Talk:Geomagnetic reversal

Archives: 1

7,000 years statement is wrong=

In the second paragraph the article states, "...that it takes for a reversal to complete is on average around 7,000 years for the four most recent reversals." This is misleading to the point of wrong. The research articles that are cited as supporting this claim are not talking about magnetic pole reversal of the entire earth's magnetic field. They are talking about local switching of the magnetic field direction at particular sites, which can happen much quicker than the magnetic pole reversal of the entire planet. However, this article is worded to make it look like the researchers were saying that the earth experienced an entire-planet magnetic reversal every 7,000 years, which is simply wrong and that is not what the researchers were stating. Someone with more time needs to eliminate this part of the article or reword it to be more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.76.57 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

42,000 years ago

Was there one 42,000 years ago, and is it being called the "Adams Transitional Geomagnetic Event" or "Adams Event"? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: has a geomagnetic reversal ever happened during the time humans have been on earth, and, if one does happen, what would happen to humanity? Would it be possible to use technology to reverse it? Also, when is the next one postulated to occur? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read in an article that "The Earth’s magnetic field has weakened by about 9% over the past 170 years, and the researchers say another flip could be on the cards. Such a situation could have a dramatic effect, not least by devastating electricity grids and satellite networks." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Pole shift" redirect here?

Forgetting the name of this phenomenon, it searched for "Pole shift" and got redirected to an article about the fringe Cataclysmic pole shift hypothesis. Should it not redirect here instead? Iapetus (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"No rate of reversals"

"There is no rate of reversals, as they are statistically random" does not make sense. A Poisson process is statistically random (it can be so random that the time of the next event is memoryless) but has a rate which can be constant or vary with time. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:DC0B:4A2E:F049:484D (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]