
I’ve been avoiding this story (Magnetic polar shifts cause massive global super storms) for awhile, hoping it would simply die, but people keep asking me about it, and I see it appearing on other blogs, so I suppose I’ll have to address it. Mainly what I want to do is present facts about it and let readers make up their own minds.
There has been a lot of worry and hype on this subject. Part of it is fueled by the silly “2012” thing. Some it has been fueled by people who had been primed for “space storms” in solar cycle 24, such as in this Fox News video:
Many people still haven’t got the memo that solar cycle 24 is now forecast by NASA (after a number of forecast reductions) to be about as quiet as the Dalton Minimum, with a peak sunspot count of 59 in their latest forecast. They hear that the protective Earth’s magnetic field may flip/deplete from one source, remember the hype over the upcoming solar cycle, and worry that we are going to get toasted. I assure you, we will, when the sun turns into a red giant a couple billion years from now, but let’s not worry about that.

In the meantime, yes, at some point the Earth’s magnetic field will flip. Compasses will point south instead of North. According to the best science we have this happens frequently on Earth (in the scale of geologic time). And, as we know, the sun’s magnetic field appears to reverse its polarity on the advent of each new solar cycle, about every 11 years. The sun doesn’t wink out or get stormy when this happens, nor can we as humans detect any earthly change when this occurs. It’s essentially imperceptible to us.
As for earth, it’s magnetic field also flips, but not nearly as often. About every 200,000-250,000 years. The last one occurred 780,000 years ago, so the period is not constant. This is to be expected in a chaotic system. Below, see the magnetic record timeline as derived from rocks:
More on the magnetic timeline here. Looking at the long term record, magnetic field reversals are rather common. So, as far as Earth goes, it is “business as usual”. It probably would say: “Nothing to see here, move along.” if asked. I’ll point out that life continued through all of this. And, as far as I know, no scientist has linked extinctions to reversals. The Wikipedia article has this to say:
Because the magnetic field has never been observed to reverse by humans with instrumentation, and the mechanism of field generation is not well understood, it is difficult to say what the characteristics of the magnetic field might be leading up to such a reversal.
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, though they did not depend on computer systems that could be damaged by large coronal mass ejections.
There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions. A possible explanation is that the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth’s ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles even in the absence of the Earth’s normal magnetic field. Another possible explanation is that magnetic field actually does not vanish completely, with many poles forming chaotically in different places during reversal, until it stabilizes again.
There’s a NASA story on the wandering magnetic North pole from 2003 that is instructive, I’m repeating part of it below:
===============================================================
Scientists have long known that the magnetic pole moves. James Ross located the pole for the first time in 1831 after an exhausting arctic journey during which his ship got stuck in the ice for four years. No one returned until the next century. In 1904, Roald Amundsen found the pole again and discovered that it had moved–at least 50 km since the days of Ross.
The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating “to 40 km per year,” says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.
Keeping track of the north magnetic pole is Newitt’s job. “We usually go out and check its location once every few years,” he says. “We’ll have to make more trips now that it is moving so quickly.”
Earth’s magnetic field is changing in other ways, too: Compass needles in Africa, for instance, are drifting about 1 degree per decade. And globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century. When this was mentioned by researchers at a recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, many newspapers carried the story. A typical headline: “Is Earth’s magnetic field collapsing?”
Probably not. As remarkable as these changes sound, “they’re mild compared to what Earth’s magnetic field has done in the past,” says University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier.
Sometimes the field completely flips. The north and the south poles swap places. Such reversals, recorded in the magnetism of ancient rocks, are unpredictable. They come at irregular intervals averaging about 300,000 years; the last one was 780,000 years ago. Are we overdue for another? No one knows.
Left: Magnetic stripes around mid-ocean ridges reveal the history of Earth’s magnetic field for millions of years. The study of Earth’s past magnetism is called paleomagnetism. Image credit: USGS. [more]
According to Glatzmaier, the ongoing 10% decline doesn’t mean that a reversal is imminent. “The field is increasing or decreasing all the time,” he says. “We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record.” Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That’s twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2.
To understand what’s happening, says Glatzmaier, we have to take a trip … to the center of the Earth where the magnetic field is produced.
At the heart of our planet lies a solid iron ball, about as hot as the surface of the sun. Researchers call it “the inner core.” It’s really a world within a world. The inner core is 70% as wide as the moon. It spins at its own rate, as much as 0.2° of longitude per year faster than the Earth above it, and it has its own ocean: a very deep layer of liquid iron known as “the outer core.”
Right: a schematic diagram of Earth’s interior. The outer core is the source of the geomagnetic field.
Earth’s magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has “hurricanes”–whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth’s rotation. These complex motions generate our planet’s magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.
Using the equations of magnetohydrodynamics, a branch of physics dealing with conducting fluids and magnetic fields, Glatzmaier and colleague Paul Roberts have created a supercomputer model of Earth’s interior. Their software heats the inner core, stirs the metallic ocean above it, then calculates the resulting magnetic field. They run their code for hundreds of thousands of simulated years and watch what happens.
What they see mimics the real Earth: The magnetic field waxes and wanes, poles drift and, occasionally, flip. Change is normal, they’ve learned. And no wonder. The source of the field, the outer core, is itself seething, swirling, turbulent. “It’s chaotic down there,” notes Glatzmaier. The changes we detect on our planet’s surface are a sign of that inner chaos.
They’ve also learned what happens during a magnetic flip. Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time–contrary to popular belief–the magnetic field does not vanish. “It just gets more complicated,” says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth’s surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it’s still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.
Above: Supercomputer models of Earth’s magnetic field. On the left is a normal dipolar magnetic field, typical of the long years between polarity reversals. On the right is the sort of complicated magnetic field Earth has during the upheaval of a reversal. [more]
===========================================================
They didn’t seem very worried about it at NASA then. They were more worried about solar cycle 24 producing a lot of solar flares at the time, which would disrupt a lot of our new technology.
When a big CME heads toward earth, it can cause havoc, whether our magnetic field is strong or not. For example, in 1859, long before our worries about Earth’s magnetic field started, there was the Carrington event:
At 11:18 AM on the cloudless morning of Thursday, September 1, 1859, 33-year-old Richard Carrington—widely acknowledged to be one of England’s foremost solar astronomers—was in his well-appointed private observatory. Just as usual on every sunny day, his telescope was projecting an 11-inch-wide image of the sun on a screen, and Carrington skillfully drew the sunspots he saw.
Right: Sunspots sketched by Richard Carrington on Sept. 1, 1859. Copyright: Royal Astronomical Society: more.
On that morning, he was capturing the likeness of an enormous group of sunspots. Suddenly, before his eyes, two brilliant beads of blinding white light appeared over the sunspots, intensified rapidly, and became kidney-shaped. Realizing that he was witnessing something unprecedented and “being somewhat flurried by the surprise,” Carrington later wrote, “I hastily ran to call someone to witness the exhibition with me. On returning within 60 seconds, I was mortified to find that it was already much changed and enfeebled.” He and his witness watched the white spots contract to mere pinpoints and disappear.
It was 11:23 AM. Only five minutes had passed.
Just before dawn the next day, skies all over planet Earth erupted in red, green, and purple auroras so brilliant that newspapers could be read as easily as in daylight. Indeed, stunning auroras pulsated even at near tropical latitudes over Cuba, the Bahamas, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Hawaii.
Even more disconcerting, telegraph systems worldwide went haywire. Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.
“What Carrington saw was a white-light solar flare—a magnetic explosion on the sun,” explains David Hathaway, solar physics team lead at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.
Notice, no mention in any of the historical reports of superstorm style bad weather, just unusual low latitude auroras and wacky telegraphs. Such an event will happen again in Earth’s history, we can be sure of it. From Wiki: “Ice cores contain thin nitrate-rich layers that can be used to reconstruct a history of past events before reliable observations. These show evidence that events of this magnitude — as measured by high-energy proton radiation, not geomagnetic effect — occur approximately once per 500 years, with events at least one-fifth as large occurring several times per century. Less severe storms have occurred in 1921 and 1960, when widespread radio disruption was reported”
Sure, it would be worse today if Earth’s magnetic field was weaker, but comparatively, the terrestrial magnetic field is a wimp and get’s pushed around by the sun anyway:
Now compare that story to what our buddy Caca Kaku has been saying:
But for now, the reality of solar cycle 24 is far less worrisome:
Adding to some of the media hype worry, the north magnetic pole is on the move. In fact, as Luboš Motl has recently pointed out, it has been accelerating in its movement. According to this 2009 NatGeo story, it is now on the move by about 40 miles per year towards Siberia:

There was the recent story about runways at Tampa International Airport having to be renumbered because the compass heading has changed. It also added to the worry and hype about the Earth’s magnetic field. Well, it is a story that is likely to be repeated in the years to come, as the pole drifts even more. At some point the FAA may just decide it isn’t worth trying to keep up with, and make runway numbers reflect GPS headings (based on true north) instead.
And that’s not the only effect. Soon, many USHCN and GHCN ASOS station in the USA will be out of alignment with magnetic north. Yes that’s right, they are aligned perpendicular to magnetic north, like this US Historical Climate Network climate monitoring station in Minneapolis, MN:
As far as I can tell, that’s about the only significant “climate disruption” we are going to see.
There’s of course the possibility that a weaker magnetic field might provide for some increased thunderstorm development, such as this linkage between Forbush decreases and thunderstorm electricity, but there doesn’t appear to be any strong linkage to synoptic scale storm formation that we know of. The issue of the sun modulating cosmic ray passage to Earth which is a different issue altogether.
Now compare what has been presented above to the article in Helium that everyone is concerned about:
(Magnetic polar shifts cause massive global super storms)
On the heels of the lashing the British Isles sustained, monster storms began to pummel North America. The latest superstorm—as of this writing—is a monster over the U.S. that stretched across 2,000 miles affecting more than 150 million people.
Yet even as that storm wreaked havoc across the Western, Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern states, another superstorm broke out in the Pacific and closed in on Australia.
The southern continent had already dealt with the disaster of historic superstorm flooding from rains that dropped as much as several feet in a matter of hours. Tens of thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed. After the deluge bull sharks were spotted swimming between houses in what was once the quiet town of Goodna.
Shocked authorities now numbly concede that some of the water may never dissipate and have wearily resigned themselves to the possibility that region will now contain a small inland sea.
But then only a handful of weeks later another superstorm—the mega-monster cyclone Yasi—struck northeastern Australia. The damage it left in its wake is being called by rescue workers a war zone.
Do you recognize the writing style? Let’s look at a similar example.
We have recently been told that these storms were caused by “man-made global warming”, let’s listen to Al Gore:
As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming:
“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that global warming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simple ingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a sponge until it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lot of moisture creates a lot of snow.”
“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging from hotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms, flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”
There’s a catastrophe prediction on every street corner it seems:

Me, I’m not worried about the magnetic field flipping any more than I am about the sun turning into a red giant. It’s out of my hands. The best you can do is to adopt the old Boy Scout motto: Be prepared.
For what, I’m not sure, so I don’t worry too much. Nature so far has allowed life to go along on this planet, mostly unabated for millions of years. Sure, we could get squished like a bug tomorrow by an asteroid, but can we do anything about that if we know today?
Bobby McFerrin had it right:
![timeline[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/timeline1.gif?resize=198%2C712)



vukcevic says:
February 9, 2011 at 10:13 am
Pole is where total field F is strongest:
The US/UK World Magnetic Model for 2010-2015
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2010/WMM2010_Report.pdf
From your link [page 18]:
“Based on the WMM2010 coefficients for 2010.0 the geomagnetic north pole is at 72.21°W longitude and 80.02°N geocentric latitude (80.08°N geodetic latitude), and the geomagnetic south pole is at 107.79°E longitude and 80.02°S geocentric latitude (80.08°S geodetic latitude). The axis of the dipole is currently inclined at 9.98° to the Earth’s rotation axis. […] Although one cannot make any observations in the region of the geomagnetic poles that might indicate their positions, these poles are arguably of greater significance than the dip poles. This is because the auroral ovals, which are approximately 5° latitude bands where the spectacular aurora are likely to be seen, are approximately centered on the geomagnetic poles.”
drewski says:
February 8, 2011 at 5:00 pm
What in the world was an Al Gore quote doing in an article on magnetism? Gratuitous Gore bashing appears to be is the only leg climate denialis have left to stand on.
——————————–
I think it was to provide you with the opportunity to give us the splendid new moniker for the former vp; Gratuitous Gore.
Thank you.
Michele says: February 9, 2011 at 10:34 am
……..
Hi Michele
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I am not well informed on the volcano-climate link.
Solar link has been looked into, but I think results were inconclusive, but a detailed analysis may come up with some correlation.
I will translate and read your daltonsminima articles and if I have a comment I will post it at http://daltonsminima.altervista.org
Aurora either follows total field F or one of the components, vertical Z or horizontal H. As it happens it matches only horizontal H component. See links in my post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/on-the-magnetic-polar-shifts-cause-massive-global-super-storms-story/#comment-594886
Dipole is a simplification which gives a wrong impression of current situation, which is continuously evolving. If you had a dipole than total field F would be same at both poles. That is not the case. At the imaginary North Pole F = 57 micro Tesla, while at the true South Pole F = 66 micro Tesla.
South Pole is 16% up on the North, that is not dipole.
Reality is more complex, see:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
Here I end my posts on this thread. Thank you for your cooperation.
Rational Debate says:
February 8, 2011 at 12.01 am
Would someone help me out here? I’m having a hard time figuring out how we can have a solid core surrounded by liquid metal considering the temperatures involved and so on. What is the theory explaining this please? (hoping for a concise/brief answer, not looking for hard core details, if you’ll forgive the pun!).
I was about to ask the same thing when I saw you post the question. I’ve never been able to find an explanation for the core being solid….
Maybe it came from thinking of bar magnets when realising that the Earth had a magnetic field in ‘early’ scientific thinking, and it’s simply stuck?
http://www.ehow.com/video_4766660_why-does-earth-have-magnetic.html
Says the Earth’s core is liquid with high proportion of iron.
What is most astonishing is the long period where it apparently did not flip – in the Cretaceous period! I wonder why it did not then?
Terrence Aym for the Salem-News.com (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php) writes the horror story your entry addresses. Might want to take a peek and, perhaps, ask Mr. Aym to post his story here for comment.
vukcevic says:
February 9, 2011 at 11:52 am
Dipole is a simplification which gives a wrong impression of current situation, which is continuously evolving. If you had a dipole than total field F would be same at both poles. That is not the case.
No, because the geomagnetic dipole is not centered. There is no such requirement. It would help you to adopt what your own link taught you:
From your link [page 18]:
“Based on the WMM2010 coefficients for 2010.0 the geomagnetic north pole is at 72.21°W longitude and 80.02°N geocentric latitude (80.08°N geodetic latitude), and the geomagnetic south pole is at 107.79°E longitude and 80.02°S geocentric latitude (80.08°S geodetic latitude). The axis of the dipole is currently inclined at 9.98° to the Earth’s rotation axis. […] This is because the auroral ovals, which are approximately 5° latitude bands where the spectacular aurora are likely to be seen, are approximately centered on the geomagnetic poles.”
Myrrh says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Would someone help me out here? I’m having a hard time figuring out how we can have a solid core surrounded by liquid metal considering the temperatures involved and so on. What is the theory explaining this please?
The melting point also depends on the pressure, so at the higher pressure deeper down you need a still higher temperature for the material to melt.
Leif Sorry but you have been wrong nearly about everything solar on this and other blogs because I have been following your statements for about 4 years now…: SSN max now maybe 40? (Hathaway and pals was 150?), not even the 70 you predicted. Temps now correlating with solar activity (and have been for time immemorial) etc…DA was right.. me thinks you pay too much attention to detail and miss the big picture. BTW not to begrudge you me guilty of same as scientist. Me predict little ice age coming due to solar what are your bets?
Stephan says:
February 9, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Leif Sorry but you have been wrong nearly about everything solar on this and other blogs because I have been following your statements for about 4 years now…: SSN max now maybe 40? (Hathaway and pals was 150?), not even the 70 you predicted.
We are still a couple of years away from solar maximum, but see http://www.leif.org/research/Predicting%20the%20Solar%20Cycle%20(SORCE%202010).pdf for the prediction.
Temps now correlating with solar activity (and have been for time immemorial)
Shows your bias.
Me predict little ice age coming due to solar what are your bets?
The previous LIA was not due to anything solar, so why should low solar activity now produce another LIA? Explain that to me [other than just assuming it].
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm
vukcevic says:
February 9, 2011 at 11:52 am
Dipole is a simplification which gives a wrong impression of current situation, which is continuously evolving. If you had a dipole than total field F would be same at both poles. That is not the case.
No, because the geomagnetic dipole is not centered. There is no such requirement. It would help you to adopt what your own link taught you:
From your link [page 18]:
“Based on the WMM2010 coefficients for 2010.0 the geomagnetic north pole is at 72.21°W longitude and 80.02°N geocentric latitude (80.08°N geodetic latitude), and the geomagnetic south pole is at 107.79°E longitude and 80.02°S geocentric latitude (80.08°S geodetic latitude). The axis of the dipole is currently inclined at 9.98° to the Earth’s rotation axis. […] This is because the auroral ovals, which are approximately 5° latitude bands where the spectacular aurora are likely to be seen, are approximately centered on the geomagnetic poles.”
`
Dr S., in your last statement you could add except when the aurora split and one goes eastward and one goes westward.
Vuks latest CALS3K3 show four flux patches 2 in the northern hemisphere and two in the southern hemisphere. So you should add an additional conical vortex to your model.
On the Persistence of Geomagnetic Flux Lobes in Global Holocene
Field Models
Monika Kortea, Richard Holmeb
aHelmholtz Zentrum Potsdam, Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ, Telegrafenberg, 14473 Potsdam,
Germany
bSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GP, UK
Preprint submitted to Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors October 7, 2010
..96 The CALS3k.3 model is based on an updated archaeomagnetic and sediment dataset
97 (Donadini et al., 2009) and spans the time 1000 BC to 1990 AD. Both spatial and temporal
98 resolution are somewhat higher than for CALS7K.2. The time average (Fig. 1c) contains
99 significantly less structure than the historical averages, but does show clear flux lobes in
100 both the northern and southern hemispheres similar to those seen in the gufm1 averages..
http://edoc.gfz-potsdam.de/gfz/get/15830/0/2efa24e54106833d8487cb3828da80ee/15830.pdf
Vuks are you saying that the north magnetic pole is attracted to the intensifying Siberian flux patch?
I’m wondering what vectors where changing in the interplanetary gravitation focusing cone position when the pole left the eastern hemi and went west. And now how are the vectors of the interplanetary gravitational focusing cone different and why the north magnetic pole is in a big hurry to get back to the eastern hemisphere.
Carla says:
February 9, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Dr S., in your last statement you could add except when the aurora split and one goes eastward and one goes westward.
Not at all. These very special aurorae live inside the normal auroral oval which is not split; in fact, the split aurorae move across the oval right over the geomagnetic pole. Vuk’s ideas are pure nonsense, rooted in profound ignorance. Of course, many people believe weird things, so you too are in good company. Just a bit sad that the soon to be best science blog is marred with this.
There are more than one defination of the NMP.
“In fact, in the early nineteenth century there were three different definitions attached to the term “magnetic pole”. Some interpreted it to mean the point at which magnetic meridians converged; others, including Hansteen took it to mean the area at which magnetic intensity was a maximum; and a third group, which included James Ross, defined it to mean the point of vertical dip. Were the earth’s magnetic field perfectly dipolar, all three definitions would correspond to the same point, but by the early 19th century the complexity of the magnetic field was well appreciated, including the fact that there were two areas of maximum intensity in the northern hemisphere. In modern terms, by the early 19th century it was well known that the magnetic field was too complex to be explained by a single dipole, and researchers such as Hansteen were formulating theories to account for the non-dipole part. This they chose to do by adding a second dipole. Using multiple dipoles to model the magnetic field is perfectly valid procedure, but analyses carried out in the 1960s showed that up to 35 radial dipoles are necessary to model the field with acceptable accuracy.
In 1839 Frederick Gauss developed the method of spherical harmonic analysis for describing the magnetic field. Magnetic poles were not required, nor did they play any part in the analysis. The existence of two magnetic poles, one in each hemisphere, was a by-product of the analysis, but the definition of a magnetic pole was restricted to mean the region on the Earth’s surface in which the horizontal intensity is zero and inclination is ±90°. Gauss made it clear that the concept of a magnetic axis joining the two poles has no basis infact.
Not everyone agreed with Gauss’s idea at the time, but today his method of spherical harmonic analysis is universal, as is his concept of the magnetic poles.”
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/early_nmp_e.php
For navigation purposes, or for compasses, the one that is used is where and inclination is ±90°. Because of the dip there is an area around the pole where the compass is unreliability and you must use true headings and sometimes an astra compass.
See Area of compass unreliability:
http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/field/compass_e.php
NRCAN have gone to the NMP several times and determined the location of the pole. As they had not updated their website recently I emailed them asked if there were planned trips and here is their reply:
“Here is the most recent location:
2007.3 is 83.95 N, 120.72 W Newitt, Jean-Jacques Orgeval, Arnaud Chulliat, (IPGP) Mariannick Orgeval, and Mary Angatookauk
There are no planned future expeditions to survey the North magnetic pole’s position. To an extent this information can be obtained by satellites.”
ES says:
February 9, 2011 at 8:02 pm
the definition of a magnetic pole was restricted to mean the region on the Earth’s surface in which the horizontal intensity is zero and inclination is ±90° […] today his method of spherical harmonic analysis is universal, as is his concept of the magnetic poles.”
As you can see on pages 63 [for H] and 65 [for I] of Vuk’s link: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/WMM/data/WMM2010/WMM2010_Report.pdf
The asterisk marks the geomagnetic pole.
Michele said on February 9, 2011 at 10:36 am:
Hi there! New to commenting here?
So you know, everything goes into moderation, waiting for the elite WUWT moderation team to review it. Sole exception being comments from the trusted few with administrator privileges, as they can post direct if they choose. At a minimum, it might take a few minutes for a comment to clear moderation. But if no moderators are available, which can happen for a few hours, it can take a while.
Also, after you post, you might not see it show up on your end with the “moderation” note. That means the spam filter got it. If a comment of yours “disappears” that way, do not assume it was lost and repost, and I wouldn’t bother with a “Help moderators, you have to retrieve it!” comment. Just be extra patient, as first a moderator has to scrape it out of the spam bin during one of their regular sweeps, then review it.
Hope you’ll enjoy being here, and that you’ll comment again. Cheers!
From Rational Debate on February 8, 2011 at 12:01 am:
Pressure. Take a certain amount of gas molecules, compress them enough, they’ll turn into a liquid without any heat being removed. Compress them more, they’ll turn into a solid.
You can think of it as “How much volume is available?” A given amount of gaseous molecules will occupy a large volume. Reduce the volume available (increase the pressure), they’ll change to a liquid which takes up less space. Keep reducing, you’ll get the form that occupies the least amount of space, a solid.
Here on the surface with normal atmospheric pressure, iron boils at 2862 °C (ref). Earth’s solid inner core is thought to be at 5505 °C (ref). The pressure is so high at the inner core, iron is solid at a temperature where it’d be vapor at the surface.
Phase diagrams are used to keep track of what something will be (gas, liquid, or solid phase) under what conditions. There are also a few exceptions to what I said in the first paragraph. Water, for example, can change from solid to liquid as pressure increases.
Thanks Mod.
PhilJourdan says:
February 9, 2011 at 1:51pm
What is most astonishing is the long period where it apparently did not flip – in the Cretaceous period! I wonder why it did not then?
Looking for a time-line I found this page: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/timeline/timeline.html
It says the magnetic field was 3 times stronger in the Cretaceous – begs the question, why? – which might have something to do with it.
Carla says:February 9, 2011 at 7:07 pm
For courtesy reasons I will respond only to the Carla’s point.
Fig. 3 in http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm is the intensity, so blue patch in the SH is where the total field intensity is the lowest. If you consider that magnetic field lines from the two NH vortices close directly with one in one in the SH, then you would expect sudden drop in the field outside direct line of the magnetic interaction as in here:
http://www.gonefcon.com/trucktcom/m_bar2.jpg
as found in the SA anomaly some 3-4000km above the concentrated magnetic circuit of direct interaction.
Leif Svalgaard says:
February 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Re: How can we have a solid core of iron surrounded by liquid metal in the centre of the earth considering temperatures involved and so on.
The melting point also depends on the pressure, so at the higher pressure deeper down you need a still higher temperature for the material to melt.
In the link I posted there is no mention of a solid ball of iron in the centre, says it is liquid.
Also makes the point that this is real liquid in contrast to the mantle which it says isn’t, which is a sticky solid, and inner mantle more of the samish. It is the liquid core which has the ability to slosh around and so change magnetic field.
http://www.ehow.com/video_4766660_why-does-earth-have-magnetic.html
How was the temperature in the centre of the Earth actually calculated? Could it have been that it was assumed that the centre contained a solid ball of iron and from that working back decided it was X° by taking pressure into account?
I don’t have the maths for this.
New Scientist 23 Apr 1987 has an article “Earth’s mantle holds in the heat” which says “The temperature at the centre of the Earth is almost twice as high as was previously thought, scientists in California reported last week. …Scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and from the California Institute of Technology say that the temperature at the Earth’s core is about 6900 degrees kelvin. Earlier estimates put the temperature at the core at between 3000 and 4000 K.”
But, it appears to me that they are calculating the temperature by first assuming the centre is solid ball of iron.
I’m sorry, it’s on a google book page with a horrendously long address and I can’t cut and paste at the moment. Google “pressure at the centre of the earth temperature melting point of iron” and it’s on the first page: New Scientist – 23 Apr 1987 – Google Books Result
@ur momisugly kadaka
thanks for the info
@ur momisugly Myrrh
The link does not work
Michele – it worked when I tried it. What message do you get?
@ur momisugly Myrrh
The message :
“The following page cannot be found on this server:
http://www.scientificpsychic.com/timeline/timeline.html”
???
This isn’t making it any clearer…
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/inner_earth/inner1.htm
“The outer core is said to consist mainly of liquid iron, and the inner core of solid iron.”
“P waves can travel through solids, liquids, and gases, while S waves can only travel through solids”
– it then says:
“The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is a liquied, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth’s iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.”
Wouldn’t elements spinning in a ball of liquid be pushed to the outer edges?
vukcevic says:
February 8, 2011 at 1:16 am
..According to my hypothesis that is not the case, just drifting of the vortices around the globe, no catastrophe!
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
Andy Jackson’s lecture to AGU shows that the ‘science is not settled’. He thinks LOD is due to magnetic break, exactly as I suggested.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/lectures/lecture_videos/GP43C.shtml
And what about 6 year period oscillation in the Earth’s magnetic field?
Have you an answer to that one?
I do, it will be soon on my website.
~
Vuks I don’t think the conical vortexes are just drifting. Seems the solar disk is also missing a flux patch and has a weak southern hemisphereic location. I’m saying the phenomenom is planetary wide suggesting a higher source field. The gravitational focusing cone may also be a conical vortex, that strokes in and out as well as up and down along the heliospheric edge as evidenced by a our dent, warp. Dent and warp shape the sheath. I’m thinking the warp is showing the vector across the planetary and solar disks.