The New York Times On Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flop

TolkiEinstein writes "The New York Times reports that, relatively speaking, compasses may soon point South. It's long been known that Earth flips magnetically every half-million years or so, and, with the north pole's magnetic field at about 10-15 percent [less than] its strength of 150 years ago, many geologists feel a flip is coming up. Computer simulations also suggest that the current state of the magnetic field is indicative of an upcoming flip. Though it would take hundreds of years to complete, the impact on life may be significant but not catastrophic, including phenomena such as power-outages, satellite malfunctions and disruptions in the rhythmic functions of some animals such as loggerhead turtles. The EU plans to launch a trio of satellites in 2009 to assume polar orbits & monitor the field." (Cross your fingers for some nice solar wind.) Update: 07/13 17:02 GMT by T : Note: the summary here originally misstated the Times' article; the field 's strength has decreased 10-15 percent, rather than to 10-15 percent.

Comments

Worldwide Aurora

[TyrranzzX]

And, since the magnetic field will be weakened, there'll be a supposed worldwide 24/7 aurora. Now that's kewl.

Re:Turtles

[sould]

Could they have possibly picked a more random animal for that example?

For some reason this made me curious about turtles & magnetism- a little research turned up this guy's page about turtle migration at UNC.

It includes this gem:

To determine how turtles respond to magnetic fields that exist in different parts of the ocean or to magnetic field elements (such as inclination and intensity) that they encounter while migrating, each hatchling was placed into a nylon-Lycra harness as shown below. [empaphis mine]

Image is here

Re:Why read deliberate dis-info at all. . ?

[October_30th]

that the evidence is being picked and then editorially filtered by very biased men.

As a Physicist I can tell you that that is exactly like science works and that it has worked well for centuries.

There is a method that, when put bluntly, is like this: "If you put forward an extraordinary, off-mainstream hypothesis you've better a) come from a respectable university/research group, b) show some extraordinary, easily reproducible evidence for it too and c) get ready for some serious ad hominem bashing, ridicule and possibly loss of funds". It all comes with the territory.

I'm glad popular science mags like SA adhere to this standard.