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

Cite and PDF here:

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?