Can we control the temperature of Earth?

I guess the fact that your idea demands enough "ferro-magnetic materiel" to explain the strength of the MF is "only of secondary importance"
Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
Click to expand...
Try to measure the MF in 1 mm metal, its very weak.
Now try to measure in 1 meter thin iron wire.
You will see that strength is suddenly relative "huge"
Even weak magnetic flow can reach over long distance
These will reinforce each other when probably integrated.
The "amount" / ´"length" / "integration" of the "wire" - is important.
Furthermore, the MF of the earth, is really relative very weak, also in strong magnetic periods.
70.000 nT is not much, a centimetre thin iron wire can easy be 1 gauss.

The NMP is moving at 64 km per year towards Russia.
The SMP is moving north west by about 10 to 15 kilometres per year.
Thus the BBTH must also be moving at the same rate. This is a problem for Bjarne since we know that heat sources in the Earth do not move. What happens is that the crust moves above them, e.g. the mantle plume that created the Hawaiian Islands. That movement is on the scale of centimetres per year.
Click to expand...
No it no a problem, it's rather support a ferro-model theory, because the change of individually strength of "local fields" are the cause of the MNP + MSP motion.

The real importance is the stupidity of thinking that the origin of the MF is in the crust when:
The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometres below the surface of the Earth.
This has been known for 172 years!
Click to expand...
Let us close ours eyes (for the fact that the geo-speculation contradicts reality), and let us all pray. (And I mean ALL)
There is only ONE true dynamo.
We know this because all orthodox know it is 5000 km inside the Earth
The big prophet (with the name Geo Specu) have seen it in a revelation
Amen
 
Bjarne said:
Try to measure the MF in 1 mm metal, its very weak.
Now try to measure in 1 meter thin iron wire.
You will see that strength is suddenly relative "huge"
Even weak magnetic flow can reach over long distance
These will reinforce each other when probably integrated.
The "amount" / ´"length" / "integration" of the "wire" - is important.
Furthermore, the MF of the earth, is really relative very weak, also in strong magnetic periods.
70.000 nT is not much, a centimetre thin iron wire can easy be 1 gauss.
Click to expand...
Now try to measure the strength of the magnetic field of a rock.
It is very weak.
Multiply by the mass of the crust.
Now the Earths MF does not exist!

Bjarne said:
No it no a problem, it's rather support a ferro-model theory, because the change of individually strength of "local fields" are the cause of the MNP + MSP motion.
Click to expand...
Yes it yes a problem, its a rather support of dynamo theory, because the dynamo can change direction easily.

Bjarne said:
Let us close ours eyes (for the fact that the geo-speculation contradicts reality), and let us all pray. (And I mean ALL)
There is only ONE true dynamo.
We know this because all orthodox know it is 5000 km inside the Earth
The big prophet (with the name Geo Specu) have seen it in a revelation
Amen
Click to expand...

Let us close ours eyes (for the fact that the Bjarne MF idea contradicts reality), and let us all pray. (And I mean ALL)
There is only ONE true Bjarne idea.
We know this because all orthodox know it is 50 km inside the Earth
The big prophet (with the name Bjarne ) have seen it in a revelation
Amen

We know that your idea is idiotic because:
 
Now try to measure the strength of the magnetic field of a rock.
It is very weak.
Multiply by the mass of the crust.
Now the Earths MF does not exist!
Click to expand...

You know the MF on Mars there is many local and chaotic MF reaching 1500 nT .
These are of cause not integrated, and points to 1 million directions.

  • These are “only” 50 times stronger than the MF on Earth MNP/MSP
  • These are “only” 15 times stronger then the Earth MF by its equator (South Atlantic Anomaly)
  • These are only 2 to 4 times stronger that the Earth MF in the period of magnetic chaos the earth goes through.
Now let’s imaging that you would be the first man on Mars, and that you are landing exactly between the 7 biggest Magnetic Anomalies.

With you, you would have the latest (science fiction) technology to heat up 1000 square km of the crust of Mars.

You would now heat up the crust of Mars exactly where the 2 biggest MF collides.
And you would also randomly heat up the areas in and between the 7 biggest magnetic areas.
What would happen when this area (except the area where to 2 stronges MF collides) cools down again?

Can you see for you self, that this MF of Mars is no longer “only” 1500 nT when you leave? – But rather now 3 or 4000 nT.

Heatstrem.jpg


No you can not.
Simply because you don’t want to understand what the imaging above shows could be a fact.

Don’t say that the MF in rocks are too weak to integrate locally.
It happens on Mars.
What should prevent it to happen globally?
It’s all a question of magnetic integration.

And this is generally why science unfortunately many times is very similar to fanatic religion.
Always intolerant, single tracked, one-eyed, left-brained, condescending, faultless, orthodox, bull-headed, hypnotized, brainwashed, ignorant and omniscience .

Only because that this what the majority believes, - this is the holly "science".

Look at the climate debate.......
No new knowledge the past 10 years, that proves anything except that ice have been melting…..
BUT today "suddenly" - we "all" – “know” that we are to blame ..
Holly (mainstream) emotions… This is where science where lost..
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
You know the MF on Mars there is many local and chaotic MF reaching 1500 nT .
These are of cause not integrated, and points to 1 million directions.
Click to expand...

Amazing - I thought we had covered this already.

But it seems that Bjarne has not yet grasped that no matter which point in the universe he places his hall probe, he will measure exactly one magnetic field that points in exactly one direction.

A magnetic field cannot point in "1 million directions" - the degree of nonsense in that statement if far over any crackpot scale.
 
Sensation_of_physics said:
Amazing - I thought we had covered this already.

But it seems that Bjarne has not yet grasped that no matter which point in the universe he places his hall probe, he will measure exactly one magnetic field that points in exactly one direction.

A magnetic field cannot point in "1 million directions" - the degree of nonsense in that statement if far over any crackpot scale.
Click to expand...

Of course MF's can point in every possible direction.
The fact that the Earth has a global MF doesn’t change that.
 
Bjarne said:
Of course MF's can point in every possible direction.
The fact that the Earth has a global MF doesn’t change that.
Click to expand...
Totally wrong.
The force exerted by a MF has one and only one direction at eact point in the MF. The fact that the Earth has a MF ("global" or not) does not change this.
 
Flaws and outstanding questions in Bjarne's MF 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.
  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.
  5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
    And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
  6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.
  7. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  8. Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  9. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
    First asked 16 February 2010
    The physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  10. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    Apparently nothing (maybe gnomes with blowtorches :D)
This list is getting long and will be getting even longer since there are many other flaws that I will be pointing out. Thus the flaws and questions will be in separate posts from now on.
 
Totally wrong.
The force exerted by a MF has one and only one direction at eact point in the MF. The fact that the Earth has a MF ("global" or not) does not change this.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about one MF but many
For example Hawaii
This island is one big chaotic exsample of that.
That of course consists of many MF
Cows on Hawaii have understood that in 500 years.

And that’s just one example from billions.

But is I wrote before, if the stubborn cow doesn’t want to walk, then it doesn’t want to walk.
 
What about the magnetic field of the Moon

The Moon also has a crust and a magnetic field. The current theory is that this magnetic field does have its origin in the crust. The facts are
  • The Moon does not have magnetic poles.
  • The strength of its MF is less than a hundredth of Earth's.
  • The strength of the MF happens to be strongest at the antipodes of the largest impact craters.
  • Current evidence is that the Moon's core is 20% the size of the Moon, in contrast to about 50% as is the case for most other bodies. This makes a geodynamo unlikely.
But according to Bjarne's idea
  • The Moon should have magnetic poles.
  • The strength of the Moon's MF should be less than the Earths but not by 2 orders of magnitude (maybe a factor of 16).
Bjarne,
What has happened to the poles and the rest of the Moon's magnetic field?
 
What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
Click to expand...
How stupid is it allowed to ask here ?
It seems that RC don't know that the Arctic Ocean is one big Thermal Anomaly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5576375&postcount=72
Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
Click to expand...
Ohh no
It’s explained 117 times above.
Let me repeat just one example
http://www.science27.com/Earth/Felt2.jpg

And all RC’s other “questions” is also answered above as well.
Maybe you should give the pickup a push, to get out of the same groove, (and begin to read what I write)...
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I am not talking about one MF but many

But is I wrote before, if the stubborn cow doesn’t want to walk, then it doesn’t want to walk.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about one MF but every MF that exists.
Any MF
  • anywhere in the universe,
  • of any strength,
  • global or local
has one and only one direction at each point in the MF. Since you probably have no idea what a magnetic field is, here is a definition
Magnetic fields surround magnetic materials and electric currents and are detected by the force they exert on other magnetic materials and moving electric charges. The magnetic field at any given point is specified by both a direction and a magnitude (or strength); as such it is a vector field.
Click to expand...

Obviously cows on Hawaii have understood that in 500 years, but you have not.
Bjarne, if the stubborn cow is dead, then bury it before it stinks up your place.
 
The Moon also has a crust and a magnetic field. The current theory is that this magnetic field does have its origin in the crust. The facts are
• The Moon does not have magnetic poles.
• The strength of its MF is less than a hundredth of Earth's.
• The strength of the MF happens to be strongest at the antipodes of the largest impact craters.
• Current evidence is that the Moon's core is 20% the size of the Moon, in contrast to about 50% as is the case for most other bodies. This makes a geodynamo unlikely.
But according to Bjarne's idea
• The Moon should have magnetic poles.
• The strength of the Moon's MF should be less than the Earths but not by 2 orders of magnitude (maybe a factor of 16).
Bjarne,
What has happened to the poles and the rest of the Moon's magnetic field?
Click to expand...

This question only demonstrates how little of that what I am writing that gets through the concrete.
The moon has very weak magnetism.
Like Mars it could very well in the past have been stronger.
The strength of ferromagnetism disappears over times.
If the question is why the Moon (or Mars) could not maintain a strong MF, the answer is the same as for Mars.
When the heat in the crust disappears you will have 2 negative effects that prevent it to integrate.

1.) No thermal heat at the global collision point
2.) No thermal heat to get local MF to adapt to a global field.
3.) Off course the content of magnetic materiel also play a role.

That’s why.
 
Bjarne's "Big Thermal Box" is the oceans

Bjarne said:
How stupid is it allowed to ask here ?
It seems that RC don't now that the actis Ocen is one big Thermal Anomaly.
How stupid is it allowed to ask here
Click to expand...
How stupid is it allowed to ask here?

All oceans are a "thermal anomaly". They have a different temperature from the land. But only a blind or ignorant person would not see that that "thermal anomaly" has no effect on the Earth's MF because the MF has been measured and:
The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate (the strength of the MF does not correlate with oceanic crust and thus oceans).

The real idiocy is that we measure the magnetic poles moving at rates of kilometers per year.
  • The NMP is moving at 64 km per year towards Russia.
  • The SMP is moving north west by about 10 to 15 kilometers per year.
So somehow the oceans have to be moving or distorting somehow at kilometres per year for this "thermal anomaly" to have any effect.
 
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.
  5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
    And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
  6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.
  7. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  8. Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  9. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
    First asked 16 February 2010
    The physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  10. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    First wrong answer from Bjarne:
    Bjarne's "Big Thermal Box" is the oceans
    (perhaps someone should tell him that oceans are cooler than the land?)
 
Reality Check said:
I am not talking about one MF but
Click to expand...

I am also not talking about one MF

every MF that exists.
Any MF
  • anywhere in the universe,
  • of any strength,
  • global or local
has one and only one direction at each point in the MF.
Click to expand...
Cows agree to that
What's you problem?

And the MF neighbour to "that" "one" MF can point to the direct opposite direction.
BUT you have understood that.,
You are just trying to make a point out of nothing .
 
Reality Check said:
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.
  5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
    And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
  6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.
  7. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  8. Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  9. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
    First asked 16 February 2010
    The physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
    A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
  10. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    First wrong answer from Bjarne:
    Bjarne's "Big Thermal Box" is the oceans
    (perhaps someone should tell him that oceans are cooler than the land?)
Click to expand...

Now the only "weapon" left is SPAM
How pitiful
 
What is a "global collision point"

Bjarne said:
This question only demonstrates how little of that what I am writing that gets through the concrete.
The moon has very weak magnetism.
Like Mars it could very well in the past have been stronger.
The strength of ferromagnetism disappears over times.
If the question is why the Moon (or Mars) could not maintain a strong MF, the answer is the same as for Mars.
When the heat in the crust disappears you will have 2 negative effects that prevent it to integrate.

1.) No thermal heat at the global collision point
2.) No thermal heat to get local MF to adapt to a global field.
3.) Off course the content of magnetic materiel also play a role.

That’s why.
Click to expand...
This answer only demonstrates how little you know.
The strength of ferromagnetism does not disappear over time. For example the average strength of the Earth's MF has been constant over billions of years.

And now we have another quesiton:
Bjarne,
What is a "global collision point"?
 
Bjarne said:
Now the only "weapon" left is SPAM
How pitiful
Click to expand...
Now the only weapon is to keep on expanding the list of Flaws and outstanding questions in Bjarne's MF idea.
How informative to people who might think your ideas have any connection with the real universe.

It is pitiful how you just keep on adding to the list.
 
Bjarne said:
I am also not talking about one MF.

And the MF neighbour to "that" "one" MF can point to the direct opposite direction.
Click to expand...
The problem is your bad English.
Originally Posted by Bjarne
Of course MF's can point in every possible direction.
The fact that the Earth has a global MF doesn’t change that.
Click to expand...
In English this means that you are stating that MF's (in general) points in every possible direction. You then mention that Earth's MF does not chnage this. This means that the Earth's MF points in every possible direction.

This is not true. The Earth's MF does not point in every possible direction. It only points in those directions allowed by the MF. For example a measurement will always point from the south magnetic pole to the north magnetic pole. I am sure that you know the compasses point north :) !

And yes - One MF can point in a one direction. Another separate MF can point in a different direction. That is trivial.
 
------
Originally Posted by Bjarne
Of course MF's can point in every possible direction.
The fact that the Earth has a global MF doesn’t change that.In English this means that you are stating that MF's (in general) points in every possible direction
Click to expand...

No I could also have written that cows looks in 1 million different directions on the same planet.
Notice the “s” after cow”s” - and the “s” after MF "s"

All oceans are a "thermal anomaly". They have a different temperature from the land. But only a blind or ignorant person would not see that that "thermal anomaly" has no effect on the Earth's MF because the MF has been measured and:
The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate (the strength of the MF does not correlate with oceanic crust and thus oceans).
Click to expand...

We KNOW that thermal heat (the thickness of the crust) and magnetic anomalies are connected. (Research from Anarchic)
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/oersted_ser_under_isen (Google translate it)

We believe this is caused by the motion of the Ice and this gives electricity and this a magnetic field.
(My comments >>> HA HA HA HA HA how funny.)
Heat flow causes local magnetism better to adapt to a ever changing magnetic direction, so simple is that...

We also KNOW that many other places on Earth we find the same FACT.
Coincidence between thermal heat (anomalies) and Magnetic anomalies.
For example Greenland and Arctic ocean.
But we do NOT know why.
It so clear >>> http://www.science27.com/Earth/k.jpg
( "Experts" says the cause of many other coincidences are investigated)

The real idiocy is that we measure the magnetic poles moving at rates of kilometres per year.
• The NMP is moving at 64 km per year towards Russia.
• The SMP is moving north west by about 10 to 15 kilometres per year.
So somehow the oceans have to be moving or distorting somehow at kilometres per year for this "thermal anomaly" to have any effect.
Click to expand...
This is what you should expect by a ferro-MF

Read this;
http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/jordens_magnetfelt_andrer_sig_lynhurtigt (Google translate it)

And here is where the problem is.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/files/magnetic-models/xCHAOS/Delta_d2Z_g_01.MOV
What you see here is in fact HEAT MOTION (“Experts” are electro fixated ONLY.)

BUT admitting what you see is caused by heat flow, - would turn over A LOT, - both the geo-dynamo as well as also the prevailing theory of plate tectonic subduction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

SO BETTER KEEP YOU MOUTH SHUT, and everybody are happy.
------
 
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