Bogsnorkler said:

https://www.newsweek.com/ancient-tree-discovered-earths-magnetic-field-1447570

“An ancient kauri ree that contains a record of a reversal of Earth’s magnetic field has been discovered in New Zealand.”

That would give us an accurate record of how fast a magnetic reversal occurs. And also proves that magnetic reversals don’t kill trees.

“Carbon dating revealed it lived for 1,500 years, between 41,000 and 42,500 years ago.”

That’s darn recent for a magnetic reversal. The last one was supposed to be 780,000 years ago.

“Scientists recently announced the magnetic north pole had moved unexpectedly. Instead of tracking steadily from the Canadian Arctic towards Siberia, it sped up”

• That’s darn recent for a magnetic reversal. The last one was supposed to be 780,000 years ago.

“At this time, the magnetic north and south went on an excursion but did not quite complete a full reversal.”

“…a period known as the Laschamp Excursion”

Laschamp event

“The Laschamp event was a short reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field. It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago during the last ice age…”

furious said:

• That’s darn recent for a magnetic reversal. The last one was supposed to be 780,000 years ago.

“At this time, the magnetic north and south went on an excursion but did not quite complete a full reversal.”

“…a period known as the Laschamp Excursion”

Laschamp event

“The Laschamp event was a short reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field. It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago during the last ice age…”

Thanks for link. I hadn’t heard of this.

“The Laschamp event was a short reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field. It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago during the last ice age and was first recognised in the late 1960s as a geomagnetic reversal recorded in the Laschamps lava flows in the Clermont-Ferrand district of France. The magnetic excursion has since been demonstrated in geological archives from many parts of the world. The period of reversed magnetic field was approximately 440 years, with the transition from the normal field lasting approximately 250 years. The reversed field was 75% weaker, whereas the strength dropped to only 5% of the current strength during the transition”.

Hey, how did they get the ± symbol to work in html? I’ve been trying to get that for many years.

Would they know that the tree lived at the right time from the “greater production of the cosmogenic isotope carbon 14”?, causing a spike or discontinuity in ¹⁴ C vs tree ring?

No scientific paper on this yet, I think.

“The research is being led by Professor Chris Turney from the University of New South Wales”.
“University of Waikato associate professor Alan Hogg, the director of the Waikato Radiocarbon Dating laboratory”.

“Study of the ancient tree has just begun”

“It would give a picture of the solar radiation in the earth’s atmosphere during the excursion. As the magnetic poles moved, the strength of earth’s geomagnetic field weakened, letting in more cosmic radiation. The tree will show what to expect during another polar excursion or reversal – which scientists said was not a matter of if, but when.”

> It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago

Not much on the web for what happened to carbon-14 ages during that period. eg.

mollwollfumble said:

> It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago

Not much on the web for what happened to carbon-14 ages during that period. eg.

±

alt 241

Bogsnorkler said:

mollwollfumble said:

> It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago

Not much on the web for what happened to carbon-14 ages during that period. eg.

±

alt 241

Hey thanks. Now trying &#177 which is ±. That works too.

mollwollfumble said:

Bogsnorkler said:

±

alt 241

Hey thanks. Now trying &#177 which is ±. That works too.

Also ± is the html for ± (html, so not exclusive to Windows.)

I think the subject line is a bit misleading…

dv said:

I think the subject line is a bit misleading…

I am glad that somebody brought that up.

dv said:

I think the subject line is a bit misleading…

It was the heading on the article on the ABC website this morning. It did make me blink a bit.

sibeen said:

dv said:

I think the subject line is a bit misleading…

It was the heading on the article on the ABC website this morning. It did make me blink a bit.

Proofreading, a thing of the past.

They probab;y meant Tree discovery..

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

dv said:

I think the subject line is a bit misleading…

It was the heading on the article on the ABC website this morning. It did make me blink a bit.

Proofreading, a thing of the past.

They probab;y meant Tree discovery..

I mean even that would be wrong. Nothing to do with this tree reversed the Earth’s magnetism. The Earth’s magnetism reversed because of events in the Earth’s outer core.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

sibeen said:

It was the heading on the article on the ABC website this morning. It did make me blink a bit.

Proofreading, a thing of the past.

They probab;y meant Tree discovery..

I mean even that would be wrong. Nothing to do with this tree reversed the Earth’s magnetism. The Earth’s magnetism reversed because of events in the Earth’s outer core.

I changed it from the original headline.

The original headline was:

“Ancient tree discovered earths magnetic field”

I prefer my version.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Proofreading, a thing of the past.

They probab;y meant Tree discovery..

I mean even that would be wrong. Nothing to do with this tree reversed the Earth’s magnetism. The Earth’s magnetism reversed because of events in the Earth’s outer core.

I changed it from the original headline.

The original headline was:

“Ancient tree discovered earths magnetic field”

I prefer my version.

Why?

>“The Laschamp event was a short reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field. It occurred 41,400 (±2,000) years ago during the last ice age…”

interesting

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I mean even that would be wrong. Nothing to do with this tree reversed the Earth’s magnetism. The Earth’s magnetism reversed because of events in the Earth’s outer core.

I changed it from the original headline.

The original headline was:

“Ancient tree discovered earths magnetic field”

I prefer my version.

Why?

It’s shorter.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I changed it from the original headline.

The original headline was:

“Ancient tree discovered earths magnetic field”

I prefer my version.

Why?

It’s shorter.

but it’s not true

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I changed it from the original headline.

The original headline was:

“Ancient tree discovered earths magnetic field”

I prefer my version.

Why?

It’s shorter.

in lifespan? Yes.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Why?

It’s shorter.

but it’s not true

call it a literal untruth

I thought it hinted at an unknown magnetic reversal was all, not to be taken too literally

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Why?

It’s shorter.

but it’s not true

It’s easy to criticise, but much more difficult to fix the problem. Here’s the challenge: Make up a thread title that is true, and not boring.

eg. “Near reversal of Earth’s magnetism found in ancient Kauri” isn’t true

eg. “Carbon 14 spike in ancient Kauri proves that it lived during a near reversal of Earth’s magnetism”, still isn’t true. It may not have been a spike.

eg. “Correlation between carbon 14 age and tree ring age in ancient Kauri proves that it lived during a near reversal of Earth’s magnetism” is true, but too long for a thread title.

How ‘Bout:
Tree SURVIVES Earth’s Magnetic Reversal

Ogmog said:

How ‘Bout:
Tree SURVIVES Earth’s Magnetic Reversal

Nice. :-)

tree rings man