Can we control the temperature of Earth?

The Earth's crust varies in thickness from 5 kilometers thick to 70 kilometers thick. The thin parts lie inder the oceans and the thick parts lie under the continents. Bjarne's idea means that the Earth's magnetic field will vary greatly between the oceans and the continents (maybe by a factor of 10). This is not observed.
Click to expand...

Crap
This is exactly what we observes, but a factor 10 is yours idea.

http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg

http://www.science27.com/Earth/NS1-2b.jpg


He nukes his own credibility, his own ideas, his reputation....
Click to expand...
Ohh no my dear, my middle name is Proves, not Amen.
And this is what the world of nukes half brain soon shall discover.
 
Ya know, sometimes I feel like I've wandered into a secret foreign language section of the fora, where the words are familiar but they mean something else. I think I remember an episode of the outer limits like that, or perhaps it was the twilight zone...

A
 
Bjarne said:
Crap
This is exactly what we observes, but a factor 10 is yours idea.

http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg

http://www.science27.com/Earth/NS1-2b.jpg

Ohh no my dear, my middle name is Proves, not Amen.
And this is what the world of nukes half brain soon shall discover.
Click to expand...
Crap
This is exactly what we do not observe, and a factor 10 is my guess.

That is what this diagram (looks like a map of the strength of the MF) shows:
http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg
Note that
  • The lowest strength of the MF is over a continent (South America).
  • The highest strength of the MF is over the ocean between Antarctica and Australia.
  • The ocean basins are not correlated with low strength.
  • The continents are not correlated with high strength.
Ohh no my dear, your middle name is Ignorant.
 
Bjarne said:
Crap
This is exactly what we observes, but a factor 10 is yours idea.

http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg

http://www.science27.com/Earth/NS1-2b.jpg



Ohh no my dear, my middle name is Proves, not Amen.
And this is what the world of nukes half brain soon shall discover.
Click to expand...

Bjarne,now you're in the running for two Nobel prizes,one for this and one for your sterling work on bended space.I look forward to the day that you are hailed as the greatest scientist of all time.
 
The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate (updated)

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnetics in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
And the next one (of many to come).

The Earth's crust varies in thickness from 5 kilometers thick to 70 kilometers thick. The thin parts lie inder the oceans and the thick parts lie under the continents. Bjarne's idea means that the Earth's magnetic field will vary greatly between the oceans and the continents (maybe by a factor of 10 but this is a guess). This is not observed.

Bjarne has provided an unsourced image on his web site in this thread that actually supports this. http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg
Note that
  • The lowest strength of the MF is over a continent (South America). This looks related to the South Atlantic Anomaly.
  • The highest strength of the MF is over the ocean between Antarctica and Australia.
  • The ocean basins are not correlated with low strength.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Indian ocean.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Atlantic ocean.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Pacific ocean.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Arctic ocean.
  • The continents are not correlated with high strength.
    • The MF is not stronger over North America (but is in the Arctic circle).
    • The MF is not stronger over South America and is in fact especially weak.
    • The MF is not stronger over Africa.
    • The MF is not stronger over Australia.
    • It is stronger over Antarctica but is strongest over the ocean not the land.
    • There is a strong area over northern Russia. I wonder is this is part of the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly caused by rich iron orse?
This web site is an overview of the Earth's MF and includes a figure in a PDF that corresponds to Bjarne's one.
 
Last edited:
The lowest strength of the MF is over a continent (South America).
Click to expand...
This is because a period with disintegration has started.
The cause of this is mainly the magnetic entanglement in the North American continent.
The common N+S American continents are so magnetic weak now that it can not longer reach Anarchic, and strong magnetic disintegration / separation has already begun.

The highest strength of the MF is over the ocean between Antarctica and Australia.
Click to expand...
Right, this is the strongest Magnetic South Pole, - that is a result of the strong Eurasia North Pole.
Notice you have not so much ocean between on that line Eurasia / Malaysia / Singapore / Australia.
The ocean basins are not correlated with low strength.
Click to expand...
Oceans shall not have very "low" strength.
Notice that the crust thickness is not the must important.
But rather the amount of thermal heat flow.
BECAUSE a strong magnetic field depends on the ability to be able to remove old frozen magnetic structures, from time to time, when the field dislocate.
For example after a total magnetic flip.
The low heat flow in the crust of Mars have caused that planet to lose its possibility for magnetic integration.
 
Bjarne said:
This is because a period with disintegration has started.
The cause of this is mainly the magnetic entanglement in the North American continent.
The common N+S American continents are so magnetic weak now that it can not longer reach Anarchic, and strong magnetic disintegration / separation has already begun.


Right, this is the strongest Magnetic South Pole, - that is a result of the strong Eurasia North Pole.
Notice you have not so much ocean between on that line Eurasia / Malaysia / Singapore / Australia.

Oceans shall not have very "low" strength.
Notice that the crust thickness is not the must important.
But rather the amount of thermal heat flow.
BECAUSE a strong magnetic field depends on the ability to be able to remove old frozen magnetic structures, from time to time, when the field dislocate.
For example after a total magnetic flip.
The low heat flow in the crust of Mars have caused that planet to lose its possibility for magnetic integration.
Click to expand...

''Frozen magnetic structures'' lol.What a load of old pony.
 
Bjarne said:
This is because a period with disintegration has started....snip....
Click to expand...
You really miss the point. According to your idea:
  • Every continent should have a increase in the strength of the MF.
  • Every ocean should have a a decrease in the strength of the MF.
This is not the case. For South America the reverse is the case.
You also have no idea where the South Magnetic Pole is.
 
Every continent should have a increase in the strength of the MF
Click to expand...
This depends on:
  • The magnetic conductivity in each continent
  • as well as magnetic entanglement.

Every ocean should have a a decrease in the strength of the MF
Click to expand...

No you still have got that wrong, a relative thin crust can have much better magnetic conductivity, simple because thermal heats causes much better integration.

For example, to be extreme, - Himalayas will always be a difficulty area to “adapt” to the global field, - and you can see this is a huge negative anomaly.
Now look at Africa’s for example Congo, here you have a continental depression (and reasons to believe there is better heat flow) and at the same time you have a huge positive magnetic anomaly.

(But mountains can also in some few cases contributes a lot, properly due to accidentally adaption / orientation of its MF, or volcanic heat, but also off course magnetic materials)

Gryde3.gif


Also take look at this >> http://www.science27.com/Earth/k.jpg
 
The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate (expanded again)

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnetics in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
And the next one (of many to come).

The Earth's crust varies in thickness from 5 kilometers thick to 70 kilometers thick. The thin parts lie inder the oceans and the thick parts lie under the continents. The strength of a the magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans. Bjarne's idea means that the Earth's magnetic field will vary greatly between the oceans and the continents (maybe by a factor of 10 but this is a guess). This is not observed.

Bjarne has provided an unsourced image on his web site in this thread that actually supports this. http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg

Note that
  • The lowest strength of the MF is over a continent (South America). This looks related to the South Atlantic Anomaly.
  • The highest strength of the MF is over the ocean between Antarctica and Australia.
  • The ocean basins are not correlated with low strength.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Indian ocean.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Atlantic ocean.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Pacific ocean.
    • No lessening of the MF in the Arctic ocean.
  • The continents are not correlated with high strength.
    • The MF is not stronger over North America (but is in the Arctic circle).
    • The MF is not stronger over South America and is in fact especially weak.
    • The MF is not stronger over Africa.
    • The MF is not stronger over Australia.
    • It is stronger over Antarctica but is strongest over the ocean not the land.
    • There is a strong area over northern Russia. I wonder is this is part of the Kursk Magnetic Anomaly caused by rich iron orse?
This web site is an overview of the Earth's MF and includes a figure in a PDF that corresponds to Bjarne's one.

Bjarne comes back with this bit of ignorance:

Bjarne said:
No you still have got that wrong, a relative thin crust can have much better magnetic conductivity, simple because thermal heats causes much better integration.
Click to expand...

A small physical fact for you Bjarne:
Heat causes ferromagnets to lose strength.
​
 
MF reversals are not explained by this idea

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
  3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
    The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
And the next one:
Earth's MF reverses.
So how do we reverse the magnetic fields of ferromagnets? I know of two ways.

Physically turn the ferromagnet over. For Bjarne's idea this means turning the crust of the Earth inside-out. That is absurd. There is no possible mechanism to do this and the consequences would be obvious, e.g. the hotter underside of the crust would probably melt the surface of the Earth.

Heat the ferromagnet until it reaches its Curie temperature and its magnetic field vanishes. Now let the ferromagnet cool down in the presence of an external magnetic field with the reverse direction to the original MF. You end up with a ferromagnet with a weaker field in the opposite direction. This is also absurd:
  • Curie temperatures are 100's of degrees, e.g. for magnetite it is 858 K.
  • There is no external magnetic field to re-magnetize the ferromagnet.
    If the idea is that the crust reverses polarity this way in bits then the surrounding material would re-magnetize the ferromagnet with the original polarity.
Real scientists have explanations for the reversals based on actual science:
Scientific opinion is divided on what causes geomagnetic reversals. One theory holds that they are due to events internal to the system that generates the Earth's magnetic field. The other holds that they are due to external events.
Internal events
Many scientists believe that reversals are an inherent aspect of the dynamo theory of how the geomagnetic field is generated. In computer simulations, it is observed that magnetic field lines can sometimes become tangled and disorganized through the chaotic motions of liquid metal in the Earth's core.
In some simulations, this leads to an instability in which the magnetic field spontaneously flips over into the opposite orientation. This scenario is supported by observations of the solar magnetic field, which undergoes spontaneous reversals every 7–15 years. However, with the sun it is observed that the solar magnetic intensity greatly increases during a reversal, whereas all reversals on Earth seem to occur during periods of low field strength.
Present computational methods have used very strong simplifications in order to produce models that run to acceptable time scales for research programs.
External events
Others, such as Richard A. Muller, believe that geomagnetic reversals are not spontaneous processes but rather are triggered by external events which directly disrupt the flow in the Earth's core. Such processes may include the arrival of continental slabs carried down into the mantle by the action of plate tectonics at subduction zones, the initiation of new mantle plumes from the core-mantle boundary, and possibly mantle-core shear forces resulting from very large impact events. Supporters of this theory hold that any of these events could lead to a large scale disruption of the dynamo, effectively turning off the geomagnetic field. Because the magnetic field is stable in either the present North-South orientation or a reversed orientation, they propose that when the field recovers from such a disruption it spontaneously chooses one state or the other, such that a recovery is seen as a reversal in about half of all cases.
Brief disruptions which do not result in reversal are also known and are called geomagnetic excursions. WPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Click to expand...
There is no reason why both internal and external events could cause reversals.
 
So how do we reverse the magnetic fields of ferromagnets? I know of two ways.
Click to expand...
Each pieces of magnetic materiel in the crust of the Earth + how integrated these are with the rest of the Earths magnetic field, is decisive for where MNP (and SMP) must be.
(Also off course the push from the solar wind affects the field, - up to 80 km per day).
Because of the integration is changing from time to time, the whole field must relocate.
It is simple to understand that when lets say the magnetism of a continent is changing its strenghts this will affect the magnetic poles as well. Ity's probaly mainly a question to understand the continental contribution to the common MNP and SMP.

Real scientists.......
Click to expand...
In this case "real scientists" seems to be a crowd of incompetent dreamers, total blind for the fact: that several facts is impossible to "adapt" to the geo dynamo fantasy.
These people are closing there eyes and happy to run with a half wind. That’s a REAL PROBLEM my friend.

The rest of RC spasms are as expected.
If a man doesn’t want to see, then he doesn’t want to see.
When a stubborn cow doesn’t want to walk, then it don't want to walk.
This is characteristic for this thesis.
The last convulsions of a doomed thesis.

The rest of RCs point we have been through 7 times now. Good answers are given (and off course ignored).
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Each pieces of magnetic materiel in the crust of the Earth + how integrated these are with the rest of the Earths magnetic field, is decisive for where MNP (and SMP) must be.
Click to expand...
Answering with your usual nonsense.
The "integration" with the rest of the Earth's magnetic field is exactly why the magnetic materiel will not reverse polarity

Bjarne said:
The rest of RCs point we have been through 7 times now. Good answers are given (and off course ignored).
Click to expand...
The rest of my points you have given bad answers to and have been ignored.
 
The "integration" with the rest of the Earth's magnetic field is exactly why the magnetic materiel will not reverse polarity
Click to expand...

No not at all
As I wrote: tries to place an iron beam in the earth. It will adapt and contribute to the Earth, now turn it around, and again you see it will adapt and contribute to the earth's MF.
You problem is that you have no experience by experimenting with magnetic field, and probably never had had a magnetometer in you hands.

Difference magnetic strengths from the continents can push MNP where these “want”.
When the global magnetic field splits a part and several magnetic “alliances” appears, these can (and will) “fight each other” or integrate with each other, - magnetic chaos will rules, and everything can happen. – Hence the magnetic polarity can flip one or several time relative fast can flip.

Remember magnetic chaos rules when the field is VERY weak, (few percent of it’s average strength) - to believe that electromagnetic circuit controls such weak magnetic chaos, is completely naïve.
When the magnetic chaos rules and the field is weak, almost like the field on mars, it easy to see that there really are no need for electromagnetism, and exactly in these weak period magnetic flips happens.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:
  1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
    This has been known for 172 years :eye-poppi !
  2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
  3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
    The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
  4. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
    The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
And the next one:
Bjarne seems to think that heat increases "magnetic conductivity" and thinks that means an increase in magnetic strength.
Bjarne said:
No you still have got that wrong, a relative thin crust can have much better magnetic conductivity, simple because thermal heats causes much better integration.
For example, to be extreme, - Himalayas will always be a difficulty area to “adapt” to the global field, - and you can see this is a huge negative anomaly.
Now look at Africa’s for example Congo, here you have a continental depression (and reasons to believe there is better heat flow) and at the same time you have a huge positive magnetic anomaly.
Click to expand...
We will ignore the facts that the Himalayas and the Congo are not continents.
We will ignore that fact that the magnetic anomalies over the Himalayas and the Congo are small scale (not continental). This is easily seen in the World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map (WDMA2007 is a 2 MB PDF)

This is physically wrong. Better "heat flow" does not affect ferromagnets.
When ferromagnets are heated they first lose some strength and then have a phase transition to paramagnetism at their Curie temperature. Paramagnetism means that they have no magnetic field of their own but respond to external magnetic fields.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom