Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

"The deep Earth may not be cooling down"

That's the name of a recent provocative article by Denis Andrault, Julien Monteux, Michael Le Bars, Henri Samuel.

Cite and PDF here: http://contextearth.com/the-deep-earth-may-not-be-cooling-down/

First off, this paper was published in Elsevier's Earth and Planetary Sciences Letters, which has a 4.7 impact factor. So it isn't a predatory journal.

But what they say is startling

• We suggest the Moon as a necessary ingredient to sustain the Earth's magnetic field.

In this scenario, because the Moon is a necessary ingredient to sustain the magnetic field, the habitability on Earth appears to require the existence of a large satellite.

As far as it goes, they only provide pieces of circumstantial evidence and no quantitative time-series data, which is what I am interested in.

Yet, the fact that this paper was peer-reviewed indicates that something may be brewing on the landscape. Looking at the current state of geophysics, its clear that we really don't know everything about the earth, and that doesn't seem to get much press, especially in comparison to the amount of interest expressed in astrophysics. Seemingly, the further away from earth a topic sits, the more the interest.

So it's predictable that they had to frame the article with this ending sentence as well:

"Hence, our model could have major implications in future planetary missions as exoplanets with orbiting moons would more likely host extraterrestrial life."

Have to do that to get readers interest piqued, even though the real bumper to the article is this: if the moon could have that much effect on the earth long-term, what kind of effect does it have in terms of climate? We know about the effect it has on ocean tides, but what about QBO, ENSO, Chandler Wobble and who knows what other little-understood geophysics phenomena?

• Options
1.

Moon as a necessary ingredient to sustain the Earth's magnetic field.

I know that idea has been around a long while; the most recent place I recall it was the book "Rare Earth" but I'm sure I read it back when printed paper was the hot new way of distributing ideas.

I recall reading decades ago about an experiment raising animals in magnetically shielded boxes finding that absence of Earth's field had bad effects on their health. That may have been 1950s science fiction magazine stuff, my memory's not helping me cite the source.

Comment Source:> Moon as a necessary ingredient to sustain the Earth's magnetic field. I know that idea has been around a long while; the most recent place I recall it was the book "Rare Earth" but I'm sure I read it back when printed paper was the hot new way of distributing ideas. I recall reading decades ago about an experiment raising animals in magnetically shielded boxes finding that absence of Earth's field had bad effects on their health. That may have been 1950s science fiction magazine stuff, my memory's not helping me cite the source.
• Options
2.

Last week's Nature Geophysics had an editorial snippet reporting 2 contradictory earth core temperatures from different methodologies:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7605/full/534045a.html

Comment Source:Last week's Nature Geophysics had an editorial snippet reporting 2 contradictory earth core temperatures from different methodologies: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7605/full/534045a.html
• Options
3.

This

http://ContextEarth.com/2016/06/02/seasonal-aliasing-of-long-period-tides-found-in-length-of-day-data/

The moon explains all the 2-3 year wiggles in the Earth's rotation speed. Pretty obvious in hindsight.

Comment Source:This http://ContextEarth.com/2016/06/02/seasonal-aliasing-of-long-period-tides-found-in-length-of-day-data/ The moon explains all the 2-3 year wiggles in the Earth's rotation speed. Pretty obvious in hindsight.