Switching Poles...

[Eclogite]

I am going to continue playing the naive student here. Thank you for the graphic and the brief text, Infinite Now. Can you tell me how far into the atmosphere a proton or electron would make it, in the total absence of the magnetic field? Will it make it through 100 kms of atmosphere?

 

I like precision of terminology: I don't like the phrase 'protects the Earth'. I believe it gives a false impression. 'Shields the Earth' would convey a more accurate sense of what I suspect is meant.

[Turtle]

I am going to continue playing the naive student here. Thank you for the graphic and the brief text, Infinite Now. Can you tell me how far into the atmosphere a proton or electron would make it, in the total absence of the magnetic field? Will it make it through 100 kms of atmosphere?

 

I like precision of terminology: I don't like the phrase 'protects the Earth'. I believe it gives a false impression. 'Shields the Earth' would convey a more accurate sense of what I suspect is meant.

 

I think you have a different role in mind than naive student. I have to ask if you have searched for any info?

I found these sources today, which indicate the threat of danger is under active investigation.(The first refers to radiation in space outside Earth's magnetic field, but contains relevant information.) Regardless of the phrase you prefer, the topic is far from moot.

 

 

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980119b.html

 

When the sun flares, it produces x-rays, gamma-rays, and energetic particles. The energetic particles are the worst, but they are delayed compared to the X-rays and gamma-rays, so you have some warning that they are coming. This gives you time to get into a 'storm shelter', a well-shielded area that you can live in for a few days until the particles die down. A good place for a storm shelter would be in the center of the ship, surrounded by the water tanks. If you don't have a storm shelter (e.g. if you are out moonwalking in just your suit) a bad solar flare can kill you by radiation sickness.

 

http://www.wdcb.rssi.ru/NGC/ipg.html

 

3. A new aspect was considered in using EUV and X-ray fluxes for diagnostics and short-term prediction of proton radiation danger from the flare. The EUV (l <105 nm) and soft X-ray (0.1-0.8 nm) fluxes were compared for two types of solar flares. The first of them is followed by a strong enhancement in solar energetic (E>10 MeV) proton flux, the second one is not followed by any enhancement in proton flux. It was discovered that UV flux with a proton component was considerably higher than that in flares without protons, while soft X-ray fluxes were approximately equal. An excess of EUV emission in proton flares grows with increasing proton flux. An analytic expression was found for the growth in proton flux as a function of the excess of EUV radiation at a given X-ray flux. These results can be used in predicting flare radiation danger.

 

L.A.Antonova, F.A.Nusinov. Use of simultaneous EUV and soft X-ray measurements for diagnostics of the solar flare radiation danger. Solar Physics, 1998, Vol. 177, No 1, p. 197-202.

[Eclogite]

1. Yes I have researched it in the minor way possible using only internet resources and my own small library.

 

2. At the risk of being boringly repetitive, I am not disputing the issues of solar and cosmic radiation when in space. Those are well known and well documented. I am asking someone to clarify for me how effective this radiation is after passing through a minimum of 100kms of atmosphere.

[Turtle]

I am asking someone to clarify for me how effective this radiation is after passing through a minimum of 100kms of atmosphere.

 

The second link & quote I gave concerns the study of just that.

( http://www.wdcb.rssi.ru/NGC/ipg.html ) It came up in the first page of a search phrase 'soalr radiation danger'.

I get the sense you have some particular reason for wanting a 'no danger' diagnosis. Even with the magnetosphere of Earth intact as we find it today, solar radiation & storms present a danger to humans both directly & indirectly. Without the magnetosphere intact it is logical to conclude the danger is greater.

What is the nature of your contention?:lol:

[Eclogite]

Please point me to the sentence, phrase, or paragraph within this link that indicates their are issues with solar radiation at the surface of the Earth, other than that of UV which I have already acknowledged and noted is constrained by the ozone layer, not the magnetic field.

 

I get the sense you have some particular reason for wanting a 'no danger' diagnosis.

What I want is for someone, anyone, to point me to even a single, well validated, concrete reference that indicates the magnetic field provides us with significant protection from solar radiation. This has not been forthcoming. What you should be sensing is frustration at the acceptance of something that 'everybody knows to be the case' without something solid to base it on. I am not averse to being convinced of this 'fact', I just want to see some basis for it.

[Turtle]

What I want is for someone, anyone, to point me to even a single, well validated, concrete reference that indicates the magnetic field provides us with significant protection from solar radiation. This has not been forthcoming. What you should be sensing is frustration at the acceptance of something that 'everybody knows to be the case' without something solid to base it on. I am not averse to being convinced of this 'fact', I just want to see some basis for it.

 

Here you go; yet again. The Sun produces radiation that is harmful to humans; the Earth's magnetic field redirects & effectively shields humans from cosmic rays, charged particles & other bands of EM radiation.> It logically follows that without the magnetic field, humans receive more exposure of radiation.

It is this very logical conclusion that is sparking investigation into the quantification of the effect (danger) a pole reversal may pose to humans; moreover such knowledge is prerequisite to taking steps to ameliorate harm if any exists.

So, the basis is logic. That's my bias...what is yours?:shrug:

PS Another Hyperlink for perusal:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031023070915.htm

[Eclogite]

Here you go; yet again. The Sun produces radiation that is harmful to humans; the Earth's magnetic field redirects & effectively shields humans from cosmic rays, charged particles & other bands of EM radiation

Turtle, I shall take this one point at a time. The magnetic field does not under any circumstances shield us from any form of electromagnetic radiation. If you believe it does please provide me with a single citation from a peer reviewed journal, or a reference from a single recognised text book on biology, physics, or astronomy.

 

Let us put this point to bed before moving on to cosmic rays and other charged particles.

 

And yes, here I most certainly do go again, for the precise reason that no matter how often you say the Earth's magnetic field shields us from electromagnetic radiation it simply will not make it so.

[Turtle]

I have sent an electronic communication to an accepted authority in which I paraphrased our mis-understanding(s). If I receive a reply & permission, I will post it.

While we wait for that, I have to directly ask you again Eclog, why you have such a keen interest, & what single citation have you offered to support your side? :shrug: Nada.

We could use a good ol' fashioned "illucid" from Uncl Al about now; if it's my turn to take the hit, so be it.

JayQ, what do your Professors say on the matter if I may impose to ask? Others of you? :confused:

[HappytheStripper]

I just started leaning about magnets at school and came across and interesting fact, Earths magnetic field changes! It has been proved that the magnectic field has frequently switched so that our north pole was south and vise versa, the next interesting part is that we are due for another change in the next 1000-2000 years

this is bad news because earths magnetic field protects us from a lot of the suns harmful radiation... but im sure we can come up with an alternate solution when push comes to shuv

 

The end of the Mayan Calendar... signifies a prophetic turn in the consciousness of humankind... the end of our own "Age of the Pieces"... in 2012 AD... being the completion of our transition through to the "Age of Aquarius"... this transition began in the 60's with the revolution of Womens Liberation... Wood Stock... and of course man on the moon (still argued today)... the "age" term in astrology... is anticlockwise...

 

The Mayan Calendar describes the wave movement... of the evolution of consciousness... as a complex pyramidal... matrix of oscillations... this... according to Cotterell's sun-spot theories... will be brought about by a sudden reversal in the earth's magnetic field... changing the vibration of the magnetic field... through creational cycles towards a culmination point (some say "center")

... by which time we are prophesised... to Be entered into and out of - with enlightened perception - of telepathised awareness... of our unity with the nature (one) ... of the galaxy and our earth.... the universe...

 

(unique)............ UNIFIED COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUS AWARENESS

 

2012 - Mayan date 13.0.0.0.0 - Return to the Centre, has also been calculated as having an important end phase of long term cycles in October 2011.... the year in between 2011 and the end cycle in 2012... will be a "limbo" year... but then we all live in limbo... waiting for the theory everything we have ever known to be solved.... to be solved....

[Eclogite]

While we wait for that, I have to directly ask you again Eclog, why you have such a keen interest,

I thought I had stated my reasons with a mixture of implicit and explicit remarks. Perhaps these were too deeply buried within other answers and observations to be apparent. It is a reasonable question, but since I have failed to communicate it clearly till now, I hope you can stick with me as I give a rather longwinded answer.

 

I see science as an important tool by which humanity can prosper in the short and long term. I do not believe science provides all the answers, nor does it address all the needs of men and women, but as a reliable methodology for extracting maximum meaning from and of the world, it is unsurpassed.

 

I have emphasised the word methodology, for science is not the scientists who practice this methodology (they are prone to all the failings of humanity), nor is it the knowledge that is gained thereby (as that can invalidated by new evidence, or the results of a fresh experiment). The methodology is therefore key to the proper use of science, so that the benefits I noted in the previous paragraph can be realised.

 

There is an understandable tendency for scientists, and those interested in science, on occasion, to shortcut the methodology and resort to the use of dogma. It is convenient, it is quick, it probably produces the correct result. Worse than this, there are times when one is tempted to use the language and the posture of science to promote a concept that common sense tells one is correct. I have certainly observed it in others and have been guilty of it myself. Often this abuse of the language and style of the scientific method is quite unconscious, not at all deliberate.

 

I have seen this happen on forums such as this, in public and private discussions, and even in publications. This often occurs when countering the absurd, the foolish, or the ignorant. In dismissing the latest 'theory' that overturns Einstein, or disposing of the interminable arguments against evolution presented by Young Earth Creationist's, it is all to easy - knowing that the other argument is certainly flawed - to edit one's arguments to the point where they become mere expressions of opinion, and not exposition of evidence and fact.

 

I believe this is dangerous. I believe it undermines the value of science, for it casts doubt, erroneously, on the scientific method. Those less familiar with the method gain a false impression of it, valuing it less, seeing it as just another form of belief, no better than faith or common sense. Since I think humanity's future depends upon the proper application of science and its widespread acceptance as a valuable, reliable tool, then I become concerned when I see the methodology being misapplied.

 

That brings us to the matter of the Earth’s magnetic field and its roles in protecting the biosphere. I think a myth has grown up concerning the reversal of the magnetic field, that falls into the very category of misapplication of scientific methodology I have discussed above. I believe you have inadvertently fallen prey to this error and I am seeking, by my persistent and no doubt annoying questioning, to expose this error.

 

Radiation from the sun comes in two forms:

a) Electromagnetic radiation.

:hihi: Charged particles

Not once have I denied the dangerous effect of both of these kinds of radiation on living tissue. Most (probably all) of the references you have cited have been to the dangers of such radiation when encountered unprotected in space. I do not challenge these findings in any way. They are, however, quite irrelevant to the question in hand – does the Earth’s magnetic field provided a significant protection from these radiations.

 

Radio waves, gamma rays, X-rays, UV, infra red and visible light are not deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. If you are claiming that they are, then you are making a remarkable claim for the behaviour of electromagnetic waves that would likely overturn Maxwell. I do not believe you can be serious about this, yet you have repeatedly made reference to dangers of electromagnetic radiation when speaking of the protection afforded by Earth’s magnetic field. Turtle, I am sorry for being blunt, but on this point you are simply wrong. Your persistence in introducing this fallacious connection is an example of the accidental misuse of the trappings of science I discussed earlier.

 

On the matter of the charged particles there is a small protective measure afforded by the magnetic field, but I do not believe it is a significant protective measure. It is true that the field shields the Earth from a proportion of these charged particles, trapping them in the van Allen belts. As I have previously pointed out to you shielding is not synonymous with protecting. If the Earth’s field was not there the majority of the particles would be absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

I noted that at the Earth’s magnetic pole the Earth is not shielded (or protected), yet the radiation levels there are only marginally (and not significantly) higher. I asked you to provide any evidence that this was not the case: you did not do so.

 

I have a small area of doubt in relation to three things:

1) In the total absence of the Earth’s magnetic field the incidence of charged particles from the sun would be sufficient to increase the radiation level at the surface by a significant, but not large, amount. My reading of the literature does not show this to be the case, but I do not entirely rule it out. My repeated requests to you to provide such information have been unanswered. They have been prompted by my wish to eliminate this one area of uncertainty.

2) Cosmic rays, incoming from sources other than the sun, often at much higher velocities and of greater mass than the charged particles from the sun, will certainly produce a greater cascade of radiation than the solar wind. (I am sure you are aware that it is not the charged particles themselves that are the danger, but the radiation they generate on collision with molecules in the atmosphere. The higher their velocity and mass, the more penetrating, energetic and dangerous this secondary radiation is likely to be.) I suspect that the Earth’s magnetic field may be of value in deflecting and containing many of these particles. However, that has nothing to do with the contention that the field is protecting us from solar radiation, which is the contention I am challenging.

3) There is some recent work by Jackson et al modelling the effects of a reversal that suggests the ozone layer might be damaged by repeated major solar flare activity to the point where increased UV radiation was experienced at ground level.

 

In short Turtle, I think there is some sloppy, undisciplined thinking going on here. I want to determine whether the perpetrator is you, or me, or both of us.

[Turtle]

...

That brings us to the matter of the Earth’s magnetic field and its roles in protecting the biosphere. I think a myth has grown up concerning the reversal of the magnetic field, that falls into the very category of misapplication of scientific methodology I have discussed above. I believe you have inadvertently fallen prey to this error and I am seeking, by my persistent and no doubt annoying questioning, to expose this error.

 

Radiation from the sun comes in two forms:

a) Electromagnetic radiation.

B) Charged particles

Not once have I denied the dangerous effect of both of these kinds of radiation on living tissue. Most (probably all) of the references you have cited have been to the dangers of such radiation when encountered unprotected in space. I do not challenge these findings in any way. They are, however, quite irrelevant to the question in hand – does the Earth’s magnetic field provided a significant protection from these radiations.

 

 

On the matter of the charged particles there is a small protective measure afforded by the magnetic field, but I do not believe it is a significant protective measure. It is true that the field shields the Earth from a proportion of these charged particles, trapping them in the van Allen belts. As I have previously pointed out to you shielding is not synonymous with protecting. If the Earth’s field was not there the majority of the particles would be absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

I noted that at the Earth’s magnetic pole the Earth is not shielded (or protected), yet the radiation levels there are only marginally (and not significantly) higher. I asked you to provide any evidence that this was not the case: you did not do so.

 

...

In short Turtle, I think there is some sloppy, undisciplined thinking going on here. I want to determine whether the perpetrator is you, or me, or both of us.

 

From the first bolded phrase, then downward: I learn a lot from falling prey to error. I do not find this discourse annoying at all, rather I see it as the methodology of science you discussed in actual use.

I find it a little disconcerting that you did not read my links, and yet discount their content. Methodological error?:shrug: Inasmuch as any error in my understanding is generalized from my reading/hearing other sources - that is to say I have not directly conducted my own experiments - if you wish to correct my error you need to correct my source(s).

Saying "I do not believe" is validated by what source or reference?

One of my links discussed the actual measured differences of radiation at the pole; perhaps you didn't read that one?:shrug:

So it looks like complicity on both our parts in regard to error; however, 'perpetrator' conotes an ill intent & I have none of that.

I have in the past received informative replies from professional scientists, and as I say I have E-mailed one such on this question. Let's see what the week brings.:cup:

[Turtle]

I have sent another electronic communication requesting clarification on the matter of solar radiation danger to Dr. SOHO at NASA

http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/

They have responded before to a question I asked about a specific LASCOC3 image, so I have good expectations for a reply.:shrug:

[CraigD]

We can take some comfort in the solid evidence that neither the last poll reversal about 780,000 years ago (the Brunhes-Matuyama Reversal), or any of the other recent reversals appear to correlate with any mass extinctions. From this we can infer that, while having the potential to be a great human catastrophe involving increased disease and social disruption centuries in duration, a poll reversal is unlikely to wipe out our species.

[Turtle]

We can take some comfort in the solid evidence that neither the last poll reversal about 780,000 years ago (the Brunhes-Matuyama Reversal), or any of the other recent reversals don’t appear to correlate with any mass extinctions. From this we can infer that, while having the potential to be a great human catastrophe involving increased disease and social disruption centuries in duration, a poll reversal is unlikely to wipe out our species.

Thanks for posting up Craig. From the Wicky article:

Some speculate that a greatly diminished magnetic field during a reversal period will expose the surface of the earth to a substantial and potentially damaging increase in cosmic radiation. However, homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinction

Several things come to mind. I never suggested (or planned to) that a pole reversal/magnetic field weakening would cause extinction.

Keeping in mind how many peeps we have now extant on Earth compared to 780,000 years ago, plus the electrical nature of most our technology, I think we need to stay focused on possible "dangers" in the here & now.

In 1989 a solar CME brought down a huge power network in Canada, & other conductors such as train rail can have currents induced by solar activity. The concern for direct biological effects (cancers? etc.) is widely expressed as well.

Curiouser & curiouser. We need the juried work that Eclog requested, or maybe a similar type of refutation. Do we not prepare for a hurricane we know is coming simply because we trust it won't kill everyone? More study...:cup:

[Eclogite]

I am not sure what makes you think I did not read your links before dismissing them.

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physi...03/0603086.pdf)

This one I dealt with in post #12. It is irrelevant.

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physi...03/0603086.pdf)

This one relates only to the perils of solar radiation and solar flares when in space unprotected by the atmosphere and the ozone layer. Both of these are, as you certainly know, practically unaffected by the magnetic field. The link is irrelevant.

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/physi...03/0603086.pdf)

This one relates to several programs of research and monitoring of solar radiation in the space environment. It says nothing about radiation at the surface of the Earth. It is irrelevant.

 

You then repeated this link:

http://www.wdcb.rssi.ru/NGC/ipg.html

Which although a different url takes you to the same site as the previous link. You maintained that this dealt with the variation of radiation at the surface and its dangerous effects. I asked you to identify where in that link these issues were addressed. You chose not to do so, but instead berated me with a series of claims that I had already shown to be flawed.

 

You offered a further link that purported to address the issues:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031023070915.htm

This addresses the uncertainty that exists about the amount of radiation encountered by passengers flying in the stratosphere. I think we can all agree that the stratosphere is not the surface of the Earth. Moreover the article says nothing about magnetic pole reversals. You keep saying solar radiation is dangerous, but none of your links have indicated that this danger will increase significantly at the time of a polar reversal.

 

So, I read all your links. None of them address the issues I have raised and as such they are irrelevant. I hope you get a reply from your expert. Looking forward to it.

[Turtle]

I am not sure what makes you think I did not read your links before dismissing them.

... You keep saying solar radiation is dangerous, but none of your links have indicated that this danger will increase significantly at the time of a polar reversal.

...

So, I read all your links. None of them address the issues I have raised and as such they are irrelevant. I hope you get a reply from your expert. Looking forward to it.

 

I'm not sure either; something in your wording I suppose. I trust you have read them now, so it at least is clear when I say solar radiation is dangerous that I didn't simply make it up.

The level aircraft fly at isn't Earth's surface, but neither is it space, and it most certainly is within the magnetosphere. At the very least, people flying in aircraft have more risk of ill effects from radiation than those who do not fly.

I have received no replies yet from the expert(s) I wrote. Now when you say it is 'my' expert, that is so only because I chose the people, & I get the impression you may not consider Dr. SOHO an 'expert'. I have to ask who do you choose & what links have you offered of relevance?:umno:

[Eclogite]

Turtle, a couple of things. I sense, I hope incorrectly, that you think I am taking a dismissive, even disrespectful, approach to you and your position in this matter. That is not the case. If I have given that impression it is down to sloppy writing or inappropriate use of irony.

 

I have read your links now. I had read them before. And I repeat: I have never disputed the danger of solar radiation. I have merely pointed out:

1) All your links (until the last one) refer to the dangers of solar radiation in space.

2) The most dangerous radiation is EM, which is wholly uneffected by the Earth's magnetic field.

3) Radiation from charged particles is constrained by the field, increasing radiation at the poles and decreasing it elsewhere. Despite this the radiation at the poles (which represents the maximum an 'unprotected' Earth would experience) is not dramatically higher than at the equator.

4) I said your expert, simply to distinguish the specific individual(s) from others that exist.

5) I have offered no links because I consider my position to be the norm. i.e. you are the one raising the non-standard view that losing the magnetic field would be a big problem. In the same way there are few papers published demonstrating that eating chicken fajitas does not cause plate tectonics I suspect there are few that discuss the lack of an effect of the loss of the Earth's magnetic field. I appreciate that this an extreme analogy, but I hope it illustrates the underlying point.

6) I shall have a look through available litereature and see if I can come up with something.

 

By the way, if I was arguing your side of this debate I would have focused on the possible interuptions to power grids during intense solar flares that hit us head on; and to erosion of the ozone layer by solar flareswith consequent increased UV radiation.