How do you think the unthinkable?With an ithberg.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You rang?If you are asking for my opinion then I'd have to side with this scrapeheap bloke.
Quote from: Scrapheap on May 09, 2013, 07:02:07 AMQuote from: odeon on May 09, 2013, 03:45:24 AMAny natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.But there is no such correlation.odeon doesn't seem to understand the difference between "there is no such correlation" and "Tests of correlations between extinctions and reversals are difficult for a number of reasons". Microfossil extinctions are a poor method of determining whether or not extinctions occur during geomagnetic reversals because these are among the last organisms to be affected by the climate change that occurs during these events. Large animals are the ones most affected by climate change but since there's so many holes in the fossil record, we can't use that as a method to determine what's happened in the past. Instead we have to rely on mathematical models.When the magnetic field weakens, solar radiation that is normally deflected back into space is instead absorbed by the atmosphere. Now as Peter pointed out, the atmosphere by itself can protect us from this direct radiation but then a pesky little thing called the Law of the Conservation of Energy kicks in. The atmosphere begins to heat up and generate secondary radiation. This is going to make the earth several degrees warmer. In a time where we are already dealing with an issue of global warming due to CO2 emissions, a drastic increase in solar radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere will be like throwing gasoline on the fire.odeon claims an education in physics but can't even figure out how the law of the conservation of energy would come into play on an earth with only 5% of its magnetic field?? what a dumbfuck.Let's see what was said:QuoteStatistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.What does that mean? Well, basically, someone analysed the available data and saw that there is no evidence. Did they use a time machine, as you suggested to Lit? No, they did what was possible to do, and this is what they found:QuoteStatistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.Does this little sentence discuss the possible (short or long term) consequences of the Earth lacking a magnetic field or possessing a severely weakened one? No. It just states thatQuoteStatistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.OK. So did I discuss the possible consequences? Let's see. First I said:QuoteYou might want to reread the Wikipedia article you link to more carefully:And in another post:QuoteAny natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.But there is no such correlation.I certainly know why you are not a scientist. Moron.Hmm. Did I discuss the possible consequences of a diminished magnetic field? No, not really. I did say one thing, though:QuoteI certainly know why you are not a scientist. Moron.That last bit is especially interesting.You might want to start by considering what I did say, which basically was to go to the source *you* provided and show that here is doubt. The "apocalypse", as you chose to call it, is not a universally accepted fact, it is a theory and your source points at several possible outcomes, of which I chose to quote one.But by all means, let's quote some more:QuoteAnother hypothesis by McCormac and Evans assumes that the Earth's field would disappear entirely during reversals.[43] They argue that the atmosphere of Mars may have been eroded away by the solar wind because it had no magnetic field to protect it. They predict that ions would be stripped away from Earth's atmosphere above 100 km. However, the evidence from paleointensity measurements is that the magnetic field does not disappear. Based on paleointensity data for the last 800,000 years,[44] the magnetopause is still estimated to be at about 3 Earth radii during the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal.[36] Even if the magnetic field disappeared, the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles.[45]The emphasis is mine.What does this all mean? Well, some suggest a reversal will have dire consequences for the planet. Others mean that there is evidence that it may not. The jury, as they say, is still out.And yes, Scrap, I am a physicist. I have not worked in the field in 20+ years, only followed it, as things do not always work out as intended, but I do have some knowledge about these matters. I'm sure I have entirely missed some emerging fields, just as I'm sure that there are developments in my areas of expertise that I am not up to par with, but I do have a physics education. One of the basics we learned was to keep a critical eye when reading and not to jump to early conclusions.What's your level of education in these areas? Or do you perhaps currently work in any of the related fields?Or is Discovery Channel it?
Quote from: odeon on May 09, 2013, 03:45:24 AMAny natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.But there is no such correlation.odeon doesn't seem to understand the difference between "there is no such correlation" and "Tests of correlations between extinctions and reversals are difficult for a number of reasons". Microfossil extinctions are a poor method of determining whether or not extinctions occur during geomagnetic reversals because these are among the last organisms to be affected by the climate change that occurs during these events. Large animals are the ones most affected by climate change but since there's so many holes in the fossil record, we can't use that as a method to determine what's happened in the past. Instead we have to rely on mathematical models.When the magnetic field weakens, solar radiation that is normally deflected back into space is instead absorbed by the atmosphere. Now as Peter pointed out, the atmosphere by itself can protect us from this direct radiation but then a pesky little thing called the Law of the Conservation of Energy kicks in. The atmosphere begins to heat up and generate secondary radiation. This is going to make the earth several degrees warmer. In a time where we are already dealing with an issue of global warming due to CO2 emissions, a drastic increase in solar radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere will be like throwing gasoline on the fire.odeon claims an education in physics but can't even figure out how the law of the conservation of energy would come into play on an earth with only 5% of its magnetic field?? what a dumbfuck.
Any natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.But there is no such correlation.
Statistical analysis shows no evidence for a correlation between reversals and extinctions.
You might want to reread the Wikipedia article you link to more carefully:
Any natural disaster that would drastically reduce life on Earth, such as the one you suggest here (I believe your words were "much of the earth will become uninhabitable"), would lead to some species becoming extinct. Not necessarily humans, but other species.But there is no such correlation.I certainly know why you are not a scientist. Moron.
I certainly know why you are not a scientist. Moron.
Another hypothesis by McCormac and Evans assumes that the Earth's field would disappear entirely during reversals.[43] They argue that the atmosphere of Mars may have been eroded away by the solar wind because it had no magnetic field to protect it. They predict that ions would be stripped away from Earth's atmosphere above 100 km. However, the evidence from paleointensity measurements is that the magnetic field does not disappear. Based on paleointensity data for the last 800,000 years,[44] the magnetopause is still estimated to be at about 3 Earth radii during the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal.[36] Even if the magnetic field disappeared, the solar wind may induce a sufficient magnetic field in the Earth's ionosphere to shield the surface from energetic particles.[45]
What I am interested in finding out is this, if Scrap is concerned over this Apocalypse and it happened every 100000+ years, is it likely to happen in your lifetime, Scrap? If not.....what are you "fearing" this for?
Quote from: Al Swearengen on May 09, 2013, 09:16:28 AMWhat I am interested in finding out is this, if Scrap is concerned over this Apocalypse and it happened every 100000+ years, is it likely to happen in your lifetime, Scrap? If not.....what are you "fearing" this for? Yes, I also am curious as to how much time we theoretically have left. I have some shit to get done before the end!
I can do upside down chocolate moo things!
Quote from: couldbecousin on May 18, 2013, 10:28:20 AMQuote from: Al Swearengen on May 09, 2013, 09:16:28 AMWhat I am interested in finding out is this, if Scrap is concerned over this Apocalypse and it happened every 100000+ years, is it likely to happen in your lifetime, Scrap? If not.....what are you "fearing" this for? Yes, I also am curious as to how much time we theoretically have left. I have some shit to get done before the end! Yes, your apartment needs to be pristine, when the sun explodes, or a comet kisses the earth.
Quote from: hykeaswell on May 19, 2013, 07:48:49 AMQuote from: couldbecousin on May 18, 2013, 10:28:20 AMQuote from: Al Swearengen on May 09, 2013, 09:16:28 AMWhat I am interested in finding out is this, if Scrap is concerned over this Apocalypse and it happened every 100000+ years, is it likely to happen in your lifetime, Scrap? If not.....what are you "fearing" this for? Yes, I also am curious as to how much time we theoretically have left. I have some shit to get done before the end! Yes, your apartment needs to be pristine, when the sun explodes, or a comet kisses the earth. Val will need a clean place to stay while awaiting the end.
I fear the apocalypse depicted in revelations.
Quote from: McJaguar on May 19, 2013, 09:51:28 AMI fear the apocalypse depicted in revelations.What scares you the most? The vials, the horses, the dragon?
Quote from: hykeaswell on May 19, 2013, 11:18:19 AMQuote from: McJaguar on May 19, 2013, 09:51:28 AMI fear the apocalypse depicted in revelations.What scares you the most? The vials, the horses, the dragon?how god hates us so much that he would curse us in this way.
