It is unlikely that Earth’s magnetic field is about to reverse. The current field is still stronger than the field has been in the last 50,000 years. Earth’s magnetic field is always increasing or decreasing based on changes in the way the molten outer core is circulating. If a random time in history is selected, there is a 50 % chance of seeing the strength of the field increasing or decreasing. Finally, the magnetic field constantly has small areas that reverse in polarity, but the magnetic field locked into the solid inner core means that it is unlikely a weak, localized reversal like the Southern Atlantic Anomaly will remain for long, unless the magnetic field in the inner core dissipates first. Which of the following would NOT support the argument made by Scientist 2?

Answer 1

To determine which option would NOT support the argument made by Scientist 2, we first need to understand the main points of their argument. The argument emphasizes that:

1. The Earth's magnetic field is currently stronger than it has been in the last 50,000 years.
2. While the magnetic field fluctuates, there's no imminent reversal on a global scale.
3. Localized reversals (like in the Southern Atlantic Anomaly) are temporary and unlikely to persist unless there's significant change in the inner core.

Given this, an option that suggests an imminent global magnetic reversal, supports the notion that localized anomalies could lead to a general weakening of the field, or posits that the inner core is undergoing significant changes would NOT support Scientist 2's argument.

Thus, any claim that:

• The Earth is on the brink of a major magnetic field reversal.
• Localized anomalies like the Southern Atlantic Anomaly are indicative of an upcoming global reversal.
• There are notable signs of weakening in the solid inner core could also lead to a change in the outer magnetic field.

These points would counter the argument presented by Scientist 2, hence they would NOT support it.

Please provide the specific options you're considering, and I can help identify the one that does NOT support Scientist 2's argument.