What's the truth about the magnetic field and its "weakening" strength levels?

[AScaredObserver]

I've read on here that the magnetic field's strength is weakening, and sadly this feeds into a certain YT channel (you know the one) saying this is part of the coming "Earth Disaster" or pole shift thing. But what's the truth about this? Is there any real cause of alarm, or is there verifiable data to the contrary? I didn't know who to ask here, so I'm posting this topic to try and get some help. Thanks in advance. 

I just need facts on this so I can clear my head.

[Newbie]

50 minutes ago, AScaredObserver said:

I've read on here that the magnetic field's strength is weakening, and sadly this feeds into a certain YT channel (you know the one) saying this is part of the coming "Earth Disaster" or pole shift thing. But what's the truth about this? Is there any real cause of alarm, or is there verifiable data to the contrary? I didn't know who to ask here, so I'm posting this topic to try and get some help. Thanks in advance. 

I just need facts on this so I can clear my head.

@AScaredObserver 

Here are some points to counter concerns you may have.

Natural Variation:

The Earth's magnetic field has undergone natural variations throughout its history. It has experienced periods of weakening and strengthening and this is part of a normal, natural process.

Magnetic Pole Movement:

The movement of the magnetic poles is a well-documented phenomenon. The magnetic north and south poles shift over time, and this movement does not necessarily indicate a catastrophic weakening of the overall magnetic field.

Historical Evidence:

Geological and archaeological evidence shows the Earth has undergone magnetic field reversals in the past without causing significant harm to life on the planet.

Geo-dynamo Process:

The geo-dynamo process generates the Earth's magnetic field through the movement of molten iron and nickel in the outer core. This process has been operating for billions of years and is not on the brink of collapse.

Resilience of Life:

Life on Earth has existed through various changes in the magnetic field, and species have adapted to these changes over geological timescales. There's no evidence to suggest that a moderate weakening of the magnetic field would lead to a catastrophic event.

Protection from Cosmic Rays:

While the magnetic field protects Earth from the solar wind and cosmic rays, a gradual weakening doesn't mean an immediate loss of this protection. The atmosphere also plays a significant role in shielding the planet.

Scientific Monitoring:

Scientists closely monitor changes in the Earth's magnetic field and have the ability to detect variations. Ongoing research helps understand the dynamics and potential impacts on the planet.

Lack of Scientific Consensus on Imminent Danger:

The scientific community doesn't generally support claims of an imminent danger due to the weakening magnetic field. It's essential to rely on peer-reviewed research and scientific consensus.

Mitigation Measures:

Also even if the magnetic field were to weaken over a long period, scientists are continually researching potential mitigation measures or understanding how human technology could adapt.

IMHO you need to critically evaluate the sources of information and distinguish between credible scientific studies and sensationalised claims. 
Please stop looking at those websites/channels they don’t help you.

Newbie

[AScaredObserver]

Thank you Newbie.

[Philalethes]

11 hours ago, AScaredObserver said:

I've read on here that the magnetic field's strength is weakening, and sadly this feeds into a certain YT channel (you know the one) saying this is part of the coming "Earth Disaster" or pole shift thing. But what's the truth about this? Is there any real cause of alarm, or is there verifiable data to the contrary? I didn't know who to ask here, so I'm posting this topic to try and get some help. Thanks in advance. 

I just need facts on this so I can clear my head.

You already made a thread about exactly the same thing. Many people replied to that thread and presented you with a lot of facts, including myself here.

If you want to keep discussing it you should at the very least make some effort to acquaint yourself with what people have taken the time to present to you instead of asking the same question over and over. As long as there's some progress to the discussion it's worth having, but if it's just the same thing on repeat it's not really going anywhere.

If I were you I would reread what you've already asked and what people have given you as answers, and only then ask more about details that you still don't understand or that are still unclear.

[Jay-B]

I am interested to know if the northern lights could possibly be seen more often and at lower latitudes if our magnetic field does weaken more in the coming years? Or would it be harder to see them since there would be lesser magnetic lines for the plasma to travel down towards the poles?

[tniickck]

15 minutes ago, Jay-B said:

I am interested to know if the northern lights could possibly be seen more often and at lower latitudes if our magnetic field does weaken more in the coming years? Or would it be harder to see them since there would be lesser magnetic lines for the plasma to travel down towards the poles?

it doesnt weaken THIS much to allow big amount of charged particles often. you may see aurora more often if you live in a place which is gonna move on a higher geomagnetic latitude due to the magnetic poles movement

Edited February 1 by tniickck

[Philalethes]

On 2/1/2024 at 4:44 PM, Jay-B said:

I am interested to know if the northern lights could possibly be seen more often and at lower latitudes if our magnetic field does weaken more in the coming years? Or would it be harder to see them since there would be lesser magnetic lines for the plasma to travel down towards the poles?

It's a good question, as when sufficiently weakened the field would definitely become a lot less orderly and probably be marked more by a wide variety of more localized dipoles (much like we see during heliomagnetic reversal). On the one hand this would indeed mean that the incoming particles would be more dispersed; but on the other it would mean less deflection and particles coming closer to the surface in general. I suspect that you'd at least see more "aurora-like airglow" as described in this paper. The top answer here corroborates this, although the question there assumes zero magnetic field at all, but it'd essentially be a transition between what it's like now and that state.

However, as I mentioned in a different post in the thread I linked to above (this), the rate of "weakening" is very small, at ~0.066% per year on average over the last 50 years, and showing no signs of acceleration; most likely we're looking at regression to the mean here, but even if that weren't the case it would take thousands of years for a geomagnetic reversal to occur based on the available evidence. In other words, things are extremely unlikely to look any different in your lifetime, unless something unprecedented happens or you manage to achieve biological immortality.

23 hours ago, tniickck said:

it doesnt weaken THIS much to allow big amount of charged particles often. you may see aurora more often if you live in a place which is gonna move on a higher geomagnetic latitude due to the magnetic poles movement

That's true, but it bears mentioning that the geomagnetic poles don't move very much though, so you'd be unlikely to see any significant change within your lifetime. The magnetic north pole is moving faster, but overall geomagnetic activity primarily follows the overall geomagnetic poles; this paper concludes that the auroral oval has moved only ~4° in the last 50 years or so, corresponding to variations in the overall geomagnetic field, and that the 15-degree movement of the northern magnetic pole (what they call the "dip pole") has no bearing on that, but is rather just a byproduct of the overall geomagnetic movement; as it says in the summary:

Quote

The secular shifts of the ovals were found to be commensurate with the concurrent displacement of the centered, eccentric, and corrected geomagnetic poles, In the Northern Hemisphere, the oval shifted within ∼4° of latitude, approximately in the plane of the ∼100° geographic meridian.

By contrast, the strikingly fast and much larger (by the factor of 4–5) secular shift of the northern dip pole is mostly a geometrical effect due to a weak tangential variation of the horizontal component of the ground geomagnetic field over a relatively wide area along the dip pole track and, as a result, high sensitivity of the dip pole location to even small changes in the internal source distribution. This effect does not result in any abnormalities in the auroral oval behavior

The direction seems to be ever so slightly westward and northward for the northern geomagnetic pole, leading to slightly more activity leaning towards the northern parts of Russia, and to a smaller extent the northern parts of Scandinavia and Finland; as seen in the images provided in the paper, where the blue ovals are 1965 and the red ones are 2020:

Edited February 2 by Philalethes
clarity, typo

[libmar96]

Thanks Philalethes for the explaination! I primarily thought Europe gets better aurora due to quick movement of magnetic pole, but it took some time to find out that geomagnetic pole is responsible for that and it barely moves. Never heard about the shape changes of aurora oval and the geomagnetic pole isn't in the center of it. Looks like the situation for Europe hasn't really changed.