She is not a household name in Denmark. But we do have a big mural of her, here in Copenhagen [1].
[1] https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/112/99...
I had to look twice, and then check Wikipedia, when I saw "1888-1993" there.
* 13. Mai 1888 in Kopenhagen
† 21. Februar 1993 in Kopenhagen
That's 104 years, 9 months, and 8 days!
Google Street View link showing the murial: https://maps.app.goo.gl/nfSzrb3CFPKowZ4p9?g_st=ac
All of modern geology stands upon her work.
She was hardly overlooked, she won many honours for her work during her time.
> This article is part of Overlooked, a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in The Times.
[flagged]
> It explained how the Earth generates the magnetic field that protects the planet from cosmic radiation,
Our protection from cosmic radiation is mostly due to Earth's thick atmosphere, not its magnetic field.
> Our protection from cosmic radiation is mostly due to Earth's thick atmosphere, not its magnetic field
Primary defense against cosmic radiation: magnetic field
Secondary defense: atmosphere
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/eart...
Yeah, that's nonsense. The radiation in low Earth orbit is only a bit less than above the magnetosphere, and most of that difference is from shadowing by the Earth itself. In contrast, there's a massive decrease in radiation from LEO to to sea level.
Radiation at ISS: 144 mSv per year
Radiation on a trip to Mars: ~340 mSv per year
Cosmic radiation at sea level: about 0.4 mSv per year
The atmosphere is doing the heavy lifting in shielding us from cosmic radiation, not the magnetosphere.
> Radiation at ISS: 144 mSv per year
> Radiation on a trip to Mars: ~340 mSv per year
This seems to track with research that during a geomagnetic excursion[1], where the field strength dropped to about 10%, the cosmic radiation seems to have roughly doubled[2].
To steelman the argument, perhaps what the magnetosphere is doing is stopping the atmosphere from making too much carbon-14. In shielding the surface from energetic cosmic rays, neutrons are produced, and these transmute N-14 to C-14 by the (n,p) reaction.
> Yeah, that's nonsense.
Assuming you're right, why do you suppose so many publications get it wrong?
Not only the NASA one I linked to but also Wikipedia for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray
Or the European Space Agency: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Cluste...
You will forgive me if I take their assessment more seriously than yours, but I'm open to correcting my understanding.
It's in the interest of NASA (and the ESA) to hype the importance of the magnetosphere. After all, they are given money to investigate it, so the more important it is perceived, the more money they can expect to get.
> It's in the interest of NASA (and the ESA) to hype the importance of the magnetosphere. After all, they are given money to investigate it
I don’t know that that is a good reason to cause you to you think they’re lying.
NASA also extensively investigates Earth's atmosphere.
They use missions like Aura, CALIPSO, and upcoming ones like AOS and INCUS to monitor ozone, clouds, aerosols, and storms, providing crucial data for forecasts and climate science.
The magnetic field deflects particles from the Solar Wind, whereas the atmosphere blocks a lot of the radiation as I understand it.
The solar wind != cosmic radiation.
Without magnetic fields, the solar wind strips away atmospheres, like what happened to Mars.
This is questionable.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/14915/does-...
Thank you. I thought that was settled matter.
I don’t see any problems with the quote.
