Has Earth’s inner core stopped its strange spin?(nature.com)
nature.com
Has Earth’s inner core stopped its strange spin?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00167-1
146 comments
> less of the "science tells us" stuff
Such as? Seems to me that good science does tell us stuff, and also admits when it doesn't know.
Such as? Seems to me that good science does tell us stuff, and also admits when it doesn't know.
"Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day causes X, Y and Z"
sometime later...
"Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day cures X, Y and Z"
sometime later...
"Scientists say people who eat one or more eggs per day are more likely to exhibit A, B or C"
What frequently occurs is one person or a group of people say or publish something, and then all the media broadcasts it like everyone is in complete agreement.
In real science, there is very little complete agreement. Even things most of us assume are 100% true, do not always have unanimous consensus within the scientific community.
Laymen might think that's a bad thing. But it's not... it's exactly how science is supposed to work. The problem is, people need to be told an absolute, but science can't do that for the most part.
What even is a scientist? Is it anyone that works for a lab? What about people who graduated with "Science" in their degree title? Does that mean Computer Scientists are the fabled "Scientists"? How do we know?
The word "Science" has become a sort of pseudo-religion these days. Nobody can disagree with "The Science". Which is quite an oxymoron in itself.
sometime later...
"Scientists say eating one or more eggs per day cures X, Y and Z"
sometime later...
"Scientists say people who eat one or more eggs per day are more likely to exhibit A, B or C"
What frequently occurs is one person or a group of people say or publish something, and then all the media broadcasts it like everyone is in complete agreement.
In real science, there is very little complete agreement. Even things most of us assume are 100% true, do not always have unanimous consensus within the scientific community.
Laymen might think that's a bad thing. But it's not... it's exactly how science is supposed to work. The problem is, people need to be told an absolute, but science can't do that for the most part.
What even is a scientist? Is it anyone that works for a lab? What about people who graduated with "Science" in their degree title? Does that mean Computer Scientists are the fabled "Scientists"? How do we know?
The word "Science" has become a sort of pseudo-religion these days. Nobody can disagree with "The Science". Which is quite an oxymoron in itself.
Yes.
“Science says” is a statement of belief in a knowledge mafia.
“Scientists asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think” is how science news should be reported. More like entertainment tonight and less like a Sunday school sermon.
“Science says” is a statement of belief in a knowledge mafia.
“Scientists asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think” is how science news should be reported. More like entertainment tonight and less like a Sunday school sermon.
It should go even further, because even your modified statement "Scientists asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think" still implies "Scientist" is one singular thing or is a singular group of people.
The word "Scientist" has become a word without meaning. It's applied to anything we think we want to convince others of or use as argument of authority. When people say "Scientists", they often mean statisticians or other number/data crunching careers.
Instead, that statement could be rewritten as: "The Eggs-For-Health Institute, Department of Eggs-Every-Day asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think".
This rewritten statement now informs the reader of all the basics - who, what, where, when and why. It's unsurprising the Eggs-For-Health Institute (for a made up scenario) says eating eggs is a good thing.
Unfortunately it gets murkier when it's highly regarded institutions publishing ideas, such as the FDA, CDC, etc. These folks aren't any more certain of things as the rest of the community either. We saw variations of this during the pandemic - the CDC would release some preliminary aggregated data and suddenly headlines ran with "Scientists from the CDC say do X to stop Y" etc... which led to a lot of perceived flip-flopping along the way (because all of this was new territory at the time, ie. the scientific process was playing out in real time.
The word "Scientist" has become a word without meaning. It's applied to anything we think we want to convince others of or use as argument of authority. When people say "Scientists", they often mean statisticians or other number/data crunching careers.
Instead, that statement could be rewritten as: "The Eggs-For-Health Institute, Department of Eggs-Every-Day asked this question and here’s what they discovered and here is what they think".
This rewritten statement now informs the reader of all the basics - who, what, where, when and why. It's unsurprising the Eggs-For-Health Institute (for a made up scenario) says eating eggs is a good thing.
Unfortunately it gets murkier when it's highly regarded institutions publishing ideas, such as the FDA, CDC, etc. These folks aren't any more certain of things as the rest of the community either. We saw variations of this during the pandemic - the CDC would release some preliminary aggregated data and suddenly headlines ran with "Scientists from the CDC say do X to stop Y" etc... which led to a lot of perceived flip-flopping along the way (because all of this was new territory at the time, ie. the scientific process was playing out in real time.
And then you have Coldplay co-opting the term "Scientist" for a song, further muddying the waters.
Fucking magnets, how do they work?
I wish it were possible to upvote this statement by double-underlining every word. (It's as though human nature abhors a dogma vacuum.)
"When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it." - Feynman
"When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it." - Feynman
> Laymen might think that's a bad thing. But it's not... it's exactly how science is supposed to work. The problem is, people need to be told an absolute, but science can't do that for the most part.
Scientists have my full support to stumble around in the dark and figure things out. But it's not the laymen who desperately need certainty. It's the scientists themselves when they deign to make policy demands based these half-baked theories de jour.
Scientists have my full support to stumble around in the dark and figure things out. But it's not the laymen who desperately need certainty. It's the scientists themselves when they deign to make policy demands based these half-baked theories de jour.
But better than politicians who make policy demands that flagrantly ignore solid evidence because they're being paid to.
Truth is a probability and not a binary, but politics is still a casino pretending to be a church.
Truth is a probability and not a binary, but politics is still a casino pretending to be a church.
No, it is never the scientists job to talk about policy. At all. Ever. Once they do that, they have no credibility, and become no different from the politician.
I think there is a large distinction between an un-replicated statistical meta-analysis and 1st,2nd and 3rd laws thermodynamics for example. I'm not sure it makes sense to call the first one "science". I think, given how much we have benefited from actual science, we should hold the term in higher esteem. Let's not not allow it to become a magic word intended to convince others to believe everything one says.
I agree with everything you said - with the minor nitpick that even well established scientific laws can be challenged, lose consensus, and be replaced or amended (Newtonian understandings of Gravity, for instance).
That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic.
We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.
That is pure science - accept something until better data comes along and changes the way we think about the topic.
We lose people there though, unfortunately. People like to "know" something absolute, and the media does a horrible job of communicating disagreements or opposing data.
In "real" science, ie stuff that has been proven by experiment, when new understanding is obtained the old stuff remains valid at laeast as a special case (otherwise it would never have been confirmed by experiment in the first place).
So, while we now know that Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances, where relativity and quantum mechanics are needed Newtonian is still good enough for most everyday and a lot of not so everyday applications (like sending probes to Mars).
It doesn't flip / flop like the "eating eggs was good yesterday and is now bad".
So, while we now know that Newtonian physics breaks down in some circumstances, where relativity and quantum mechanics are needed Newtonian is still good enough for most everyday and a lot of not so everyday applications (like sending probes to Mars).
It doesn't flip / flop like the "eating eggs was good yesterday and is now bad".
I think maybe the appropriate distinction (restating way you said) is "science" that models the physical world, like physics or chemistry, vs "science" that explores statistical relationships between stuff, like many medical or social studies.
In general an element of both is present, but on one end tou have, say Newton, and on the other you have some study that says electromagnetic waves are bad for you because of some statistical health outcome but proposes no causal mechanism.
The problem seems to be that the further towards the latter part of the spectrum someone's research is, the more likely they are to be adamant that they're "doing science" and promote all the BS about consensus and peer review that gives a pretend version of how science happens.
Presumably due to insecurity. When your work rests on a foundation of p-hacking, you're more likely to be pounding "the science" as justification, vs if you're a physistics that's traced a result back to basic axioms of your field, your work speaks for itself and you don't need to yell how the science is settled
In general an element of both is present, but on one end tou have, say Newton, and on the other you have some study that says electromagnetic waves are bad for you because of some statistical health outcome but proposes no causal mechanism.
The problem seems to be that the further towards the latter part of the spectrum someone's research is, the more likely they are to be adamant that they're "doing science" and promote all the BS about consensus and peer review that gives a pretend version of how science happens.
Presumably due to insecurity. When your work rests on a foundation of p-hacking, you're more likely to be pounding "the science" as justification, vs if you're a physistics that's traced a result back to basic axioms of your field, your work speaks for itself and you don't need to yell how the science is settled
My mother has been a doctor for some 35+ years at this point, she’s said many times that consensus on what is healthy or not has flipped many times in her career. While medicine isn’t the first three laws of thermodynamics there is usually a lot of agreement before doctors go out and begin offering a treatment or recommendation, and then suddenly it becomes obsolete and actually bad practice.
One way to think about this is to first determine what type of study would be actually be needed to prove conclusively, for example, that one egg per day is a net negative or net positive and go from there. I'm assuming that cost / complexity / time associated with conducting such a study would be prohibitive. If so, we can simply conclude that we will never be able to tell one way or the other (with current technology at least) and stop worrying about it.
This way, we ensure that our meta-analysis firepower (whatever/whoever that actually is), can be directed at studies that actually have a potential to uncover some real knowledge.
This way, we ensure that our meta-analysis firepower (whatever/whoever that actually is), can be directed at studies that actually have a potential to uncover some real knowledge.
It seems that the common thread in your complaints is Commercial Journalism.
"People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do."
- Science
- Science
Science as a belief, not a process of learning?
The problem is that normal people don't understand "science tells us" as "science currently tells us X but this could change any moment as more research is done". To them it's more like "science tells us X so X is true for now and forever".
If it were up to me popular science reporting always would include that disclaimer.
If it were up to me popular science reporting always would include that disclaimer.
> Such as?
Almost every news article that uses Betteridge's law of headlines. Usually, it's not the scientists fault and the linked articles are very clear of their reach and limits.
Almost every news article that uses Betteridge's law of headlines. Usually, it's not the scientists fault and the linked articles are very clear of their reach and limits.
The OP is complaining about mainstream science reporting, in comments on an article being posted by Nature - which is literally the absolute top of peer-reviewed journals.
Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent.
Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent.
At least in my field the running joke is "it was published in Nature but it still might be right". Because Nature above all wants to be high impact. And you get that by publishing the controversial or unexpected findings. In other words the ones that are most likely to be wrong.
Nature the journal and nature science news articles are pretty different things though.
>Which is to say, it suffers from the same fallacy as when people complain about Hacker News' collective opinion as though a collective anything with voluntary participation is going to be in anyway consistent.
It might not be consistent but even Ray Charles can tell you where the bell curve roughly centers for any given topic.
It might not be consistent but even Ray Charles can tell you where the bell curve roughly centers for any given topic.
Yes, but we are a very selective audience, and often brilliantly forget we do not represent the views of the majority.
I think something is being poorly explained, because that's a lot - a very big lot - of angular momentum that's got to go somewhere or come from somewhere.
Well keep in mind that it's not the rotation that's stopping, or reversing.
So far there's debate, but the data supports the core is spinning 0.1 degrees per year faster or slower. Other researchers think it's changes in the surface of the core (not the rotation). What we do know is that earthquakes show waves that travel slightly faster or slower than we'd expect if the core's rotational speed was constant with the rest of the planet.
But overall it's nearly in the noise compared to the other energies involved. The flows involved are turbulent and move like fluids, but at the pressures and viscosties involved they change rather slowly. Some models show it switching from slightly faster (0.1 degrees per year) to slightly slower ever 35 years or so.
So far there's debate, but the data supports the core is spinning 0.1 degrees per year faster or slower. Other researchers think it's changes in the surface of the core (not the rotation). What we do know is that earthquakes show waves that travel slightly faster or slower than we'd expect if the core's rotational speed was constant with the rest of the planet.
But overall it's nearly in the noise compared to the other energies involved. The flows involved are turbulent and move like fluids, but at the pressures and viscosties involved they change rather slowly. Some models show it switching from slightly faster (0.1 degrees per year) to slightly slower ever 35 years or so.
if the waves don’t behave how we expect maybe we just don’t understand how we should expect them to behave, it seems like a lot of assumptions have to be made in order to make any broad conclusions from such readings
Sure, it's under heavy debate. While the idea or the planet spinning at different speeds weird to think about, the physics do work out. After all not like the atmosphere spins at exactly the same speed as the planet. Why should the core of the planet in a pool of magma spin at exactly the same rate?
The discussed difference is only 0.1 degrees per year, on the surface of the planet that's only 7 miles. So what's under the surface today might be 7 miles different in a year. The movement that deep is quite a bit less than 7 miles since the circumference at that depth is much less. Additionally it's not rock and dirt at that depth, but a liquid magma with an average speed of a foot a day is not too surprising.
Humans think of these things as constant, but the length of the day and the distance of the moon are changing because tides are transferring rotational energy of the earth into the moon. Said forces aren't directly impacting the spin of the core, so it might well be catching up and oscillating around the speed of the earth's rotation every 35 days.
The discussed difference is only 0.1 degrees per year, on the surface of the planet that's only 7 miles. So what's under the surface today might be 7 miles different in a year. The movement that deep is quite a bit less than 7 miles since the circumference at that depth is much less. Additionally it's not rock and dirt at that depth, but a liquid magma with an average speed of a foot a day is not too surprising.
Humans think of these things as constant, but the length of the day and the distance of the moon are changing because tides are transferring rotational energy of the earth into the moon. Said forces aren't directly impacting the spin of the core, so it might well be catching up and oscillating around the speed of the earth's rotation every 35 days.
So, I think the headline is a little misleading. The article talks about the core spinning in relationship to the earth's spin. So, the disputed claim is that it has been spinning faster than the earth, and it's going to be spinning slower than the earth. It's not stopping or reversing.
As for what would cause it to slow down or speed up with relationship to the speed of the planet's spin, they just say "magnetic and gravitational forces", whatever that means.
As for what would cause it to slow down or speed up with relationship to the speed of the planet's spin, they just say "magnetic and gravitational forces", whatever that means.
Not a geophysicist so I'm just spitballing: the earth's magnetic field is mainly generated by the motion of the liquid outer core. I think the hypothesis here is that the magnetic field is exerting some force on the inner core causing it to slow or speed up.
But yes, there is an absolutely absurd amount of energy in this scenario. On the scale of "let's stop the moon spinning" big.
Even at the scale of slowing from one degree of rotation per year to zero degrees over a few decades, it's a lot of energy.
And that's not even counting all of the other energy drains in this system, like turbulence between the outer and inner cores from rotating at different rates, or the magnetic field of the inner core fighting the outer core.
The amount of energy involved is just absolutely bonkers.
But yes, there is an absolutely absurd amount of energy in this scenario. On the scale of "let's stop the moon spinning" big.
Even at the scale of slowing from one degree of rotation per year to zero degrees over a few decades, it's a lot of energy.
And that's not even counting all of the other energy drains in this system, like turbulence between the outer and inner cores from rotating at different rates, or the magnetic field of the inner core fighting the outer core.
The amount of energy involved is just absolutely bonkers.
Maybe earth is a cat. They can flip themselves around while in the air without exchanging momentum with anything.
[deleted]
Question: Is anyone familiar/aware of the possible implications to the global magnetic field?
I know magnetic north has been slowly shifting… but as I understand it, this currently involves changing the values on runways (the number on a runway is the degrees per magnetic north)… but that is pretty much it.
What happens if magnetic north becomes magnetic south?
Is there anything beyond the obvious (compasses and things that rely on compasses) that would be impacted?
I know magnetic north has been slowly shifting… but as I understand it, this currently involves changing the values on runways (the number on a runway is the degrees per magnetic north)… but that is pretty much it.
What happens if magnetic north becomes magnetic south?
Is there anything beyond the obvious (compasses and things that rely on compasses) that would be impacted?
From what I've heard, the problem is that the reversal can take a few years, during which there may be almost no field strength. That, and there's no guarantee about exactly where the new poles will develop, apart from them appearing at relatively high latitudes.
So during this time, earth would be (more) vulnerable to solar flares and other radiation?
I think that might be an over simplification of the impact of a weakened magnetosphere.
The magnetosphere protects the lower levels of the atmosphere from charged particles from the sun and further sources. This isn't just solar flares, but a constant bombardment of energy. Without it the rest of the atmosphere will began to degrade, with specific worry about our ozone layer. Some animals such as birds are shown to relay on the magnetosphere to help navigate. Aside from the changes to ecosystems and climate, the magnetosphere is also responsible for the aurora borealis, so we would miss out on that.
On the plus side, we'd finally have enough data to answer questions about what sort of radiation shielding generational spaceships would need, and exactly how much cancer prevention Earth's atmosphere is providing.
The magnetosphere protects the lower levels of the atmosphere from charged particles from the sun and further sources. This isn't just solar flares, but a constant bombardment of energy. Without it the rest of the atmosphere will began to degrade, with specific worry about our ozone layer. Some animals such as birds are shown to relay on the magnetosphere to help navigate. Aside from the changes to ecosystems and climate, the magnetosphere is also responsible for the aurora borealis, so we would miss out on that.
On the plus side, we'd finally have enough data to answer questions about what sort of radiation shielding generational spaceships would need, and exactly how much cancer prevention Earth's atmosphere is providing.
If the magnetosphere disappeared tomorrow, completely, as it did on Mars at one point, it would take literally billions of years for our atmosphere to totally degrade away. It would take at least tens of millions for it to degrade appreciably. The magnetosphere of Mars failed just 500 million years after our red neighbor formed, and even after the several billion intervening years, and after having started with much less overall atmospheric bulk than Earth, Mars still has some atmosphere left (very little to be sure, but we're talking about billions of years of being bathed in solar wind and radiation). In other words, if our magnetosphere disappeared tomorrow, you likely wouldn't have to worry about major atmospheric failure for many generations of your family's lives.
Caveat: Even with the atmosphere fully present, the magnetosphere does indeed stop many charged particles that a gas barrier does not, and this would definitely be an immediate problem to surface life to some extent (how much is debatable however). We'd also be much more susceptible to electronic and electrical grid damage caused by a much larger percentage of solar storms that would have previously been too weak to do much because of our giant magnetic shield..
Caveat: Even with the atmosphere fully present, the magnetosphere does indeed stop many charged particles that a gas barrier does not, and this would definitely be an immediate problem to surface life to some extent (how much is debatable however). We'd also be much more susceptible to electronic and electrical grid damage caused by a much larger percentage of solar storms that would have previously been too weak to do much because of our giant magnetic shield..
Yes, our magnetosphere has had extended periods (~hundreds of years) of being in a weakened state without disrupting all life on Earth. Our empirical evidence on the size of the impact is limited, mostly due to how long ago it was. It was a big enough impact that it did leave evidence.
It's not an humanity destroying event, but it is a big stressor on a world already going through a lot.
It's not an humanity destroying event, but it is a big stressor on a world already going through a lot.
It's actually measured in thousands of years.
"Other sources estimate that the time that it takes for a reversal to complete is on average around 7,000 years for the four most recent reversals."
A range of 2k-12k is also in the introduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
"Other sources estimate that the time that it takes for a reversal to complete is on average around 7,000 years for the four most recent reversals."
A range of 2k-12k is also in the introduction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Do you have an opinion on the Laschamp event? The Wikipedia article for the says the evidence for these ideas is weak in that case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laschamp_event
> This loss of the geomagnetic shield is claimed to have contributed to the extinction of Australian megafauna, the extinction of the Neanderthals and the appearance of cave art. However, the lack of corroborating evidence of a causal link between the Laschamp event and population bottlenecks of many megafauna species, and the relatively moderate radio-isotopic changes during the event, have cast significant doubt on the real impact of the Laschamp event on global environmental changes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laschamp_event
> This loss of the geomagnetic shield is claimed to have contributed to the extinction of Australian megafauna, the extinction of the Neanderthals and the appearance of cave art. However, the lack of corroborating evidence of a causal link between the Laschamp event and population bottlenecks of many megafauna species, and the relatively moderate radio-isotopic changes during the event, have cast significant doubt on the real impact of the Laschamp event on global environmental changes.
Yes. Very much a hide your kids hide your wife situation.
And might even be a hide your parents, hide your husbands situation.
And hide your dog, but don't worry about your cat, she can take care of herself.
[deleted]
Much, much more vulnerable
> during which there may be almost no field strength
Does this increase the susceptibility of the Earth to the effects of solar wind, such as increased radiation at sea level or atmospheric erosion (like on Mars)?
Does this increase the susceptibility of the Earth to the effects of solar wind, such as increased radiation at sea level or atmospheric erosion (like on Mars)?
This is discussed at length in this film:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Core
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Core
> while computer hacker Theodore Donald "Rat" Finch is brought on to keep news of the pending disaster or the attempt to restart the core from the Internet.
Sigh.
Sigh.
Can't we just bring the internet box down from Big Ben to basement when the sun comes?
What an awesome film. A lesson in absurdity, for sure.
Surely you meant to say the documentary.
Well, it had been slowly shifting around northern Canada for the hundreds of years we have records. Lately, though, it's been moving quite quickly towards Siberia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Ma...
I wonder if these two things are related.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Ma...
I wonder if these two things are related.
In 2 billion years, the 2200 km outer core will completely solidify, with the magnetic dynamo halting sometime before then. The solid core is growing/solidifying a millimeter a year.
With no magnetic field there will be more harsh radiation at the surface. Plus the solar wind may erode away the atmosphere as has on field-less Mars.
With no magnetic field there will be more harsh radiation at the surface. Plus the solar wind may erode away the atmosphere as has on field-less Mars.
Sounds like my hair appointment I made is gonna be disrupted (if I have hair in 2 billion years)
> Is there anything beyond the obvious (compasses and things that rely on compasses) that would be impacted?
It's unknown how migratory species that sense the magnetic field will be affected. Maybe they easily adjust, maybe there is a massive die-off due to large percentages getting lost.
It's unknown how migratory species that sense the magnetic field will be affected. Maybe they easily adjust, maybe there is a massive die-off due to large percentages getting lost.
My utopian fantasy is that all birds would end up at the equator at the same time, have longer than usual holiday, and when the pole flips, they'd fly to the opposite hemisphere that they came from. They'd love the new scenery and I wouldn't need to cross the globe to see a whole new set of birds.
Statistically surely this is highly unlikely unless changes happen frequently. I mean, in the 4 billion years or whatever the Earth has been around for, it just so happens to choose to change its spin in the couple of decades in which we develop tools to measure it?
Earth's magnetic field has reversed multiple times in the past (the graphic on Wikipedia shows ~20 in the past 5 million years). I don't think we knew why, but this could be it. Given the frequency of it, this isn't likely to be catastrophic from a biological perspective, but might cause havoc technologically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Did you read the article?
The article mentions switches between super- and subrotation have occurred within just the past 50 years. So, yeah seems to happen pretty frequently.
Note noting is talking about the cessation of rotation. The article is very clearly about the "strange spin" discrepancy between outer and inner core.
The article mentions switches between super- and subrotation have occurred within just the past 50 years. So, yeah seems to happen pretty frequently.
Note noting is talking about the cessation of rotation. The article is very clearly about the "strange spin" discrepancy between outer and inner core.
How certain are we (current science) that our conclusion regarding
the composition / architecture / structure of the inner /deepest part
of the planet?
From what I have read, we have not had any probes too far into the earth.
I remember someone saying that we know more about space than we do about the earth.
I dont know if I should have listened to the guy.
I do understand that the article references distributed readings over long timespans of seismic data that allows scientists to establish the current view.
From what I have read, we have not had any probes too far into the earth.
I remember someone saying that we know more about space than we do about the earth.
I dont know if I should have listened to the guy.
I do understand that the article references distributed readings over long timespans of seismic data that allows scientists to establish the current view.
We have a better idea than at any time before. But we only really know about large-scale structures, and have well-justified guesses at the materials involved. The deepest borehole we ever made is only about 10% deeper than the Mariana Trench, not even close to getting through the crust. Most of our data is either from seismic measurements, which are useful because shockwaves travel at different rates through different materials and can be reflected at material boundaries, or from neutrino measurements.
Seismic waves and ultra high pressure mineral lab experiments.
Seismic waves suffers from antenna limitation artifacts with the 70% ocean barely instrumented. A French group launches torpedo seismometers for months at a time to fill in gaps.
Seismic waves suffers from antenna limitation artifacts with the 70% ocean barely instrumented. A French group launches torpedo seismometers for months at a time to fill in gaps.
Topic reminds of film The Core in which the core has stopped rotating initiating a series of apocalyptic phenomena. (And in a Hollywoodian fashion the solution is to release a few nukes in it to restart it.)
General Thomas Percell: How do we fix it?
Dr. Josh Keyes: We can't.
General Thomas Percell: Not in my vocabulary.
(possibly the greatest burn in movie history)
Dr. Josh Keyes: Then you might want to get one of those word-a-day calendars, General, because it's impossible. The core is the size of Mars. You're talking about jump-starting a planet. This is a superheated hyper-fluid of molten iron and nickel at 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit. And the deepest we've ever been is... 7 miles, with a two-inch drill bit.
General Thomas Percell: If we can go into space, we certainly...
Dr. Josh Keyes: Space is easy. It's empty. We're talking about millions of pounds of pressure per square inch. Even if we somehow came up with a brilliant plan to fix the core, we just can't get there.
Dr. Josh Keyes: We can't.
General Thomas Percell: Not in my vocabulary.
(possibly the greatest burn in movie history)
Dr. Josh Keyes: Then you might want to get one of those word-a-day calendars, General, because it's impossible. The core is the size of Mars. You're talking about jump-starting a planet. This is a superheated hyper-fluid of molten iron and nickel at 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit. And the deepest we've ever been is... 7 miles, with a two-inch drill bit.
General Thomas Percell: If we can go into space, we certainly...
Dr. Josh Keyes: Space is easy. It's empty. We're talking about millions of pounds of pressure per square inch. Even if we somehow came up with a brilliant plan to fix the core, we just can't get there.
>(possibly the greatest burn in movie history)
But it's not a great burn, because the general turns out to be right and the scientist is wrong!
Further, Percell is clearly being characterized as believing that raw effort—spend as much money,[1] throw as much resources at a problem as it needs—always wins out. And, again, he turns out to be right.
[1] Leading to the best single line of the film, far better than your choice
But it's not a great burn, because the general turns out to be right and the scientist is wrong!
Further, Percell is clearly being characterized as believing that raw effort—spend as much money,[1] throw as much resources at a problem as it needs—always wins out. And, again, he turns out to be right.
[1] Leading to the best single line of the film, far better than your choice
> Topic reminds of film The Core in which the core has stopped rotating initiating a series of apocalyptic phenomena. (And in a Hollywoodian fashion the solution is to release a few nukes in it to restart it.)
They should use it in public schools to teach earth science.
They should use it in public schools to teach earth science.
That was a really bad movie.
Really bad, but I absolutely love trash like this for some reason. I can watch movies like The Core over and over.
Same, my wife is a geologist and one of my favorite things is to make her watch cheesy disaster movies with me. The commentary is hilarious.
I wish my wife appreciated my commentary whenever there's an obligatory hacking/software related bit on TV, haha.
Can relate to this, "they apparently wrote their nuclear control software in HTML" haha
Trash disaster movies have their place, 2012, Day After Tomorrow, The Core, Deep Impact, Armageddon, Moonfall, etc. They are all entertaining in their own right, and are usually very self-aware of how stupid they are. Ben Affleck's commentary on Armageddon is gold. Though, I think that film was a higher tier than most of the list here, the Aerosmith song made for that film dominated the summer radio that year and the soundtrack flew off the shelves. I wish things like that still happened, you'll get a bump on Spotify but its cultural impact is much less.
If there's anything I know about 1998, it's that Steven Tyler was dreaming of me, and didn't want to miss a thing. I can't think of the last time a movie moved the cultural dial the way they used to in the 90s. I guess Frozen? It seems to be a lot rarer nowadays.
For me at least, a movie just isn't a spectacle the way it used to be. Going out to see Top Gun: Maverick, and seeing The Batman at a drive-in cinema is probably the closest I've been to that feeling since the original Avatar. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit to the Avengers movies.
For me at least, a movie just isn't a spectacle the way it used to be. Going out to see Top Gun: Maverick, and seeing The Batman at a drive-in cinema is probably the closest I've been to that feeling since the original Avatar. Maybe I'm not giving enough credit to the Avengers movies.
>Ben Affleck's commentary on Armageddon is gold.
You no doubt are thinking of his famous anecdote of questioning Michael Bay about training oil drillers to be astronauts, as opposed to the other way around.
Bay's film's approach is correct, though. NASA had by then been flying payload specialists on the shuttle for more than 15 years, because it really is easier to train specialists in some subject to fly in space, than train astronauts an entire specialty for one flight.
You no doubt are thinking of his famous anecdote of questioning Michael Bay about training oil drillers to be astronauts, as opposed to the other way around.
Bay's film's approach is correct, though. NASA had by then been flying payload specialists on the shuttle for more than 15 years, because it really is easier to train specialists in some subject to fly in space, than train astronauts an entire specialty for one flight.
Deep Impact doesn't quite deserve a place with the others. Its depiction of an asteroid impact and many other things is surprisingly realistic considering the source material.
Heck, my parents and I still get great comedy mileage from Poseidon Adventure memes.
Yes, but I know a group of geologists that made a drinking game out of everything the movie got wrong about geology. They are always quite drunk by the end!
Sounds dangerous!
What are you talking about, that movie is a National Treasure.
It made a Deep Impact on me.
It really made me think about what might happen The Day After Tomorrow.
Sandworms gotta live somewhere
It's absolutely atrocious but I've watched it dozens of times and I still love it
Same. The sciencey bits are deliciously absurd, but they all kind of hang together in their ridiculousness.
Unobtanium that gets stronger under pressure and can also generate power, and to tap that power you just need to weld conductors to the hull and plug that into the engine and it goes, just awesome nonsense.
Also it's great to watch Stanley Tucci be sniffy and pert nonstop.
Unobtanium that gets stronger under pressure and can also generate power, and to tap that power you just need to weld conductors to the hull and plug that into the engine and it goes, just awesome nonsense.
Also it's great to watch Stanley Tucci be sniffy and pert nonstop.
It’s absolutely amazing though.
absolutely amazingly bad though.
i recently (within a few weeks) watched this from beginning to end, and holy cow was i not impressed. to have so many actors of high report to end up such a horrible movie.
i recently (within a few weeks) watched this from beginning to end, and holy cow was i not impressed. to have so many actors of high report to end up such a horrible movie.
They wanted to make a disaster movie, and the movie indeed turned out to be a disaster :)
Opinions on Sharknado movies?
If your going to ditch science, may as well go all in.
If your going to ditch science, may as well go all in.
Is there a global-scale natural disaster movie that is any good?
I thought Shaun of the Dead was good. Also liked A Quiet Place. I don't know if they qualify as "natural disasters", but neither zombie viruses nor aliens are "human made" (depending on the type of zombie virus of course).
Contagion is a very realistic depiction of a global pandemic.
[deleted]
Second this recommendation. I loved Contagion, and watching it during the early days of our own very real recent pandemic put a whole new spin to an already great film.
I've always wanted a zombie/apocalypse/disaster movie where everyone works together and rebuilds civilization and the struggles therein, instead of it being about how humans are really evil when the shit hits the fan. So cynical!
>Is there a global-scale natural disaster movie that is any good?
Deep Impact is not a great film, but does a surprisingly good job of telling its story in a moving way.
Its archrival Armageddon is also not a great film, but is arguably even more effective at its job (that being "fun summer popcorn thriller").
Deep Impact is not a great film, but does a surprisingly good job of telling its story in a moving way.
Its archrival Armageddon is also not a great film, but is arguably even more effective at its job (that being "fun summer popcorn thriller").
Greenland is surprisingly good, and scandalously overlooked: https://www.google.com/search?q=greenland+movie&ie=UTF-8&oe=...
[deleted]
Sometimes all it takes is a film to be entertaining enough, regardless of how dumb it may be.
Did you mean: _that was a really good movie_?
But actually, I can rewatch that movie endlessly on repeat
But actually, I can rewatch that movie endlessly on repeat
Naturally, the only way to get to The Core is with a vehicle made from a metal[0] which gets sturdier (rather than... melt) as it gets hotter.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium
Or for another fun “the core has stopped!” disaster film: Sunshine.
A warning however, it takes a sharp left turn towards horror at one point.
A warning however, it takes a sharp left turn towards horror at one point.
"It seems Destini may have caught up with us"
2022 or 2023 might need to SUBTRACT a leap second because the whole Earth's rotation has mysteriously sped up about a millisecond. Since the definition of the year switched to atomic seconds some years ago, they previously had needed to ADD leap seconds to sync to the astronomical year. Earthquakes, weather, ocean circulation can change length of day. Perhaps the core rotation changes may be affecting the whole Earth too.
[deleted]
It was surprising to come across an article on geological or planet-scale phenomena that did not mention human activities as a contributing factor to the changes being discussed. Effects of Anthropocene are still only skin deep.
Well, we haven't started drilling mantle-depth geothermal vents on an industrial scale yet. That day might be coming though.
Goes back to the George Carlin skit where he more accurately points out that human factors around “damage” to the Earth really only damages humans.
We may cause some extinctions and such, but overall, the Earth and life will go on with or without us.
We may cause some extinctions and such, but overall, the Earth and life will go on with or without us.
The damage obviously goes beyond humans (for example coral reefs are getting decimated), but it's true the planet has endured far greater assaults in the past, and life has marched on. Environmentalism is Humanism in disguise. The risk is that we'll soil the crib and turn the planet into a hell-hole for future generations of humans.
AKA Don't shit where you eat.
> The only way out of the morass is to wait for more earthquakes to happen.
Modern sensors might be sensitive enough that a nuke could provide sufficient stimulation?
Modern sensors might be sensitive enough that a nuke could provide sufficient stimulation?
The hard part, apart from obtaining the nuke, is getting IRB approval.
(the article notes that they did use historical seismic data on nuclear tests to probe what the core was up to in the 60s)
(the article notes that they did use historical seismic data on nuclear tests to probe what the core was up to in the 60s)
Russian seismologists made artificial earthquakes up to M6 with nukes in the 1950s and 1960s under its peaceful nukes program. These data remain some of highest quality seismic data ever recorded.
Sure, and our radiation sensors are delicate enough to tell exactly how many people get poisoned by the fallout!
An underground test will be the best source of data, so no fallout as such.
Indeed, the article mentions using data from nuclear tests. Presumably “we just need to wait” includes waiting for a nuke to detonate somewhere. It’s not the 1960s anymore. I don’t think setting off a nuke as an intervention for measuring the earth’s core is a very popular idea these days.
We took out all the oil, and the dynamo ground to a halt. Neat.
The size of the Earth is incomprehensible - if Earth was a basketball ball in your hands, all the mountains and deepest trenches of the oceans would make the surface imperfections of under 1mm (1/20 inch) high/deep. The average ocean depth of 3km would be 3.7 times less than that - exactly the height of basketball bumps. Earth's atmosphere would reach 1cm (half an inch) but 3/4 of its mass would be under those imperfections. The atmosphere is 5 times heavier than all water combined, but its mass is just one millions of the total Earth's mass. Screwing up atmosphere is "easier", especially since burning transforms dense (solid and liquid) C-H containing materials into much less dense gas.
The atmosphere is 5 times heavier than all water combined
Not sure where you got that. As far as I can see from most online sources, the Earth's atmosphere weighs about 5 x 10^18 kg, but the oceans weigh about 1.3 x 10^21 kg.
It makes sense that the atmosphere weighs less than the oceans if you think about it. The weight of air at sea level is about the same as 10 meters of water. The oceans cover most of the earth, and average a depth of a lot more than 10 meters.
Not sure where you got that. As far as I can see from most online sources, the Earth's atmosphere weighs about 5 x 10^18 kg, but the oceans weigh about 1.3 x 10^21 kg.
It makes sense that the atmosphere weighs less than the oceans if you think about it. The weight of air at sea level is about the same as 10 meters of water. The oceans cover most of the earth, and average a depth of a lot more than 10 meters.
Yes, you are right, I overlooked that one was in tonnes another in kg, while both having same 10^18 factor. All other calculations are correct.
That really put things into perspective... I wonder if instead of trying to hunt asteroids in the space, it'd make sense to just dig deeper.
[deleted]
parts of the earth are comparably smoother than a billiard ball (though not all of it). Mountainous terrain is like fine sandpaper.
We really do not have a sense of scale to imagine the size of the earth.
We really do not have a sense of scale to imagine the size of the earth.
We do. The picture of earth from space shows it's really neat round. Of course, since we live on the surface, we know the surface is not as smooth as Rick can make it.
and yet we still manage to ruin it for ourselves in such a small amount of time.
We need to do better.
We need to do better.
I’m confused, are you implying one caused the other?
I watched "The Core" yesterday, wtf.
Science article titled as a yes/no question? Then the answer is almost certainly "no", because if the answer was "yes", the statement itself would have generated more than enough clicks.
So, reading the article, the answer is in fact "We don't know. Nor is there enough evidence right now to even guess" for that perfect time-wasting double whammy. Nice! What lovely click bait.
So, reading the article, the answer is in fact "We don't know. Nor is there enough evidence right now to even guess" for that perfect time-wasting double whammy. Nice! What lovely click bait.
And if the answer is "yes" you can always find someone in the comments who wrote a PhD dissertation on the topic that tells you the answer probably isn't "yes".
I appreciate those question marks in titles, because they let you know right away that the answer is “probably not” (aka Betteridge's law of headlines).
It's probably just resting.
With coordination, I believe several high-level Hamon users could undo this problem.
I wish we saw a lot more of this and less of the "science tells us" stuff that seems to dominate reporting now