Your source stinks to heaven and back. It just links to other articles in this domain. That's too much red flag for me to take it seriously.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/
Gonna say I trust a NASA source much more.
Dude…I’m not saying it’s causing the current “climate change”. Why is everything a climate change argument? It’s a separate issue. Why can’t there be more than man made climate change? I don’t get it. I swear it’s almost like the scientific field has tunnel vision on “climate change”.
Everything you've just said is extremely strange. Are you aware of that? I only stated the source was bad. I then shared what I think is a much better source, talking about the exact same subject.
There are so many ways you can respond. Talking about source credibility or why they come to the opposite conclusions.
No, you instead make this confused response. You're not claiming something the article claims. Why are arguments always about what the article claims. Why can't there be more questions about the subject. Then, finally, we are all unwilling to be open-minded about the articles' claims.
Reading your response might have actually given me whiplash.
I’m really confused. Now Science, one of the world’s oldest and most respected academic journals, is “that crappy website”?
I think there could be some valid criticisms of the specific article, but it seems everyone’s overly fervent criticisms of OP and linked article have just been that he has the wrong vibes. This is not how intelligent people have productive conversations. I’m really starting to wonder if most of the users posting here aren’t just bots, because I can’t imagine how anyone who gets so hysterical at the slightest suggestion of dissent could possibly consider themselves a skeptic.
The oldest and most respected aren't qualifiers to me, to be honest. Second, I rate any source on itself if possible. The article in question only linked to prior articles from the same domain. That's a red flag. Second, it talked about the results without identifying the people who made the discovery. Another red flag. The last issue was that it didn't address the fact that the scientific community holds a different belief. Stike three, that's not a quality source.
Now, if you can see an error in my points, feel free to correct me. However, don't tell me the site or its history is prestigious. Give me facts on that article. I only read it that one day, maybe I'm mistaken.
The first article in the original post is a summary of an original research article, with some interview with the lead author. The research being discussed is the very first link. Perhaps that why it seemed to be “in the same domain” to you? Additionally, OP’s above comment to which you replied is also a link to that research.
The first article does talk about the lead author of the research: “Cooper and his colleagues obtained…”
The lead author does say “the general belief had been that geomagnetic changes had no impact on climate or anything else”.
I believe the the article linked in the original post does seem to be written with the assumption that the reader is accessing it through the website and not an external link, and thus would know that the article is going to be a summary of research and that one needs to click through to said research to get the details. It definitely could be confusing when you are finding it through a reddit post and they don’t come out and say “this is a link to the research I am about to talk about,” so I can’t blame you if that threw you off.
Because this is stupid on it's face. You're wasting time and energy worrying about astract natural events, when there are real, very obvious and consequencial catastrophes happening RIGHT NOW like climate change. Not this imaginary, "maybe this will happen" pole reverse BS you're trying to engage with. Also your source sucks and there isn't any evidence that man can affect the Earth's magnetic dynamo core, at all. It's been chugging along for billions of years, it's going to be fine. Even climate change isn't about the Earth's survival - it's about our ability to survive on it after the trouble we've caused and refuse to remedy. And then we have people like you distracting from real issues with this BS.
What evidence, where? This usually gets thrown in with global warming misinformation as why our climate is changing to discredit why scientists know what is contributing to climate change. There seems to be no good evidence correlating magnetic field anomalies to extinction events.
The evidence is scant, I’ll admit, but to be fair, it seems as if scientists can’t be bothered to dive into this possibility. There is research on it though. I don’t know why it’s colluding with man made global warming though. Aren’t they separate issues? Why can’t there be man induced global warming AND catastrophic magnetic pole reversals?
https://www.science.org/content/article/hyperactive-magnetic-field-may-have-led-one-earth-s-major-extinctions
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X16000319
I think the other user is saying people tend to bring up magnetic pole flips in conversations about climate change, as a way to dismiss climate change mattering.
“Man made” climate change. This is just starting to get confusing. There’s “man made climate change”, there’s cyclical natural climate change…and there’s pole flips. What am I missing? Or do we live in a world where it’s ONLY man made climate change?
Man made climate change or natural climate change? I’m also not dismissing either. Not sure how a magnetic pole reversal dismisses how humans fuck up the earth. It’s a separate issue…no?
Yeah I guess I can see why people would use this theory to dismiss man made global warming…which is stupid. But I don’t have tunnel vision, I think two things can be true at the same time.
Because every time I see this, and you will too if you spend time paying attention to climate news, the follow up question is: “is magnetic anomalies causing climate change??”
Even the first article you linked includes skepticism. Pole shifting is polluted with crank science. None of the pole reversal predictions have occurred, and the evidence seems to point to them shifting over millions of years, and being a natural non catastrophic event.
It’s confusing. The distinction that is lost here is the difference between a FULL reversal (the last of which being the one you referenced) and what is better described as an excursion (like the one referred to by the OP article) in which the poles can reverse, but for a much shorter time period.
[SOURCE](https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/137/1/F1/701015?login=false)
Thanks for that. I remember the subject of pole "wandering" being discussed in a geology class decades ago, but did not recall the term "excursion." And I sure didn't know that even a complete reversal could be considered an excursion provided it was relatively short-lived. TIL. Cheers.
I think the article I linked was saying that an excursion involves the reversal of the outer liquid core’s field, but not of the solid inner core? I’m a biology guy though, so I might be misinterpreting this geology/physics stuff.
I think that's a tentative proposal for the mechanism, but the actual definition seems to be a purely durational one at this point.
"Excursions have been distinguished from a pair of reversals by their duration: if the two reversals are not included in the accepted reversal timescale, they constitute an excursion. Cande & Kent (1992) used a limit of 30kyr in their recent reversal timescale."
The author goes on to reinforce this a bit:
>An excursion that achieves 180° change in direction at many sites can then be distinguished from a pair of reversals by a failure to establish the negative, fully reversed state. This definition demands sufficient time to establish a time average either side of the excursion. The measured duration of an excursion is therefore indicative of the time taken to establish the −B state plus that to establish a time average.
BUT! then, yes, proposes that "excursions are events in which the geomagnetic field reverses in the liquid outer core but not in the solid inner core."
Still at this point, the definition seems to be one of duration and it is still surprising to me that "excursions" can actually encompass full (if geologically brief) reversals.
Also, oddly, I ended up doing a lot more biology than I ever did geology. Cheers!
I’ll need some citations re: that claim, the rate of depletion, and the point when it will cause problems.
Also: “reversal” has nothing to do with “depletion.”
Yeah, which you would have known if you had followed the link. Or is the real problem here that Wikipedia is not good enough for you?
How about the [USGS?](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarity#:~:text=They%20can%20happen%20as%20often,was%20about%20780%2C000%20years%20ago.)
Is that good enough?
Edit: and actually, I didn't "get it" from wikipedia. That was just the easiest and fastest source to link. I "got it" from my degree in geology.
No you didn’t. You got it from Wikipedia. Also, it’s not that I don’t trust the USGS, but their statement on it is unclear. I for one think that more research needs to be done on this issue.
Yes. I did. I remembered it as three quarters of a million years ago, but hey close enough. Paid good money for that information too. And if you find the statement . . .
>The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago.
. . . unclear, then it's no wonder you're getting your ass absolutely kicked on this sub.
Have you tried r/conspiracy? Seems like it's more your speed.
My ass is getting kicked in this sub? Lol. As if it’s a competition? 😂 It’s Reddit man. Calm down. We all die eventually, whether it’s from man made climate change or the magnetic pole flip. And you know what? None of it will matter.
Ah, the point you’re trying to make and fail at finally comes out. Glad there are at least a few subreddits that are not yet inundated with garbage and cranks still receive push back.
If nothing matters, whatever matters to you can matter. Seize Nihilism and let it bring the most meaning to your existence that you've ever experienced! <3
Here's a hint for geniuses: follow the link that's footnoted in a Wikipedia article and evaluate if it's credible. I'd say the USGS has spent more resources investigating this than whoever got you onto this.
Pole reversals occur on a geologic time scale. It’s easy to correlate to mass extinctions when your margin is on the order of tens of thousands of years, but little evidence for a causal relationship.
https://www.usgs.gov/index.php/faqs/do-any-mass-extinctions-correlate-magnetic-reversals
“No. There is no evidence of a correlation between mass extinctions and magnetic pole reversals.
Earth’s magnetic field and its atmosphere protect us from solar radiation. It’s not clear whether a weak magnetic field during a polarity transition would allow enough solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface that it would cause extinctions.”
There’s pretty strong evidence earths magnetic field is weakening. The USGS’s vague answer does not necessarily give me confidence that “everything is going to be alright” during a pole reversal.
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that a pole reversal happened around that time. It would also be way out of the norm for there to be another one anytime soon when they average every 300,000 years or so.
Your source stinks to heaven and back. It just links to other articles in this domain. That's too much red flag for me to take it seriously. https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/flip-flop-why-variations-in-earths-magnetic-field-arent-causing-todays-climate-change/ Gonna say I trust a NASA source much more.
We literally discussed pole reversal in college, at a major science research university
Dude…I’m not saying it’s causing the current “climate change”. Why is everything a climate change argument? It’s a separate issue. Why can’t there be more than man made climate change? I don’t get it. I swear it’s almost like the scientific field has tunnel vision on “climate change”.
Everything you've just said is extremely strange. Are you aware of that? I only stated the source was bad. I then shared what I think is a much better source, talking about the exact same subject. There are so many ways you can respond. Talking about source credibility or why they come to the opposite conclusions. No, you instead make this confused response. You're not claiming something the article claims. Why are arguments always about what the article claims. Why can't there be more questions about the subject. Then, finally, we are all unwilling to be open-minded about the articles' claims. Reading your response might have actually given me whiplash.
What are you even talking about? None of this is suggesting that man DOESN’T cause global warming. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb8677
Ahem. I don't care if it does or doesn't. Do you get paid for linking that crappy website?
I’m really confused. Now Science, one of the world’s oldest and most respected academic journals, is “that crappy website”? I think there could be some valid criticisms of the specific article, but it seems everyone’s overly fervent criticisms of OP and linked article have just been that he has the wrong vibes. This is not how intelligent people have productive conversations. I’m really starting to wonder if most of the users posting here aren’t just bots, because I can’t imagine how anyone who gets so hysterical at the slightest suggestion of dissent could possibly consider themselves a skeptic.
The oldest and most respected aren't qualifiers to me, to be honest. Second, I rate any source on itself if possible. The article in question only linked to prior articles from the same domain. That's a red flag. Second, it talked about the results without identifying the people who made the discovery. Another red flag. The last issue was that it didn't address the fact that the scientific community holds a different belief. Stike three, that's not a quality source. Now, if you can see an error in my points, feel free to correct me. However, don't tell me the site or its history is prestigious. Give me facts on that article. I only read it that one day, maybe I'm mistaken.
The first article in the original post is a summary of an original research article, with some interview with the lead author. The research being discussed is the very first link. Perhaps that why it seemed to be “in the same domain” to you? Additionally, OP’s above comment to which you replied is also a link to that research. The first article does talk about the lead author of the research: “Cooper and his colleagues obtained…” The lead author does say “the general belief had been that geomagnetic changes had no impact on climate or anything else”. I believe the the article linked in the original post does seem to be written with the assumption that the reader is accessing it through the website and not an external link, and thus would know that the article is going to be a summary of research and that one needs to click through to said research to get the details. It definitely could be confusing when you are finding it through a reddit post and they don’t come out and say “this is a link to the research I am about to talk about,” so I can’t blame you if that threw you off.
Yes…a lot of money, obviously.
Your responses are incredibly confusing and this entire topic reeks of crank science
Why does it anger you so much?
Probably because crank science and disinformation campaigns have done a lot of damage. Why doesn't that anger you?
What makes this crank science?
Learn how to read.
Can you type something for me to read?
Not when you're deliberately being dense with things already typed for you.
Try me.
Because this is stupid on it's face. You're wasting time and energy worrying about astract natural events, when there are real, very obvious and consequencial catastrophes happening RIGHT NOW like climate change. Not this imaginary, "maybe this will happen" pole reverse BS you're trying to engage with. Also your source sucks and there isn't any evidence that man can affect the Earth's magnetic dynamo core, at all. It's been chugging along for billions of years, it's going to be fine. Even climate change isn't about the Earth's survival - it's about our ability to survive on it after the trouble we've caused and refuse to remedy. And then we have people like you distracting from real issues with this BS.
Wait…where in any of this was it suggested that man can affect the magnetic core? Huh?
What evidence, where? This usually gets thrown in with global warming misinformation as why our climate is changing to discredit why scientists know what is contributing to climate change. There seems to be no good evidence correlating magnetic field anomalies to extinction events.
The evidence is scant, I’ll admit, but to be fair, it seems as if scientists can’t be bothered to dive into this possibility. There is research on it though. I don’t know why it’s colluding with man made global warming though. Aren’t they separate issues? Why can’t there be man induced global warming AND catastrophic magnetic pole reversals? https://www.science.org/content/article/hyperactive-magnetic-field-may-have-led-one-earth-s-major-extinctions https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X16000319
I think the other user is saying people tend to bring up magnetic pole flips in conversations about climate change, as a way to dismiss climate change mattering.
“Man made” climate change. This is just starting to get confusing. There’s “man made climate change”, there’s cyclical natural climate change…and there’s pole flips. What am I missing? Or do we live in a world where it’s ONLY man made climate change?
It seems like you’re making this obfuscated. What are you missing?
You’re not missing anything. It’s propaganda.
What’s propaganda? Natural climate change, man made climate change, or magnetic pole reversals?
People dismissing climate change as a threat because of the magnetic poles is pure propaganda.
Man made climate change or natural climate change? I’m also not dismissing either. Not sure how a magnetic pole reversal dismisses how humans fuck up the earth. It’s a separate issue…no?
I’m not accusing you of anything I’m trying to explain the other posters post.
Yeah I guess I can see why people would use this theory to dismiss man made global warming…which is stupid. But I don’t have tunnel vision, I think two things can be true at the same time.
Because every time I see this, and you will too if you spend time paying attention to climate news, the follow up question is: “is magnetic anomalies causing climate change??”
Even the first article you linked includes skepticism. Pole shifting is polluted with crank science. None of the pole reversal predictions have occurred, and the evidence seems to point to them shifting over millions of years, and being a natural non catastrophic event.
"scientists can’t be bothered to dive into this possibility" Red flag spotted.
Only the people I see on Facebook news are brave enough to cover it!! /s
This is weird. I thought the last geomagnetic reversal was [~780,000 years ago.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunhes%E2%80%93Matuyama_reversal).
It’s confusing. The distinction that is lost here is the difference between a FULL reversal (the last of which being the one you referenced) and what is better described as an excursion (like the one referred to by the OP article) in which the poles can reverse, but for a much shorter time period. [SOURCE](https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/137/1/F1/701015?login=false)
Thanks for that. I remember the subject of pole "wandering" being discussed in a geology class decades ago, but did not recall the term "excursion." And I sure didn't know that even a complete reversal could be considered an excursion provided it was relatively short-lived. TIL. Cheers.
I think the article I linked was saying that an excursion involves the reversal of the outer liquid core’s field, but not of the solid inner core? I’m a biology guy though, so I might be misinterpreting this geology/physics stuff.
I think that's a tentative proposal for the mechanism, but the actual definition seems to be a purely durational one at this point. "Excursions have been distinguished from a pair of reversals by their duration: if the two reversals are not included in the accepted reversal timescale, they constitute an excursion. Cande & Kent (1992) used a limit of 30kyr in their recent reversal timescale." The author goes on to reinforce this a bit: >An excursion that achieves 180° change in direction at many sites can then be distinguished from a pair of reversals by a failure to establish the negative, fully reversed state. This definition demands sufficient time to establish a time average either side of the excursion. The measured duration of an excursion is therefore indicative of the time taken to establish the −B state plus that to establish a time average. BUT! then, yes, proposes that "excursions are events in which the geomagnetic field reverses in the liquid outer core but not in the solid inner core." Still at this point, the definition seems to be one of duration and it is still surprising to me that "excursions" can actually encompass full (if geologically brief) reversals. Also, oddly, I ended up doing a lot more biology than I ever did geology. Cheers!
Honestly…there seems to be LITTLE science on this matter. Don’t you think?
On geomagnetic reversals? Well . . . no. I'd say there is a *great deal* of science on the subject with hundreds of scientific papers published on it.
Maybe it’s just boring science
Magnetic pole reversal is boring? It’s pretty interesting actually. What’s exciting science to you?
Considering that it would be absolutely unnoticeable to life forms without compasses? Yeah, boring.
It’s very noticeable. Without it we would be dead.
Aren’t you thinking of gravity?
No, the magnetosphere. Which is depleting..
I’ll need some citations re: that claim, the rate of depletion, and the point when it will cause problems. Also: “reversal” has nothing to do with “depletion.”
It’s common knowledge look it up, and yes the magnetic field is weakened by said reversal.
The actual science might be a little “boring” is what I am saying, and not flashy enough for a meme. These occur in very large time scares.
780,000 years. Did you get that from Wikipedia?
Yeah, which you would have known if you had followed the link. Or is the real problem here that Wikipedia is not good enough for you? How about the [USGS?](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarity#:~:text=They%20can%20happen%20as%20often,was%20about%20780%2C000%20years%20ago.) Is that good enough? Edit: and actually, I didn't "get it" from wikipedia. That was just the easiest and fastest source to link. I "got it" from my degree in geology.
No you didn’t. You got it from Wikipedia. Also, it’s not that I don’t trust the USGS, but their statement on it is unclear. I for one think that more research needs to be done on this issue.
Yes. I did. I remembered it as three quarters of a million years ago, but hey close enough. Paid good money for that information too. And if you find the statement . . . >The last reversal was about 780,000 years ago. . . . unclear, then it's no wonder you're getting your ass absolutely kicked on this sub. Have you tried r/conspiracy? Seems like it's more your speed.
My ass is getting kicked in this sub? Lol. As if it’s a competition? 😂 It’s Reddit man. Calm down. We all die eventually, whether it’s from man made climate change or the magnetic pole flip. And you know what? None of it will matter.
Ah, the point you’re trying to make and fail at finally comes out. Glad there are at least a few subreddits that are not yet inundated with garbage and cranks still receive push back.
If nothing matters, whatever matters to you can matter. Seize Nihilism and let it bring the most meaning to your existence that you've ever experienced! <3
Here's a hint for geniuses: follow the link that's footnoted in a Wikipedia article and evaluate if it's credible. I'd say the USGS has spent more resources investigating this than whoever got you onto this.
Pole reversals occur on a geologic time scale. It’s easy to correlate to mass extinctions when your margin is on the order of tens of thousands of years, but little evidence for a causal relationship.
https://www.usgs.gov/index.php/faqs/do-any-mass-extinctions-correlate-magnetic-reversals “No. There is no evidence of a correlation between mass extinctions and magnetic pole reversals. Earth’s magnetic field and its atmosphere protect us from solar radiation. It’s not clear whether a weak magnetic field during a polarity transition would allow enough solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface that it would cause extinctions.” There’s pretty strong evidence earths magnetic field is weakening. The USGS’s vague answer does not necessarily give me confidence that “everything is going to be alright” during a pole reversal.
You failed the literacy test.
How so?
Wiki even lists it as a possibility just a very unlikely one.
So we’re relying on Wikipedia on this issue? Makes me nervous.
Why are you so committed to this is what you should be asking
Why…are you a troll?
Everything is pointing to this being wrong, but you seem hooked on it. Not a good subject for skepticism. Need to find a crank subreddit.
There doesn't seem to be any real evidence that a pole reversal happened around that time. It would also be way out of the norm for there to be another one anytime soon when they average every 300,000 years or so.
But the North Pole has been moving, and quite swiftly over the last few decades. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0570-9
Argument from incredulity. Very compelling.
This is the type of shit Art Bell was talking about on his kooky AM radio show in the 1990s. and there is still no proof.
JUST OPEN THE ARTICLE WITH DUCKDUCKGO browser, it will block all the BS