, positrons, protons, antiprotons, Alpha particles and the like? From the solar wind? Penetrating our atmosphere in some carcinogenic form? Please elaborate. Here you lose me utterly!


Extensiveness 4: Concision 0

And faster speciation? This is a joke? From external, low energy, generally thermalised electrons, hydrogen and helium? Please remember that we are not discussing ultra-high-energy cosmic ray showers, but solar wind! Just what did you think causes mutations?

And assuming that all those rogue hydrogens and heliums and wandering electrons that we don't have on the planet nowadays really did in some way promote mutation, what exactly did you think that would have to do with speciation rates? Particularly in vertebrates? Would you care to give us a brief lecture on speciation mechanisms in contexts such as molecular biology and Darwinism?


Extensiveness 5: Concision 0

Perhaps better not, on reflection.


Extensiveness 5: Concision 1

But of course, thank you for your assistance in matters non-biological.

Go well,
Jon

Jon, I'm afraid I didn't read your post because it stunk of something horrid.

Rest assured I will not be commenting further on anything you have to say.

Cheers

 

[Gokul43201]

...even if it did, particles of a given charge that struck the magnetosphere on one side of the planet would bend away of course, but those on the other side would bend towards Earth. Have I missed a point?

Not in this case. Clearly, my simplistic argument has a big error in it. I am not well-read in the intricacies of the magnetosphere, and since my zeroth order model doesn't work too well, I am going to concede that I can no longer contribute to this discussion meaningfully, and do not have time for now, to study the subject in any detail.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Not in this case. Clearly, my simplistic argument has a big error in it. I am not well-read in the intricacies of the magnetosphere, and since my zeroth order model doesn't work too well, I am going to concede that I can no longer contribute to this discussion meaningfully, and do not have time for now, to study the subject in any detail.

Well gosh, Gokul, neither am I! For a start, you certainly contributed to my insights by raising the question, so thank you!
Cheers,

Jon

 

[mugaliens]

Could someone please help me worry?

Reversal average roughly ever 300,000 years, though they vary from tens of thousands to many millions of years.

Not only are they not correllated with extinction events, our ancesters have lived through many of them, so why are you worried?

I'm sorry, but I can't help you worry - at all, at least not about magnetic reversals.

As for the ozone hole, that's clearing up now, and some evidence exists the CFCs had little to do with it, so I can't help you worry about that one, either.

 

[Jon Richfield]

Jon, I'm afraid I didn't read your post because it stunk of something horrid.
Rest assured I will not be commenting further on anything you have to say.

Well Bill, I cannot fault you on your assurance, for sure! What a contrast with a certain other very recent respondent, who had the interest and helpful impulse to make a courteous proposal, and the grace to concede that he was not in a position to refute an objection to that proposal. He did not refuse to read the material when he found that it errr... stunk of something as horrid as a sceptical reception.
Far be it from me to demand that you waste your time on defending the indefensible, but don't let me inhibit you from a few night thoughts on topics such as re-evaluation of your own ideas in the face of friendly, but factual discussion of deficiencies in their validity.
Have fun!
Jon

 

[jreelawg]

I think conciseness is actually key, as opposed to extensiveness in the pursuit of answers to your questions.

You do well to be extensive, and show an understanding what we know about simplified direct interactions related to the topic. However, the point you are missing, is that the actual interactions in it's actual extensive form, and the effect long and short term, range from being poorly understood by science, to impossible to predict given this understanding.

In other words, rather than being incredibly elaborate using shallow assumptions, it is easier to concisely review what observational evidence there is to offer, and from that theorize humbly what you can from it.

This is where the truism you refer to comes from isn't it. I agree that truism is annoying. I find this especially true of even more illusive subjects such as theoretical cosmology.

But in the case of Earth's magnetic field, we do have some evidence from which to spin a theoretical web of assumptions. I hope you are not arrogant enough to be so sure things would be fine and dandy without a magnetic field, or ozone layer.

If you can't tell yet, you are falling into the same hocus pocus you show such distaste for in your assumptions.

If you want to understand why scientists theorize what they do about the magnetic field of earth, then you should start by researching the category of observation, and then evaluate on an individual basis the leading theoretical work based on it.

Nobody here is going to post anything which can replace literature and data on the subject, which may take some time and patients to work through, and there is no guarantee that you will have the intelligence to understand it deeply enough to be critical of it.

But since you probably don't have that kind of time on your hands anyways, you have fun playing a game of wit and sarcasm with some people on a forum, and with such a shallow approach, your words are of little value. It you don't trust the work of others we take for grant it, then let's hear some thoughts about specific work, and how you think it is flawed.

Once we have some more solid ground to tread on, maybe you can get us somewhere.

 

[Jon Richfield]

You do well to be extensive, and show an understanding what we know about simplified direct interactions related to the topic. However, the point you are missing, is that the actual interactions in it's actual extensive form, and the effect long and short term, range from being poorly understood by science, to impossible to predict given this understanding.
In other words, rather than being incredibly elaborate using shallow assumptions, it is easier to concisely review what observational evidence there is to offer, and from that theorize humbly what you can from it.

Jree, Some of your points have merit, and I hope that you will not substantiate the impression you give, of an uncomfortable level of impatience with the tone that this thread has developed. The questions that I have posed are perfectly serious, and quite important (as you imply in some of your own reactions) and if any person undertaking to respond sees fit to cover the emotional and intellectual inadequacies with a high tone in lieu of substance, then he has no one better to blame than myself for permitting him to show himself up.
I am sorry if you have seen this as the point of the exchanges with certain persons who just recently criticised my prolixity in making meaningful statements, while replying to them at only slightly less length, but far lower content. Still lower content would have been much better, giving the yet lower factual and logical accuracy he displayed.
Notice that at least one other participant, without raising temperatures or any need for discourtesy in any form whatsoever was comfortably able to present a suggestion and on reflection, to retract it.
You appear to suggest that it is easier to put matters concisely than extensively. If that is the case with you, then please accept my envious admiration. Personally I side with Pascal, who famously, and with many emulators, apologised for not having time to produce a more concise communication.
If you really think that it is easier to produce concise observations on what "observational evidence there is to offer" (not to mention its adequacy) as a basis for humble theorisation, please set the example. In doing so, please bear in mind that I had begun by explaining that I had in fact been reading fairly wide ranges of material explaining why horrible things would happen as soon as our magnetosphere collapsed, disappeared, attenuated, shifted, or whatever option individual authors, palaeontologists, geophysicists and the like supported. Having done so I humbly theorise that the effect would be comparatively trivial in the event of a magnetic polar inversion, and even wonder whether it would be very important if the field vanished completely.
If you should happen to suspect that I am trolling the forum, I can only request, assuming that you have the time to read what I write, that you match your courtesy to the level that you urge on me, and read what I write, taking it at face value, rather than reading either undue ignorance or ill faith into whatever I said.

So, may I propose that we treat each other with the reciprocal respect that, as a rule, I find most comfortable in correspondence? I hope you don't mind seeing your way to such a relationship. Most of the people in forum show no difficulty in doing so.
And now:

But in the case of Earth's magnetic field, we do have some evidence from which to spin a theoretical web of assumptions. I hope you are not arrogant enough to be so sure things would be fine and dandy without a magnetic field, or ozone layer.

If I did, would I be asking the question? The material that I have read to date, suggesting Intimations of Universal Disaster have come from diverse sources, some very highly placed. This however is a matter of science, not of authority. In science, as I am sure you are properly aware, authority has its place, but not as a substitute for conviction or logic. I am sure that you, given your apparent background, would refuse to let yourself be persuaded or bullied into accepting as substantial fact, something that plainly is based on non-cogent observation and inadequate logic.
And that Sir, is how it is with me. It is not a matter of nailing my colours to a mast; there is no mast. I rather take the attitude of Keynes, who said: "When the facts change, I change my mind Sir. What do you do?"
Now, no doubt you have read my original question, in which I pointed out the very limited protective role played by our magnetosphere. Do you deny any of the factual statements that I made or quoted in asking that question? If so, please give me a hint.
Similarly do you deny my deductions concerning the probable effects at ground level? If so I promise you that I would be delighted to be corrected. Would you even, quite reasonably pointing out that there are limits to our factual knowledge of the field, so that you could hardly be expected to produce any rock solid pronouncements, simply make some reasonable suggestions as to why my optimism (such as it is) might be seen as excessive?

Do my expectations and requests seem unreasonable in context? Or too arrogant in context? I remarked somewhere that I would be very interested to see the effects of a magnetic pole inversion, and that certainly is true. I also am of the opinion that the effects would be nothing like as dire as it is fashionable to prognosticate, but at the same time, I have not the slightest doubt that there would be untoward consequences as yet unforeseen (certainly by me, but I invite you to propose any that strike you as salient. Only please spare me the skin cancer and shortened lifetime horror stories purveyed by certain parties in forum!)
All of which said, if you were to give me a magic button which I could press to invert our planetary polarity, of course I would refuse to press it! What was there in my question to suggest anything less?

If you want to understand why scientists theorize what they do about the magnetic field of earth, then you should start by researching the category of observation, and then evaluate on an individual basis the leading theoretical work based on it.

For example? Which salient points do I seem to have been pressing in contradiction to the physics, geophysics, and astronomical physics of the past two centuries or so? Remember: I spoke in terms of the implications for uncharged particles, cosmic rays, and solar wind. I also spoke in terms of mainly the charged particles in the solar wind and low energy cosmic rays. I spoke furthermore in terms of the differences in effect on various parts of the planet and various levels in the atmosphere.
Any problems so far?
Anything crucial that I seem to you to have omitted? Please do not hesitate to particularise; I sincerely assure you of my gratitude for anything you should see fit to contribute.
That is the sort of thing for which I ask the question.

Nobody here is going to post anything which can replace literature and data on the subject, which may take some time and patients to work through, and there is no guarantee that you will have the intelligence to understand it deeply enough to be critical of it.

Really Jree! REALLY!

I shall charitably assume that you mean that strictly in the Pickwickian sense. If I did otherwise, I should have to assume that you had undervalued the scope of the good sense, patience, good nature, and erudition of the community online. And as for intelligence...
I also would have to assume a gross misunderstanding on your part, of the function of such a forum as this. It is not a substitute for an education, but a tool, a resource for the educated mind. It exposes one not only to a wide range of general and specific knowledge, but to helpful opinion and discussion. In some contexts it helps one get down to the real basics and nitty-gritty, whether theoretical or empirical, whereas in many other contexts it tells one all one needs know, or is equipped to know of a field at a far more superficial level (the handwaving, Bohr atom, Schrodinger's cat level). You would hardly believe this, but on a few occasions I have done some helpful handwaving myself!
Fair exchange and all that...

But since you probably don't have that kind of time on your hands anyways, you have fun playing a game of wit and sarcasm with some people on a forum, and with such a shallow approach, your words are of little value. It you don't trust the work of others we take for grant it, then let's hear some thoughts about specific work, and how you think it is flawed.
Once we have some more solid ground to tread on, maybe you can get us somewhere.

Now now, Jree! You are not supposed to show your temper before you have established your position as an appropriate authority. In this case YOU accuse ME of, what was it again? Oh yes: having "fun playing a game of wit and sarcasm with some people on a forum, and with such a shallow approach". And this in the face of my having pointed out the implications of the poor penetration of the particles in question in our atmosphere, and the trajectories of charged particles in the magnetosphere? Where have you seen any work to deny these simple facts? Some of them go back to the days of Tyndall and Faraday, never mind Rutherford! Most of them are schoolwork today, rather than university curriculum! (Well, I certainly first encountered them at school...)

Which of them are too shallow for you? Which deeper insights doom us as soon as the magnetosphere dips or falters? I could hardly think of anything more solid than:
People in influential positions have expressed fears of ionising hazards if our magnetosphere flags.
This seems implausible in the light of the nature of the atmosphere.
Could someone please point out some flaws in the basis of my scepticism?

Well, Jree?

Over to you. It seems that you have the replies all cut and dried.

Cheers,

Jon

 

[Jon Richfield]

There was a reply from Billiards in my notifications, but I seem unable to find it on line. I trust that he will forgive me for working from the notification instead of the forum entry.

1. My apologies for calling you Bill. It was not intended to represent your name, but as an abbreviation for Billiards. I am sorry if the abbreviation gave offence. In future I shall spell it out to avoid unnecessary bile or bickering.
2. "The magnetosphere does in fact deflect high energy particles from equatorial regions."
This is a very interesting assertion and deserves some amplification. I hope you (or anyone else in forum) will be willing to expand on it, even if we only consider charged particles. Trivially, any charged particle not traveling parallel to the "lines of force" (an equally trivial concept that we might as well neglect in practice) will be deflected by a magnetic field in the sense that its path will be altered. However, it does not follow that it will be deflected in a mode and to a degree that will protect whatever lies below. For example, a TeV or PeV particle would hardly notice our magnetosphere, whereas the typical solar wind particle is hardly "high energy"; if it were deflected it would in due course wind up either in a van Allen belt or at a pole, or perhaps in the atmosphere, where it would rapidly thermalise. Now, suppose that some charged particle does escape the clutches of the magnetosphere, or that the magnetosphere vanishes; how far might we expect it to penetrate the atmosphere with any significant energy excess at all? It might be instructive to consider as an illustrative example, the altitude to which the aurorae descend before they peter out. So far Billiards, this does not seem to suggest much increase in hazard to equatorial inhabitants, beyond what the atmosphere can handle very comfortably. But the whole reason for this thread, please remember, was to find out what I had overlooked or misunderstood. Please contribute! Mugaliens wasn't much help; expects me to do all the worrying myself! <mttr mttr!>

Meanwhile, all the best!

Jon