Any natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.
But there is no such correlation.
odeon doesn't seem to understand the difference between "there is no such correlation" and "Tests of correlations between extinctions and reversals are difficult for a number of reasons". Microfossil extinctions are a poor method of determining whether or not extinctions occur during geomagnetic reversals because these are among the last organisms to be affected by the climate change that occurs during these events. Large animals are the ones most affected by climate change but since there's so many holes in the fossil record, we can't use that as a method to determine what's happened in the past. Instead we have to rely on mathematical models.
When the magnetic field weakens, solar radiation that is normally deflected back into space is instead absorbed by the atmosphere. Now as Peter pointed out, the atmosphere by itself can protect us from this direct radiation but then a pesky little thing called the Law of the Conservation of Energy kicks in. The atmosphere begins to heat up and generate secondary radiation. This is going to make the earth several degrees warmer. In a time where we are already dealing with an issue of global warming due to CO2 emissions, a drastic increase in solar radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere will be like throwing gasoline on the fire.
odeon claims an education in physics but can't even figure out how the law of the conservation of energy would come into play on an earth with only 5% of its magnetic field?? what a dumbfuck.
Let's see what was said:
Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.
What does that mean? Well, basically, someone analysed the available data and saw that there is no evidence. Did they use a time machine, as you suggested to Lit? No, they did what was possible to do, and this is what they found:
Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.
Does this little sentence discuss the possible (short or long term) consequences of the Earth lacking a magnetic field or possessing a severely weakened one? No. It just states that
Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.
OK. So did I discuss the possible consequences? Let's see. First I said:
You might want to reread the Wikipedia article you link to more carefully:
And in another post:
Any natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.
But there is no such correlation.
I certainly know why you are not a scientist. Moron.
Hmm. Did I discuss the possible consequences of a diminished magnetic field? No, not really. I did say one thing, though:
I certainly know why you are not a scientist. Moron.
That last bit is especially interesting.
You might want to start by considering what I did say, which basically was to go to the source *you* provided and show that here is doubt. The "apocalypse", as you chose to call it, is not a universally accepted fact, it is a theory and your source points at several possible outcomes, of which I chose to quote one.
But by all means, let's quote some more:
Another hypothesis by McCormac and Evans assumes that the Earth's field would disappear entirely during reversals.[43] They argue that the atmosphere of Mars may have been eroded away by the solar wind because it had no magnetic field to protect it. They predict that ions would be stripped away from Earth's atmosphere above 100 km. However, the evidence from paleointensity measurements is that the magnetic field does not disappear. Based on paleointensity data for the last 800,000 years,[44] the magnetopause is still estimated to be at about 3 Earth radii during the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal.[36] Even if the magnetic field disappeared, the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles.[45]
The emphasis is mine.
What does this all mean? Well, some suggest a reversal will have dire consequences for the planet. Others mean that there is evidence that it may not. The jury, as they say, is still out.
And yes, Scrap, I am a physicist. I have not worked in the field in 20+ years, only followed it, as things do not always work out as intended, but I do have some knowledge about these matters. I'm sure I have entirely missed some emerging fields, just as I'm sure that there are developments in my areas of expertise that I am not up to par with, but I do have a physics education. One of the basics we learned was to keep a critical eye when reading and not to jump to early conclusions.
What's your level of education in these areas? Or do you perhaps currently work in any of the related fields?
Or is Discovery Channel it?
