Visual evidence of the degradation of the magnetosphere... and a pending pole shift?

While discussing another topic elsehwere on ATS, the subject of a pending magentic polar shift/reversal has arisen.

While researching the topic, I found a link to the University of Delaware's Bartol Research Institute Neutron Monitor Program, which maintains over half a dozen neutron monitors worldwide.

These stations have been measuring a noticeable increase in the number of high-energy particles reaching the earth's surface from space. The following charts show an increase in the number of such particles reaching the surface. Considering we are in a "solar min" cycle, I think it is fair to suggest that such increases may constitute further evidence of the current weakening of the earth's magnetic field.

Below is the last six months of data collected by the Greenland Neutron Monitor in Thule, Greenland:



And from the McMurdo, Antarctica Neutron monitor:



And from the South Pole Monitor:



Could this be possible evidence of the impending pole shift -- accompanied by a (temporary) collapse of the magentosphere?

Also, a question for resident subject matter experts -- What is the avergae duration fo such a shift? From what documentation I have found, there seems to be evidence in support of both gradual and radical pole shift theories...

Well, i hate to jump in here and not have any technical terms to throw at you, much less being able to tell you the weight of an atom.

I will tell you, that the pattern of birds flying everywhichway is of some concern. Some are flying North, some South, the activities are erratic and bizarre.

This may have something to do with the pole shift which some say is already underway.

Look at the cosmic rays over a period of years. It has peaked in the past more than current levels and is also dependent on the strength of heliosphere. The sun is in a solar minimum.
cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru...
helios.izmiran.rssi.ru...

Solar cycle in synch with nuetron levels:
collections.ic.gc.ca...
collections.ic.gc.ca...

Here's the magentosphere and is still very much present:
www2.nict.go.jp...

When is it that a human would be able to sense something about this without the use of science and technology? At some point if this pole shift theory is true for this time period then we must be able to feel something. We too are connected to the magnetism of the earth.

Regenmacher -- thank you for the links and information.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Look at the cosmic rays over a period of years. It has peaked in the past more than current levels and is also dependent on the strength of heliosphere. The sun is in a solar minimum.
cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru...
helios.izmiran.rssi.ru...

Actually, the graph provided in theses links only measures the variation in the neutron measurement, and does not in any way represent actual density measurement values during the represented timeframe:



At the surface, all we may derive from this graph is that there is (in general) less observed variation of neutron bombardment during the solar minimum, and greater variation during the solar maximum.

Now, a slightly more detailed inspection of the very chart you supplied reveals a trend of declining tops -- anyone familiar with charting theory will recognize this -- which seems to indicate that the measured variation at each solar minimum is increasing.

IMHO, this seems to be significant. As per the very graph you supplied, over the past five solar min/max cyclic periods, it appears as if the period of greatest stability (with regards to the bombardment of the planet's surface by cosmic rays, as demonstrated by the period of least variance) is, in fact, becoming less stable.

Of course, it is important to note this is just my interpretation of the data.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Solar cycle in synch with nuetron levels:
collections.ic.gc.ca...
collections.ic.gc.ca...

The first graph is the msot relevant as it demonstrates the the relationship between cosmic ray bombardment and the sun's 11-year magnetic cycle:



As this graph indicates, during periods of the solar minimum (e.g., 1995-1996), the earth is bombarded by greater amounts of cosmic particles due to the degradation of the sun's magnetic field (as part of its 11-year cycle).

Conversely, when at solar max, we measure the lowest rate of neutron bombardment. I'm sure everyone looking at this graph will agree with this assertion.

This is rather important, as we must also take into consideration the sun's recent levels of activity. From a Sept. 2005 article on NASA's web site:

"Solar Minimum is Looking Strangely Like Solar Max"

Here's a graph of solar flare activity over the last three (+/-) cycles:



Worth note is the number of months over the past 1 1/2 yeasr during which 3-9 X-flares (yellow plots) were measured when compared to other periods of activity leading into a solar min.

It sure appears as if there are more months with such activity than during either of the two previous periods. In fact, the occurence of "yellow plots" seems to more closely resemble periods of solar max.

Coming Full Circle

Now, if we return to the graph depicting the observed rate of neturon bombardment over a period of three solar cycles, and compare this chart to the recent measurements taken by the Inuvik station of the Bartol Research Institute Neutron Monitor Program

Hmmm...

I cannot find any information as to whether or not the data in the above graph is pressure corrected, and in the absence of comfirmation one way or the other, we have to consider both possibilities.

If the data in the graph is corrected for pressure, then the recent (Jan. 2006) Inuvik station measurements do indeed seem to fall within what appear to be normal parameters.

However, if the data is not corrected for pressure, then the recent measurements (see link above) are off the chart.

I would gladly welcome confirmation one way or the other... But let me point out that even should the data in the above graph be corrected for pressure, recent solar activity still more closely resembles that of a solar max.

So why is that so important? Because while the recent solar activity more closely resembles a solar max, we're getting bombarded at a rate equal to (at the very least) or greater than the rates we would normally associate with a soalr min.

Again, IMHO this seems to be significant.

The question is, what would account for the increased bombardment during a period of high solar activity?

There seem to be two possibilities, one external and one internal. If extrernal, it would seem to indicate the earth is being exposed to a greater net level of cosmic radiation. If internal, it would seem to indicate a lessoning in the strength of our magnetic field.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Here's the magentosphere and is still very much present:
www2.nict.go.jp...

I don't think it was ever stated it is not present.

And thank you for the valuable link, BTW...

No one, however, will dispute that the earth's magnetic field is in fact weakening. And while such a decline may have measured only 10% over the past 150 years, the biggest unknowns lie in the continued rate of degradation -- given it has been 780,000 years since the last polar reversal, in truth we do not know what rate of continued degradation we may anticipate. The existence of both gradual and radical polar shift theories seem to support this.

As always, I welcome any and all feedback...

Most say we'll be magnetic dust before we see a magnetic reversal.

Field Reversal Takes 7,000 Years
Thu, 08 Apr 2004 - Scientists have known for a long time now that the Earth's magnetic field unexpectedly reverses polarity over long periods of time, but how often this happens was still a mystery. Brad Clement, a geologist funded by the National Science Foundation, has concluded that the reversal seems to happen every 7,000 years, on average. He gathered this data by analyzing deep-ocean sediment cores. One surprise is that the variation seems to alter with latitude - the directional change takes half as long at low-latitude sites as it does at mid- to high-latitude sites.

When North Becomes South: New Clues to Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flops
Researchers also have not known how long it takes for the magnetic field to make a transition. Studies have suggested anywhere from 1,000 to 28,000 years are required to initiate and complete a reversal.

So why is that so important? Because while the recent solar activity more closely resembles a solar max, we're getting bombarded at a rate equal to (at the very least) or greater than the rates we would normally associate with a soalr min.

Solar activity has been extremely quiet last few months:
www.lmsal.com...

Here's some ongoing research at ATS in these regards:
Severe Geomagnetic Storm Research Project

Recent activity doesn't represent a solar maxum
and the current solar cycle 23 is behaving as per the norm.


Cosmic ray pressure-corrected count rates
Multi-Year Plot: neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...
Longer Multi-Year Plot: neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...

More data here:
neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...
neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...

Calming Effect of a Solar Storm - ESA



Could be gearing up for something like this though, but I don't see a pole reversal in my lifetime.
www.cora.nwra.com...


[edit on 18-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

So ? the pole shift happens on a regular basis so what ?.

so north is south and vice versa ... were all doomed . whats the point ??.

do you ever watch the science channel or read any good science books.

the world doesnt end because of pole shifting.

Comments embedded.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Solar activity has been extremely quiet last few months:
www.lmsal.com...

Agreed, but this does not change the fact that 2005 was anonmously busy for a solar min year (see below). Remember, we are speaking of terrestrial geomagnetic processes which may or may not be influenced by the sun's activity. The sun's 11-year cycle only provides us with a known set of data by which we may compare established cyclic patterns to theoretical causality.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Here's some ongoing research at ATS in these regards:
Severe Geomagnetic Storm Research Project

Thank you again for the link. This thread seems to be a good, strong repository of data on the general subject, and I will definitely make time to explore it in depth.

You might be interested in an abstract I recently came across form the National Institute of Geophysics in Italy, which supports the existence of a strong correlation between strong archaeomagnetic jerks and strong seismic activity:

"Secular variation of the geomagnetic field observed at the Earth's surface has been found to undergo impulsive accelerations (Gerks) lasting less than a few years. In this paper the relations between jerks and the occurrence of strong earthquakes (Ms 7.0) is analysed for this century, disclosing a positive correlation between the maximum number of recorded strong earthquakes and jerk occurrence."

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Recent activity doesn't represent a solar maxum...

From David Hathaway of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Alabama:

"In the year 2000, there were 3 severe geomagnetic storms and 17 X-flares."

According to the NASA article referenced above (link provided here):

"2005 registers about the same in both categories. Solar minimum is looking strangely like Solar Max."

Again, this is taken directly from NASA's web site. I am not making this up.

It's even right there in the title: "Solar Minimum Explodes".

Originally posted by Regenmacher
...and the current solar cycle 23 is behaving as per the norm.

Am I correct in assuming this is your interpretation of the data?

Because when I look at this very same chart, I can instantly recognize a couple rather significant differences in the Cycle 23 curve when compared to the others (e.g., double-top and extended peak activity).

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Cosmic ray pressure-corrected count rates
Multi-Year Plot: neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...
Longer Multi-Year Plot: neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...

The first graph simply confirms that neutron particle measurement is in fact increasing as we continue progressing in the solar min cycle. This has already been established and in fact I discuss this in depth in my last post.

The second graph is of no added value whatsoever as it simply covers the last seven years of activity, and only allows us to compare this solar min to the last solar max.

The best reference data is still the textual data from Bartol, which I provide a link to in my previous post. Speaking of which...

Originally posted by Regenmacher
More data here:
neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...
neutronm.bartol.udel.edu...

Again, additional data that provides absolutely no added value. The first link provides data only over the last 60 hours.

And the second link connects to the very monitoring stations I have been referencing form my first post.

As a sum of its parts, your last post leads me to belive you may not have carefully read my previous post, as not only do your statements seem to simply disregard both the on-record statements by established authorities in the field as well as the very data you have supplied. If it is not too much to ask, I ask you revisit my previous post when time allows...


In closing...

1. 2005 was as active a year as the last solar max.

2. Thus, we should expect neutron measurement data consistent with a solar max year.

3. However, the data in fact indicates incerased cosmic radiation exposure as associated with a solar min (please see the data set I provided links to in my earlier post).

4. It is therefore likely the earth's surface is receiving increased levels of cosmic radiation.

5. A causal analysis would indicate two theoretical root causes: internal or external.

6. If internal, a likely root cause may be the continued degradation of the earth's magentic field.

7. Again, such continued degradation is science fact.

8. Therefore, these very data sets we are discussing may provide visual evidence of said degradation when one takes into account #1-4 above.

Originally posted by Briggs
So ? the pole shift happens on a regular basis so what ?.

so north is south and vice versa ... were all doomed . whats the point ??.

do you ever watch the science channel or read any good science books.

the world doesnt end because of pole shifting.

May I suggest a little medicine for the good doctor?



In brief -- First, the last pole reversal happened 780,000 years ago. No one knows what exactly occurred when this happened.

However, we do know that as the earth's magnetic field continues to decline, more and more cosmic radiaton will reach the earth, some of which will reach the surface (as the above data in this thread indicates). It doesn't take an astrophysicist to recognize this cause-and-effect relationship.

The quantification of this cause-and-effect relationship (i.e., multivariate analysis), as I best understand it, is on going.

So what happens when increased levels of cosmic radiation bombard the earth's surface?

Think in terms of the First Law of Thermodynamics: that additional energy must be released by some mechanism. Given the (above referenced) correlation between geomagnetic jerks and strong earthquakes, I think it would not be wise to rule out the possible geophysical consequences that may result from such a polar shift/reversal. Similarly, severe climatic shifts and the ripple-effect of any severe disruptions to agricultural production (both possible consequences) would most likely result in dramatic consequences on a global scale.

To ignore these possibilities, while IMHO is extremely shortsighted, is also your inalienable right.

At the very least, we could anticipate interference with global telcommunications and quite possibly even the electrical infrastructure. From Bell Labs:

Great stuff sdrumrunner. Thanks.

I have been noticing some exciting stuff in astronomy lately. Hints of possibly related factors?


Gamma-ray afterglow from galactic centre gas clouds reveals prehistoric particle accelerator

Astrophysicists using the H.E.S.S. gamma-ray telescopes, in Namibia, have announced the detection of very-high-energy gamma rays from huge gas clouds known to pervade the centre of our Galaxy.

...Possible reasons why cosmic rays are enhanced and of higher energies at the heart of our Galaxy include the echo of a supernova which exploded some ten thousand years beforehand, or a burst of particle acceleration from the super massive black hole at the very centre of our Galaxy.

...The H.E.S.S. data show that the density of cosmic rays exceeds that in the solar neighbourhood by a significant factor. Interestingly, this difference increases as we go up in energy, which implies that the cosmic rays have been recently accelerated. So, these data hint that the clouds are illuminated by a nearby cosmic-ray accelerator, which was active over the last ten thousand years. Candidates for such accelerators are a gigantic stellar explosion which apparently went off near the heart of our Galaxy in "recent" history; another possible acceleration site is the super-massive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy.

Also see: presszoom.com...
On the Scent of a Pre-Historic Particle Accelerator?

Stuttering stars found

Astronomers find little engine that can

An Ejection Seat For The Milky Way?
Also: www.csmonitor.com...
www.physorg.com...

Strange behavior of super-massive black hole

Well, after reviewing some of the archived data in the BRI library, I have to admit that the data (through 2005) collected by the neutron monitoring stations does not seem to indicate any increased neutron count. There were in fact higher neutron counts registered in each of the previous two solar cycles.

I created the following chart using BRI South Pole measurement data collected during the month of January from 1983-2005 -- a span 22 years. While I approximated values, these approximations are in fact based on actual values and I have removed outliers (such as the Jan 2005 solar flare) from the data set. As mentioned, they do in fact support Regenmacher's general assertion that the values are not higher when compared to the previous two solar cycles:




However, worth noting is that not only are the January 2005 measurements not greater than previous solar min cycles, but they are in fact far less than in previous solar min cycles. In fact, the low-end measurements for January 2005 are less than every January in the last 22 years, including the solar max years 2005 more closely represented.

Also, please note the spread between (averaged) low and (averaged) high values for 2005 (far right of the chart). These high and low values were apprixmated based on the average upper and lower third of values, respectively.

The percentage difference between low and high values is unusually high -- even after removing outlying data:



This increased variation seems to support an earlier observation (from post 2022735) that we are encountering an increase in the variation in the measurements taken during each successive solar min. This observation was based on the chart maintained by the Moscow neutron monitoring station (click here), which clearly shows a series of declining tops which are indicative of a downward trend.

I maintain this is significant, as it indicates the periods of greatest stability (i.e., least variation) are in fact becoming less stable (as indicated by the increased variation). This last chart seems to support the earlier observation.

So where does this leave us?

On one hand, Regenmacher was aboslutely correct in stating the neutron counts measured by the BRI stations are not greater than expected values during a soalr min. If anything, there appears to be a lower neutron count measurements than in past solar min cycles. Therefore, I would have to conlcude that no, the original graphs do not represent visual evidence of continued degradation of the earth's magentic field.

On the other hand, there are indications from the neutron monitoring stations that something indeed is amiss...

The data from January 2005 almost seems abnormally low for a solar min cycle. This seems reasonable, considering the anomolous increase in solar activity which took place last year. A comparative analysis of data from 2005 and 2000 would help establish how closely these measured values (from 2005) compare to expected values during a solar max (2000).

And while discussing this data, something else came to light -- the increased variation in measured values during successive solar min cycles. While this in itself seems rather significant (for aforementioned reasons), I am unable to find any published information relating to this, and would welcome any additional information anyone can provide.

Lastly, thank you, soficrow, for both the compliment as well as the great links. I never stop learning here at ATS.

sdrumrunner, I am not saying there's nothing abnormal going on with our planet. I just I didn't see much for recent anomalies in cosmic ray counts and cosmic ray counts are also dependent on gamma ray bursts.

You can dig around here for double tops in solar cycles:
www.dxlc.com...

Solar Cycles
21-Blue
22-Black
23-Red


More here:www.dxlc.com...

Approaching solar minimum is not my opinion, it's an observation. Yes, it was acting abnormal there for awhile but now seems to be settling into a nornal routine.

Sun:
The sunspot number has been zero for nine consecutive days--the longest stretch of blank suns since October 1996. This is a clear sign that solar minimum has arrived. Solar activity should remain low, although surprises are possible.
www.southgatearc.org...

SEATTLE, WA, Feb 3, 2006--Solar activity is very low! Average daily sunspot numbers for the week were down by more than 40 points to 9.1. Average daily solar flux dropped nearly 11 points to 80.6. Geomagnetic conditions, with the exception of January 26, were stable and quiet. On January 26 the interplanetary magnetic field, which can shield Earth from solar wind if it is pointing north, turned south, and the mid-latitudes experienced some moderate geomagnetic activity, with the A index for the day at 15. Polar regions saw a lot more activity, with the College A index in Alaska going to 36.

The sun has been spotless since January 29, and daily readings of zero sunspots could continue for another week. We will observe more and longer periods such as this as we head toward the solar minimum, still expected about to occur about a year from now. Geomagnetic conditions should remain quiet and solar flux at around 77. It may not begin to rise again until February 10.
www.arrl.org...

Sun is still has horizontal poles indicating it has not flipped completey.


New theory resolves mystery of anomalous cosmic rays
Saturday, February 18, 2006

It's getting late and my mind is too mushy. I will read it all tomorrow and see what I can dig up. Thanks for your efforts and great job on the graph



[edit on 19-2-2006 by Regenmacher]

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...


SOLAR TERRESTRIAL RELATIONS OBSERVATORY (STEREO) MISSION


universe.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Advanced Cosmic Ray Composition Experiment for the Space Station

The links should round out any question in regards to cosmic rays and there sources.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
sdrumrunner, I am not saying there's nothing abnormal going on with our planet. I just I didn't see much for recent anomalies in cosmic ray counts and cosmic ray counts are also dependent on gamma ray bursts....

Thanks for your efforts and great job on the graph

Thank you for the compliment, Regenmacher, and again for the wonderful links (especially the Cosmicopia link!).

You have provided enough reference matieral to keep me busy for some time. There is indeed much to be learned about cosmic rays. This will come before any additional comparative analysis.

A couple questions:

1. In your opinion, as per the Moscow station data, what does the trend towards increasing variation (in neutron measurements) with each successive solar min indicate? What could be the cause of greater variations in the readings? In the absence of a "formal" causal analysis, IYO is it safe to assume that as these increaed variations occur over the course of a solar min, that the source of the peak readings is extrasolar?

2. IYO, could such increased variation be (theoretically) attributed to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field?

3. You say, "I'm not saying there's nothing abnormal going on with our planet." What current abnormalities strike you as the most disconcerting?

Originally posted by sdrumrunner

A couple questions:

1. In your opinion, as per the Moscow station data, what does the trend towards increasing variation (in neutron measurements) with each successive solar min indicate? What could be the cause of greater variations in the readings? In the absence of a "formal" causal analysis, IYO is it safe to assume that as these increaed variations occur over the course of a solar min, that the source of the peak readings is extrasolar?

2. IYO, could such increased variation be (theoretically) attributed to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field?

3. You say, "I'm not saying there's nothing abnormal going on with our planet." What current abnormalities strike you as the most disconcerting?

1. Gamma ray bursts, solar wind speed and/or space dust can vary cosmic ray counts. You have multiple factors and variables involved, but the general idea is as the heliosphere and heliopause are reduced in a solar minimum and the GCR's can penetrate further into the solar sytem.



2. Easiest way to determine if the field is weakening is to look at earth's geomagnetic data. I couldn't tell you if high cosmic ray counts was just due to a weak geomagnetic field, since the source of GCR's is not constant.
Huge 'star-quake' rocks Milky Way -BBC



3. Perhaps the biggest anomaly is our solar system entering a galatic dust cloud.
sci.esa.int...
helio2.estec.esa.int...

Cosmic dust might explain why the earth's albedo being lower too.
Baffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching Earth

Great links regenmacher - thnx.

Have to quote the BBC article, Huge 'star-quake' rocks Milky Way:

Astronomers say they have been stunned by the amount of energy released in a star explosion on the far side of our galaxy, 50,000 light-years away.

The flash of radiation on 27 December was so powerful that it bounced off the Moon and lit up the Earth's atmosphere. ...The blast occurred on the surface of an exotic kind of star - a super-magnetic neutron star called SGR 1806-20.

If the explosion had been within just 10 light-years, Earth could have suffered a mass extinction, it is said.

Kinda makes you rethink the concept of 'environment' doesn't it? Not to mention catastrophic change.

This should have an effect on those cosmic ray counts if it goes supernova.
It was a rather weak GRB, but was an extremely long duration.


Could give new meaning to putting on your tinfoil hat.

GRB 060218A - 2006/02/18 03:34:30 UTC

This is a very unusual burst, perhaps the oddest yet seen!

Gamma-rays were detected from this burst for *2000 seconds*, an extremely long time. The burst was faint, with a flat emission (that is, constant brightness) of low-energy or "softer" gamma rays for 280 seconds. Around 200 seconds in it started getting brighter linearly, and at about 290 seconds it emitted higher-energy, "harder" gamma rays for 10 seconds. Eventually, it started to slowly fade away, with gamma rays still being detected 2000 seconds (over 30 minutes) after the initial detection.

Interestingly, Swift detected gamma rays from this same location over a month earlier, on January 17. Spectra taken of this event also show features similar to those seen in a supernova, when a massive star explodes. It seems likely that we are seeing a supernova-GRB connection, a rare event and one that is highly anticipated.

The spectra reveal that this object has a redshift of z=0.0331, corresponding to a very close-by (well, relatively) distance of 450 million light years, practically in our back yard. This is also indicative of a supernova, since a GRB this faint would be expected to be much farther away. In fact, some of the spectral features look like those from SN1998bw, another supernova-GRB event (see www.cosmos.swin.edu.au...) for more information).

In X-rays, this burst had a long, slow rise in brightness, and faded slowly-- it lasted for at least 3000 seconds. The optical light took 10 hours to reach a maximum as well; most GRBs are seen to be fading in optical light within seconds of the initial burst. Some astronomers thought it might be an unusual object in our own Milky Way Galaxy, but it is located far from where one would expect something like that to be, and the redshift confirms it is extragalactic. There is also a faint galaxy seen near the GRB position.

All in all, this is another very exciting burst, and more observations will be coming. source

•TERRESTRIAL EVIDENCE OF A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN PALEOINDIAN TIMES
•Did Supernova Zap Earth Life
•Superwave Theory Predictions and their Subsequent Verification



Hard to say how this will effect us, some astrophysicists indicate it's too far away to worry about. If it does brighten to fill the night sky with light, the sociological implications could effect us more than any terresterial effects.

It could become bright and visible enough for amateur astronomers with especially large telescopes. But the best news is that the blast occurred far enough from Earth to pose no danger.

Had the explosion gone off in the Milky Way galaxy, Marshall said, "we'd be in a lot of trouble. Depending on how close it was, it could remove our atmosphere, and there would be an enormous radiation bath."

[edit on 26-2-2006 by Regenmacher]