Magnetic field reversals, global warming & mutations.

[RichF]

This is my first post here, so don't be too hard on me. I had an epiphany the other day and would like to share it with you guys & gals. Feed back on my theory, good or bad is, welcome.

 

Assumption 1: The Earth's magnetic field swaps poles frequently in terms of geological years (10,000 - 40,000 years). At least that's a theory that I read.

 

Assumption 2: As the magnetic field breaks up and moves away from the poles towards the opposite poll, more and more radiation penetrates the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth begins to heat and as the fields reach the equator position; the polal region is most exposed to radiation causing melting of the ice caps and a serious rise in ocean levels. Once the fields begin to approach the opposite pole, the magnetic field begins to strengthen once again and the Earth begins to cool. Once the fields are entirely at the opposite poll, little radiation penetrates the atmosphere and the Earth begins to cool to the point of causing an ice age.

 

Assumption 3: Increased radiation from the above process causes increased mutations in life forms & therefore speeds up the evolutionary process.

 

So my theory is that the magnetic field reversal process causes the Earth's drastic warming and cooling as well the mutation of species. I'd like to tie this all in to the solar cycle, but I haven't got that one worked out yet.

 

The Universe works on cycles as does all of nature; some are boring and stagnant, some are fast and furious. What'cha think

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

[RichF]

This is my first post here, so don't be too hard on me. I had an epiphany the other day and would like to share it with you guys & gals. Feed back on my theory, good or bad is, welcome.

 

Assumption 1: The Earth's magnetic field swaps poles frequently in terms of geological years (10,000 - 40,000 years). At least that's a theory that I read.

 

Assumption 2: As the magnetic field breaks up and moves away from the poles towards the opposite poll, more and more radiation penetrates the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth begins to heat and as the fields reach the equator position; the polal region is most exposed to radiation causing melting of the ice caps and a serious rise in ocean levels. Once the fields begin to approach the opposite pole, the magnetic field begins to strengthen once again and the Earth begins to cool. Once the fields are entirely at the opposite poll, little radiation penetrates the atmosphere and the Earth begins to cool to the point of causing an ice age.

 

Assumption 3: Increased radiation from the above process causes increased mutations in life forms & therefore speeds up the evolutionary process.

 

So my theory is that the magnetic field reversal process causes the Earth's drastic warming and cooling as well the mutation of species. I'd like to tie this all in to the solar cycle, but I haven't got that one worked out yet.

 

The Universe works on cycles as does all of nature; some are boring and stagnant, some are fast and furious. What'cha think

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

[Xandrabeast]

I like it! I don't know much about those theories (except that the poles switch), but it's an interesting idea! I'm interested to see if there are any things that support or contradict this idea of your!

[Xandrabeast]

I like it! I don't know much about those theories (except that the poles switch), but it's an interesting idea! I'm interested to see if there are any things that support or contradict this idea of your!

[P_Rog]

i do remember watching some documentary about the switching of the poles and believe that it has been proven. I remember showing a computer model that predicted when the next switch would occur (it is continually switching). I think that it hasn't happened too many times in the history of the earth, so it is a very long process. I'm sure others can elaborate. Im not sure about the effects on the climate though.

[P_Rog]

i do remember watching some documentary about the switching of the poles and believe that it has been proven. I remember showing a computer model that predicted when the next switch would occur (it is continually switching). I think that it hasn't happened too many times in the history of the earth, so it is a very long process. I'm sure others can elaborate. Im not sure about the effects on the climate though.

[swansont]

This is my first post here' date=' so don't be too hard on me. I had an epiphany the other day and would like to share it with you guys & gals. Feed back on my theory, good or bad is, welcome.

 

[b']Assumption 1:[/b] The Earth's magnetic field swaps poles frequently in terms of geological years (10,000 - 40,000 years). At least that's a theory that I read.

 

Assumption 2: As the magnetic field breaks up and moves away from the poles towards the opposite poll, more and more radiation penetrates the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth begins to heat and as the fields reach the equator position; the polal region is most exposed to radiation causing melting of the ice caps and a serious rise in ocean levels. Once the fields begin to approach the opposite pole, the magnetic field begins to strengthen once again and the Earth begins to cool. Once the fields are entirely at the opposite poll, little radiation penetrates the atmosphere and the Earth begins to cool to the point of causing an ice age.

 

Assumption 3: Increased radiation from the above process causes increased mutations in life forms & therefore speeds up the evolutionary process.

 

So my theory is that the magnetic field reversal process causes the Earth's drastic warming and cooling as well the mutation of species. I'd like to tie this all in to the solar cycle, but I haven't got that one worked out yet.

 

The Universe works on cycles as does all of nature; some are boring and stagnant, some are fast and furious. What'cha think

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

 

Problem: The fields don't actually protect the poles from radiation - moving charges will "orbit" magnetic field lines (F = qv x B), so what really happens is that the magnetic field protects the equatorial/temperate areas by redirecting some charged particles toward the poles. Ever wonder why they are called the Northern Lights?

 

And it only affects charged particles.

 

 

edit to add: another theory slain by an ugly fact

[swansont]

This is my first post here' date=' so don't be too hard on me. I had an epiphany the other day and would like to share it with you guys & gals. Feed back on my theory, good or bad is, welcome.

 

[b']Assumption 1:[/b] The Earth's magnetic field swaps poles frequently in terms of geological years (10,000 - 40,000 years). At least that's a theory that I read.

 

Assumption 2: As the magnetic field breaks up and moves away from the poles towards the opposite poll, more and more radiation penetrates the Earth's atmosphere. The Earth begins to heat and as the fields reach the equator position; the polal region is most exposed to radiation causing melting of the ice caps and a serious rise in ocean levels. Once the fields begin to approach the opposite pole, the magnetic field begins to strengthen once again and the Earth begins to cool. Once the fields are entirely at the opposite poll, little radiation penetrates the atmosphere and the Earth begins to cool to the point of causing an ice age.

 

Assumption 3: Increased radiation from the above process causes increased mutations in life forms & therefore speeds up the evolutionary process.

 

So my theory is that the magnetic field reversal process causes the Earth's drastic warming and cooling as well the mutation of species. I'd like to tie this all in to the solar cycle, but I haven't got that one worked out yet.

 

The Universe works on cycles as does all of nature; some are boring and stagnant, some are fast and furious. What'cha think

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

 

Problem: The fields don't actually protect the poles from radiation - moving charges will "orbit" magnetic field lines (F = qv x B), so what really happens is that the magnetic field protects the equatorial/temperate areas by redirecting some charged particles toward the poles. Ever wonder why they are called the Northern Lights?

 

And it only affects charged particles.

 

 

edit to add: another theory slain by an ugly fact

[RichF]

Problem: The fields don't actually protect the poles from radiation - moving charges will "orbit" magnetic field lines (F = qv x B)' date=' so what really happens is that the magnetic field protects the equatorial/temperate areas by redirecting some charged particles [i']toward[/i] the poles. Ever wonder why they are called the Northern Lights?

 

And it only affects charged particles.

 

 

edit to add: another theory slain by an ugly fact

 

 

Drats, you spoil my fun.

[RichF]

Problem: The fields don't actually protect the poles from radiation - moving charges will "orbit" magnetic field lines (F = qv x B)' date=' so what really happens is that the magnetic field protects the equatorial/temperate areas by redirecting some charged particles [i']toward[/i] the poles. Ever wonder why they are called the Northern Lights?

 

And it only affects charged particles.

 

 

edit to add: another theory slain by an ugly fact

 

 

Drats, you spoil my fun.

[RichF]

You know now that I think about it....

 

As you can see below, the magnetic field blocks the solar wind. Charged particles are also known as radiation. When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole.

 

 

This results in a weaker magnetic field allowing more radiation in and would heat the Earth. When the fields reallign at the opposite pole, they allow far less radiation in causing a cooling effect.

 

To quote National Geographic....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

"Earth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles.

 

Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. "

 

 

Top: A simulation of Earth's magnetic field structure. Bottom: An image of what Earth's magnetic field might look like during a reversal

 

Here's an mpg of the above reversal simultation.

http://www.psc.edu/research/graphics/gallery/CORRECTno_earth.mpg

 

I here by declare this a valid theory.

[RichF]

You know now that I think about it....

 

As you can see below, the magnetic field blocks the solar wind. Charged particles are also known as radiation. When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole.

 

 

This results in a weaker magnetic field allowing more radiation in and would heat the Earth. When the fields reallign at the opposite pole, they allow far less radiation in causing a cooling effect.

 

To quote National Geographic....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

"Earth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles.

 

Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. "

 

 

Top: A simulation of Earth's magnetic field structure. Bottom: An image of what Earth's magnetic field might look like during a reversal

 

Here's an mpg of the above reversal simultation.

http://www.psc.edu/research/graphics/gallery/CORRECTno_earth.mpg

 

I here by declare this a valid theory.

[Mokele]

As was already pointed out, the magnetic field only blocks charged particles, and I doubt those have much of an impact in terms of causing germ-line mutations. Iirc, most mutations have more to do with replication errors in the process of making more DNA than with radiation, though radiation can cause them as well, of course. But generally that means EM radiation, which the magnetic field doesn't affect.

 

Also, I have a poster behind me showing, among other things, the pole switches (those we know of) and the history of life. Many major diversifications occured when the pole was stable for millions of years, and many times when it was switching positions like a porn star, nothing terribly interesting was happening evolutionarily.

 

IMHO, the rate of mutation doesn't play nearly as big of a role as the selective pressures operating. So even if this does cause any increase in mutations, it's at best a minor player in the history of life.

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

As was already pointed out, the magnetic field only blocks charged particles, and I doubt those have much of an impact in terms of causing germ-line mutations. Iirc, most mutations have more to do with replication errors in the process of making more DNA than with radiation, though radiation can cause them as well, of course. But generally that means EM radiation, which the magnetic field doesn't affect.

 

Also, I have a poster behind me showing, among other things, the pole switches (those we know of) and the history of life. Many major diversifications occured when the pole was stable for millions of years, and many times when it was switching positions like a porn star, nothing terribly interesting was happening evolutionarily.

 

IMHO, the rate of mutation doesn't play nearly as big of a role as the selective pressures operating. So even if this does cause any increase in mutations, it's at best a minor player in the history of life.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

To quote National Geographic....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

"Earth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles.

 

Without our planet's magnetic field' date=' Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. "

 

...

 

I here by declare this a valid theory. [/quote']

 

Um, your quote says what would happen if there was no magnetic field. Not that there would be no magnetic field.

 

From NASA:

 

"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."

 

Note that they also show those images of what a reversal might look like, and there is actually a field present. The field doesn't vanish, so talking about what might happen if there was no field is moot.

[swansont]

To quote National Geographic....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

"Earth's geodynamo creates a magnetic field that shields most of the habited parts of our planet from charged particles that come mostly from the sun. The field deflects the speeding particles toward Earth's Poles.

 

Without our planet's magnetic field' date=' Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity. "

 

...

 

I here by declare this a valid theory. [/quote']

 

Um, your quote says what would happen if there was no magnetic field. Not that there would be no magnetic field.

 

From NASA:

 

"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."

 

Note that they also show those images of what a reversal might look like, and there is actually a field present. The field doesn't vanish, so talking about what might happen if there was no field is moot.

[RichF]

The idea of a failing magnetic field was not one I intended to portrey. As I stated at the top of my previous post....

 

"When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole."

 

As for the "it just keeps out charged partlicles arguement"....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html

"Magnetic energy generated in the Earth's core results in a geomagnetic field. This phenomenon, which makes compass navigation possible, also deflects and absorbs harmful solar radiation."

 

In response into new theories on how often magnetic shifts occur, please read...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-04a.html

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

 

 

In repsonse to....

"most mutations have more to do with replication errors in the process of making more DNA than with radiation, though radiation can cause them as well, of course. But generally that means EM radiation, which the magnetic field doesn't affect."

 

As far as mutations go. Iirc, long term exposure to even low radiation sources can cause cellular mutations...such as cancer. I'm not talking about monkey's growing wings, but if a mutation was passed on into the general population that provided an advantage...it will eventually permiate throughout the population.

 

[RichF]

The idea of a failing magnetic field was not one I intended to portrey. As I stated at the top of my previous post....

 

"When the field line terminators are together at the poles they make one large field; however with a reversal the field line terminators separate making a bunch of smaller, weaker fields until they once again rejoin at the opposite pole."

 

As for the "it just keeps out charged partlicles arguement"....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html

"Magnetic energy generated in the Earth's core results in a geomagnetic field. This phenomenon, which makes compass navigation possible, also deflects and absorbs harmful solar radiation."

 

In response into new theories on how often magnetic shifts occur, please read...

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-04a.html

http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html

 

 

In repsonse to....

"most mutations have more to do with replication errors in the process of making more DNA than with radiation, though radiation can cause them as well, of course. But generally that means EM radiation, which the magnetic field doesn't affect."

 

As far as mutations go. Iirc, long term exposure to even low radiation sources can cause cellular mutations...such as cancer. I'm not talking about monkey's growing wings, but if a mutation was passed on into the general population that provided an advantage...it will eventually permiate throughout the population.

 

[swansont]

As for the "it just keeps out charged partlicles arguement"....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html

"Magnetic energy generated in the Earth's core results in a geomagnetic field. This phenomenon' date=' which makes compass navigation possible, also deflects and absorbs harmful solar radiation."[/i']

 

The last statement does not refute the first.

[swansont]

As for the "it just keeps out charged partlicles arguement"....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/earth_poles_991027.html

"Magnetic energy generated in the Earth's core results in a geomagnetic field. This phenomenon' date=' which makes compass navigation possible, also deflects and absorbs harmful solar radiation."[/i']

 

The last statement does not refute the first.

[Mokele]

As far as mutations go. Iirc, long term exposure to even low radiation sources can cause cellular mutations...such as cancer. I'm not talking about monkey's growing wings, but if a mutation was passed on into the general population that provided an advantage...it will eventually permiate throughout the population.

 

Of course, but I disagree that it's a *significant* factor (It may be a factor, but not a big one), based on two things:

 

1) mutations caused by radiation are *much* more likely to hit somatic cells, rather than germ cells, and thus more likely to cause cancer than any mutation that'd be passed down between generations. I'm not sure if anyone's ever done a real study on it, but I strongly suspect that most mutations in germ cells are the result of internal erros (DNA replication faults, etc) rather than external causes. Not all, but most. If that is the case (and I might be talking out of a non-input digestive orifice, so it's not definite), even doubling the mutation rate wouldn't do much. If I pull numbers from the aforementioned orifice and say 98% of mutation is caused by DNA errors and the like, and 2% radiation/carcinogens, then tripling the radition-induced mutation rate would only cause a 4% increase in mutation. Hardly a major event.

 

2) We aren't talking about EM radiation, just charged particles, mostly high-energy protons (which, in turn, are low-energy compared to other radiation forms). While they can probably cause genetic damage, I'm not sure if they'd go more than skin-deep, which would likely prevent alteration of the germ cells (remember, many animals have internal testes as well as internal ovaries). So the only type of radiation affected might be useless in evolutionary terms anyway (aside from causing a bit of skin cancer here and there).

 

Mokele

[Mokele]

As far as mutations go. Iirc, long term exposure to even low radiation sources can cause cellular mutations...such as cancer. I'm not talking about monkey's growing wings, but if a mutation was passed on into the general population that provided an advantage...it will eventually permiate throughout the population.

 

Of course, but I disagree that it's a *significant* factor (It may be a factor, but not a big one), based on two things:

 

1) mutations caused by radiation are *much* more likely to hit somatic cells, rather than germ cells, and thus more likely to cause cancer than any mutation that'd be passed down between generations. I'm not sure if anyone's ever done a real study on it, but I strongly suspect that most mutations in germ cells are the result of internal erros (DNA replication faults, etc) rather than external causes. Not all, but most. If that is the case (and I might be talking out of a non-input digestive orifice, so it's not definite), even doubling the mutation rate wouldn't do much. If I pull numbers from the aforementioned orifice and say 98% of mutation is caused by DNA errors and the like, and 2% radiation/carcinogens, then tripling the radition-induced mutation rate would only cause a 4% increase in mutation. Hardly a major event.

 

2) We aren't talking about EM radiation, just charged particles, mostly high-energy protons (which, in turn, are low-energy compared to other radiation forms). While they can probably cause genetic damage, I'm not sure if they'd go more than skin-deep, which would likely prevent alteration of the germ cells (remember, many animals have internal testes as well as internal ovaries). So the only type of radiation affected might be useless in evolutionary terms anyway (aside from causing a bit of skin cancer here and there).

 

Mokele

[RichF]

Ok, what if I were to modify the theory so that increased solar radiation does not increase the evolutionary tract, but climate change caused by said radition does. Now don't read this like this happens over a couple of years, it takes a lot of time.

 

I'm tired of typing this over and over so I'll be short....

1. The magnetic field lines break apart, moving away from the poles.

 

2. The planet heats causing a global climate change. Nature must adapt.

 

3. MANY years later, the magnetic field lines reconverge at the opposite poles allowing the least amount of solar radiation in. The planet eventually cools and an ice age begins. Nature must adapt again.

 

Oh, and my Solar Cycle tie in....

 

The amount of charged particles (ie. solar acivity) during a solar cycle can cause minute variations in the position of the magnetic field lines. An overabundance or lack of solar activity be resposible for short term climate changes. If I'm not mistaken, the Farmer's Almanac actually predicts weather patterns from the previous years solar activity.

 

I'm also theorizing that large amounts of solar activity over an extende period may cause enough irregularities in magnetic field line positions that would eventually causing them to reverse. May sound crazy, but hey it's a thought.

 

Sorry for any misspellings, I was typing fast.

[Mokele]

That's all well and good, but also entirely hypothetical. Is there actually any data linking long term climate change to pole reversals?

 

I mean, I can come up with lots of plausible possibilities for why climate changes and how it affects nature, ranging from animal farts to aliens. What makes something a theory, rather than just a hypothesis, is data. Does the data support it?

 

I did a bit of digging: the last reversal was around about 780,000 years ago. We've had 6 ice ages come and go since then, and many before then.

 

So basically, what I'm saying is that, while it may sound good (or not), what really matters is if the data supports it. What little digging I just did seems to say "no".

 

Mokele

[RichF]

That's all well and good, but also entirely hypothetical. Is there actually any data linking long term climate change to pole reversals?

 

Ok, I'm tired of repeating myself. Can we agree or disagree on some things....

1. The planet's magnetic field blocks solar radiation.

2. Magnetic field lines do fluctuate.

3. Fluctuations in the magnetic field lines do cause more or less solar radiation into the planet's atmosphere.

4. Increased/decreased solar radiation can cause heating/cooling of the planet's surface.

 

I'm tired of typing this. If you have a specific point that you disagree with, please state it and back it up.

 

I did a bit of digging: the last reversal was around about 780,000 years ago. We've had 6 ice ages come and go since then, and many before then.

 

I linked a NASA study in a previous post relating to field reversal periods, please read it. As far as Ice ages, see above comment relating to increased/decreased solar radiation resulting in fluctuations in the magnetic field line terminators.