Re: Global warming a prelude to pole-reversal?


mmeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1152555312.207217.173480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tony" <ajw27703@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Reversing the polarity does not require that the earth 'flip'. There is
some evidence our magentic poles have reversed in the past, isn't
there? Big time problems for humankind if that happens, I think.

No, not really.

Mr Van Allen will lose his belt and we'll lose some important protection.

Again, no, not really. I really wonder where did the belief that the
Earth magnetic field is crucial for our radiation protection
originated.

The Earth has an atmosphere which is equivalent (as far as radiation
sheilding goes) to some 10 m of water or about 3 m or concrete. This
suffices for stopping all but the most energetic charged particle
radiation (and those charged particle which are energetic enough to go
through this "wall" won't be much defelcted by the Earth magnetic
field either. And as for non-charged radiation (neutrons and gammas)
well, obviously the magnetic field does nothing here.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"

Just finished Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"
and he seems to weigh atmosphere and magnetic field both
into the equation.
Solar flares aparently are funnelled towards the poles by
the field lines.
He seems to say we would be more exposed during a time
of pole reversal, which sometimes takes hundreds of
years.
John

.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast