 |
|
yavoon
|
|
why is it almost certainly x^2? and I dont remember it being a 250k avg. I remember being "every 250k years"
certainly if there is valid sources for this its all good. but if its just conjecture then why bother?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Straybow
Lunar space suits are bulky gadgets designed to provide radiation protection. Astronauts were able to move easily in Lunar .16 gee gravity. The current design is lighter, but spacewalks are conducted in LEO well below the Van Allen Belts providing the bulk of protection against solar wind and flares.
As for reversals, these processes aren't as "clockwork" as some suggest. The statistical distribution is almost certainly a c² or similar weighting that isn't intuitively assessed as easily as a Gaussian. A 250k average could easily allow a 1000k interval around 2s (the upper 10% probability).
If Earth did enter a reversal transition we'd get nifty aurorae at all lattitudes. Other than that, duration and effects are a big unknown. |
Since it is not whether there will be a reversal, the question is how soon. It could happen "anytime" in the next 1000 years. The idea that the process is gradual is belied by the examples of weeks for a reversal to complete.
The next question, is what will be the effects on earth.
Since no one really knows the answer, we need someone to start finding out now.
Last edited by Ned on 06-05-2003 at 09:13
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Straybow, all we really know is that a statistically overdue reversal is in process. We have no idea what the threshold is for a reversal or what causes the different rates of reversal. Probably, the worst thing for the world is a slow reversal, one that take years, decades, millenia during which time the ionic winds from the Sun blast our atmosphere, stripping it away and heating it at the same time, perhaps killing the ozone layer, and inundating the world in harsh ultraviolet light and much higher radiation levels.
But a slow decay that is what seems to be happening now. |
Are you sure that magnetic field reversals ocur every 250,000 years? If magnetic field reversals were slow wouldn't you expect mass extinctions coinciding with field reversals?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
My Wife Hates CIV
|
|
Michigan
Jan 1970 time: 05:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Magnetic field has no effect on gamma rays. |
hmmm... i kinda thought this was the case also. what are all you rocket scientists talking about?? it's the atmosphere that blocks stuff like this... i thought. spacecraft need to be launched to view gamma rays from space as they dont reach the surface. but the spacecraft do not orbit high enough to be outside earths magnetic field. i could be wrong.
as far as warming up mars. maybe in a billion years when the sun is a bit brighter it will warm up on its own. a long time to wait i guess. perhaps get a big rock and orbit it around mars in a way to drag the planet in a bit.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
yavoon
|
|
at the very least Ned we could live in radiation sealed areas and develop plants that could withstand it. I guess thats not the very least. but its certainly a skeptics compromise.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001 time: 00:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Paramount's latest sci-fi thriller, The Core - directed by Englishman Jon Amiel, and starring Hilary S**** and Aaron Eckhart - depicts a world beset by just such a polar reversal, with radiation sweeping the planet.
The solution, according to the film, to be released next year, involves scientists drilling into Earth's mantle to set off a nuclear blast that will halt the reversal.
|
It doesn't strike you as suspicious that this article promotes a movie that's in development? I've read other articles, one over at BBC online, that have pointed to this one and debunked it entirely, claiming it's simply a PR piece.
PS Here's a quote from one article on the BBC web site.
quote: Whatever happens will not happen quickly. It will take thousands of years and there is no evidence that when it has happened in the past it has seriously affected life on Earth. |
Last edited by Willem on 07-05-2003 at 03:04
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Agreed. But terraforming will not work so long as the basic cause of the loss of atmosphere still exists: no magnetic field. |
The Earth's magnetic field wards off ionized radiation, but does it have any effect on the retention of atmospheric gases? Either way, large amounts of an inert gas would also be needed because a pure oxygen atmosphere would be unstable (and toxic).
quote:
We are going to have to figure on how to restart that before we can do anything else. On possiblity would be to maneuver a bunch of large asteroids into striking the planet to heat it up again. But I am sure that such actions would also leave the planet surface unihabitable for upwards of several million years. |
Hey, here's an idea: instead of slamming the asteroids into the surface of Mars, how about slamming them into Demos and Phobos? Perhaps if the moons were sufficiently large the tidal forces exerted on Mars would be enough to heat up the core of the planet sufficiently to liquify it, and hence form the convection currents of liquid magnetic metals that generate the Earth's magnetic field.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|