Can we control the temperature of Earth?

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)
The models show the magnetic field anywhere on Earth with high precision and then it is possible to distinguish between contributions from the electric currents in the liquid core 3000 kilometer below and contributions from crust.
The contributions of magnetic minerals in the crust depends on the thickness of the crust down to the limit by the so-called Curie temperature (typically 500-600 ° C), where materials are non-magnetic.
My comments >>> HA HA HA HA HA how funny.
They are detecting the variation in the MF caused by the abundance of magnetic minerals.

You have just stated that thermal heat is oceans: Bjarne's "Big Thermal Box" is the oceans. Oceans are cooler than land. The crust is not hotter under the oceans, just thiner.
Ferromagnetic materials lose strength with heat (~0.1% per degree) and gain strength with cooling.
Your prediction of a correlation is the opposite of what is observed, i.e. no correlation of MF strength with oceans or land.
  • 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 ore?
This web site is an overview of the Earth's MF and includes a figure in a PDF that corresponds to Bjarne's one.

We also KNOW that many other places on Earth we find the same FACT.
We also KNOW that many other places on Earth we find the same FACT
We KNOW that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is not correlation with the oceans or land. This is FACT:
  • 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.
This is what you should NOT expect by a ferro-MF. Also:
Even siller citation
What Oersted satellite meter, is the strength and direction of Earth's magnetic field of approximately 700 km's altitude. Earth's magnetic field generated by flow in the Earth's inner liquid portion, which lies 3000 km under the Earth's surface.
The core consists of iron and nickel, which is melted because of the enormous pressure and high temperature. The metals are as fluid as water, and moves in tandem with Earth's rotation - it creates a strong electric current, and it is these electric currents, which forms the Earth's magnetic field.
"It comes back to us that the changes in the Earth's magnetic field, and hence flow in the Earth's interior is so rapid. This shows that Earth's magnetic field is not as stable as previously thought - may be very large changes in the magnetic field within a few months, "says senior researcher Nils Olsen from DTU Space.

SO BETTER KEEP YOU MOUTH SHUT, and everybody are happy.
SO BETTER KEEP YOU MOUTH SHUT, and everybody are happy.
 
If the world of “scientist” really still have any common sense (left), - and I not (at all), I must say I am very happy that I am an exception, [and haven’t gone (too) long in school. ]

Are you saying that if you are totally bonkers, it makes you happy? ... Well, to each his own.

DC right
A large DC circuit can and will affect the MF of Earth.

Well, if it is large enough, then yes.

Off course there is doubt how strong the MNP area of the EARTH must be to keep MNP calm.

Not only that. There is doubt that any external field can do it at all.

To get started we don't need to build a huge billion USD experiment to test how much can we effect the MF of Earth.
The first experiment could be on a framers field, - let say diameter 1 km.
On that basis we can get an idea of how much energy it takes to get a certain effect.

No. That is very unlikely to be a scaleable experiment. Of course, you can make a local effect, but to actually affect the planetary field, you need to go full scale.

Or/And we could measure how much CERN disturbs the MF (measurement satellites this is not possible).

It doesn't. The fields at CERN are closed fields.

Based on that, and based on understanding this theory I believe we can beforehand calculate how big a circuit and how much energy it will require to “keep the Earth MF entrance widely open”

That doesn't even make sense.

Maybe we do not need an DC circuit that have diameter 3000 km as suggested, maybe 100 km diameter is enough. If the magnetic conductivety below the DC circuit field is good, it will do the rest, like a chain reaction.

And maybe pigs can fly. You are making wild guesses, based on wild guesses.

Hans
 
No. That is very unlikely to be a scaleable experiment. Of course, you can make a local effect, but to actually affect the planetary field, you need to go full scale.
This is also what I mean.
Based on small experiments that effects the Earth’s MF we can calculate how much more power we need to ensure that the Northern local MF will be strong (and stable).

And maybe pigs can fly. You are making wild guesses, based on wild guesses.
No this is based on 10.000 years paleo magnetic data. >>>> http://www.science27.com/Earth/2.htm
We know MNP is calm (and inside the Arctic Ocean thermal/magnetic anomaly) in global strong Magnetic periods.
There is (also) no logical way to connect this fact with a "goe-dynamo"..

They are detecting the variation in the MF caused by the abundance of magnetic minerals.
But it is in fact the opposite you see.
Continental depressions and thermal heated area have positives magnetic anomalies.
You can see that.
Every cow on (hot) Iceland know that too.
http://www.science27.com/Earth/3.htm

If it only were quote: “the abundance of magnetic minerals” that were (main) important, - continental depression and / or thin crust should always result to negative anomalies.
This is not the case.

You have just stated that thermal heat is oceans:

No
I have stated that:

  • Thermal heat in the Arctic Ocean is important because this is a strategic magnetic collisions area.
  • Thermal heats mainly runs through the thinnest crust in the ocean as well as in the continents. NOT always Only in the ocean.
  • Strong Heats flows (from the inner earth), - but where it ends up is completely accidentally, and could happens right under you feeds right now, and with the strongest effects in exactly that area the last 500 years, right now.
  • It’s a stupid myth to believe it follows a certain routes, like was it on tracks..
  • Off course also the abundance of magnetic minerals is important too.
  • Off course heat flow above Currie will give the opposite effects so long it is too hot. But when cooling down those areas will be even stronger as before.

The lowest strength of the MF is over a continent (South America). This looks related to the South Atlantic Anomaly.
This is NOT caused by a crust anomaly, but by a global disintegration. You can not compare this to crust anomalies.

This is what you should NOT expect by a ferro-MF. Also:
The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
This has been known for 172 years
This is exactly what you should expect.
Simply because MNP is moving in a areas with bad magnetic conductivity.
This reduces the magnetic “entrances” and it entangles the whole field. The result is disintegration.
If this continues the MF of the Earth becomes completely chaotic.
In such periods naturally everything can and will happen also pole flip.

Try to take off your superstition & crakcpot glasses
Look at this map.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/files/magnetic-models/xCHAOS/Delta_d2Z_g_01.MOV
This is a map that show thermal heat flow.
Its not cult electro magnetised circuits
 
Last edited:
What about the magnetic field of the Moon

Bjarne,
I asked you: What has happened to the poles and the rest of the Moon's magnetic field?

Your answer was vague
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.
There is no sucg thing as "integration" of the MF.
What is a "global collision point"?
What effect does not having thermal heat have on it?
Why does a "local MF" have to adapt to a "global field"? That sounds like you think the Moon should have no MF at all.
There is plenty of magnetic material. The likely origin of the Moon is from a collision of a large body with the Earth. The Moon is made of the Earth's crust!
So:
  • Why does the Moon not have magnetic poles?
  • And more importantly why does the Moon with its similar composition have a MF less than the Earth's by 2 orders of magnitude?
    I would expect a factor related to the surface area, e.g. maybe a factor of 16 not 100.
 
Last edited:
MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea (Part II)

In my list is
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.

None of Bjarne's explanation made sense to my simple mind.
So Bjarne, here is an chance to explain this in simple terms for a simple mind :).
Start with
  1. The North Magnet Pole is near the north pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the south pole.
  2. Event A happens.
  3. Event B happens.
  4. Event C happens.
  5. The North Magnet Pole is now near the south pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the north pole.
Event's A, B and C (and D, etc. if you need to add them) should correspond with the actual observations of how MF reversals happen.
 
-------
There is no such thing as "integration" of the MF.
The fact that you don’t know is no guarantees for that the is not such thing.
Let’s try to make it simple and possible for you to comprehend the meaning.
You car is and will always be an integrated parts of the Earth magnetic field. It happens all the time, and automatically.

Try to heat it to Curie and lets cool down again when the front is pointing to Magnetic North.
Now drive in all direction (after cooling down).

You will discover that you car anyway always is a integrated parts of the earth magnetic field, doesn’t matter which direction you moves.

BUT when you drive north you car contributes more to the Earth MF than when driving in any other direction.
This is because many magnetic lines points to north after cooling down from Curie.
It’s in the same way with the Earth. Imaging you car is now Africa and incorporates the whole magnetic history, and every heat motion in the African continent, as well as how the global magnetic field affects Africa from time to time etc......

What is a "global collision point"?
Heatstrem.jpg


What effect does not having thermal heat have on it?
I don’t understand your question.
If you mean which part of the crust that do not have thermal heat flow.
Well, if so - > Himalaya.
You can see this is a negative anomaly.
http://www.science27.com/Earth/3.htm
But off course a mountains can also have a positive anomaly. It depends on where is MNP now, - and where was MNP when the mountain was cooling. (and off course the amount of magnetic materiel)

Why does a "local MF" have to adapt to a "global field"?
The same reason that you car always will adapt.
In a period with magnetic chaos (on Earth) largest part of the crust fights each other to be the dominating ruler. The point where to magnetic poles collides, is very important. This mean the battle is over, “magnetic peace” will begin to rule, and integration will begin. In these period you car can have “change side” many times, and many magnetic flips could very easy had happen.

That sounds like you think the Moon should have no MF at all.
There is plenty of magnetic material.
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
  1. “The moon as well as Mars has a weak MF”.
  2. Magnetism integration disappears over time.
  3. These objects could very easy mean these once had a much stronger field.


The likely origin of the Moon is from a collision of a large body with the Earth.
This is only speculation.
http://www.science27.com/english/solar_systems_galaxies.html

The Moon is made of the Earth's crust!
This is only speculation.
http://www.science27.com/english/solar_systems_galaxies.html


So:
• Why does the Moon not have magnetic poles?
And more importantly why does the Moon with its similar composition have a MF less than the Earth's by 2 orders of magnitude?
I would expect a factor related to the surface area, e.g. maybe a factor of 16 not 100.

Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
Is the concrete thick where you live ?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5669549&postcount=252

In my list is
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.

None of Bjarne's explanation made sense to my simple mind.
So Bjarne, here is an chance to explain this in simple terms for a simple mind .
Start with
1. The North Magnet Pole is near the north pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the south pole.
2. Event A happens.
3. Event B happens.
4. Event C happens.
5. The North Magnet Pole is now near the south pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the north pole.
Event's A, B and C (and D, etc. if you need to add them) should correspond with the actual observations of how MF reversals happen.
__________________
OK

The worst possible scenario

Event A
Year 2020
MNP continues to entangle in northern Canada because it moves in a magnetic weak area (bad magnetic conductively).
This mean the magnetic entrance is mainly closed.
This will continue to weaken The North / South American continent, and as a result the South Atlantic anomaly grow weaker the next century.

Event B
Year 2200
The opposite important big magnetic alliance / continent; Eurasia will keep its magnetic strength much better than the North / South American continent
The result is that MNP is “pushed” south.

Event C
Year 2300
Eurasia will compared to Northern America continue to keep relative stronger magnetic strength, and some place gain magnetic strength. (We know Eurasia today huge places is gaining magnetic strength)

Event D
Year 2400
MNP enters an area with very poor magnetic conductive try, and moves west,
50 years later the opposite happens MNP moves east.
50 years later MNP enters a very weak magnetic area again MNP moves south.
In these 150 years MNP entangles A LOT and the magnetic conductivity gets fast weaker. The result is that the South Atlantic Anomaly now is double so weak than 300 years before.

Event E
Year 2600
Science now (finally) understand that in the Atlantic Ocean a new MNP and MSP is about to be born.

Event F
Year 3000
1000 Km South for Australia the MSP splits apart in two.

Event G
Year 3200
MNP have reached Chicago a new MNP is born in Novosibirsk.
There is no doubt the MF of the Earth is begin to be totally chaotic. The push from solar wind and storm can easy disturbs the magnetic balance between difference alliances.

Event H
Year 3300
The Earth second biggest magnetic block (the American) is only the third biggest.
A new magnetic block reaching from the South Atlantic to Australia have become stronger ..

Event I
Year 3400
Two magnetic South Poles are fighting each other near Australia.
The strong Eurasia MSP forces the weaker MSP move away.
Hence the second strongest MSP is forced completely to relocate and because this block is the second strongest it begins to force the weak magnetic American block to relocate.
Hence the American MNP is forces to move from Chicago to Los Angeles in only 100 year.

Event J
Year 3500
The Eurasian block splits apart near India.
Now 4 big magnetic blocks exist.
And so it goes.
Accidentally one block can grow or get weaker. (and push and be pushed)
Only you imagination and thermal heat flow sets the limits.


  • We know period with chaotic MF and fast moving MNP/MSP exist..
  • We know the Earth can have up to 4 MNP + 4 MSP..
  • We know magnetic flip only happens when the MF of Earth is weak.
  • We know (already today) that magnetic power lines at the Southern Hemisphere get into the field, these “should” get out.
-------
 
Last edited:
-------
...snipped car gibberish...
So "integration" of the MF is nothing to do with integration.
It is just that MFs have directions.

I do not understand your answer.
My question was: What is a "global collision point"?
Are you saying that it is a pretty picture on some crank's web site?

-------
I don’t understand your question.
The question is simple:
You have something that you call a "global collision point". What effect does not having thermal heat have on it?
Better yet:
How does this "global collision point" react as you chnage its temperature.

-------
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing

WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
  1. “The moon as well as Mars has a weak MF”.
  2. Magnetism integration disappears over time.
  3. These objects could very easy mean these once had a much stronger field.
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing

WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
  1. “The moon as well as Mars has a weak MF”
    Has nothing to do with the question of why the Moon has a weak magnetic field.
  2. Magnetism integration disappears over time.
    There is not such thing a "magnetism integration".
  3. These objects could very easy mean these once had a much stronger field.
    These objects could very easy mean these once had a much weaker field.
-------
This is only speculation.
This is only a scientific theory - something you have no knowledge of..

-------
Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
The Moon does have thermal Heat. It is not at a temperature of absolute zero.PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing

-------
...snipped Bjarne dreams...
-------
Try again using simple terms. Use only 2 magnetic poles. Pick an actual polarity reversal event rather than your fantasy.
Start with
  1. The North Magnet Pole is near the north pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the south pole.
  2. Event A happens.
  3. Event B happens.
  4. Event C happens.
  5. The North Magnet Pole is now near the south pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the north pole.
Event's A, B and C (and D, etc. if you need to add them) should correspond with the actual observations of how an actual MF reversal happened.
 
-------
Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
Is the concrete thick where you live ?
But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials! The Moon has a MF that is 100 times less than the Earths.

PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
Is the concrete thick where you live ?
 
Flaws in and outstanding questions about 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.
At this point his idea is totally invalid. There is no point in looking at it any more but there are even more flaws
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
Then there is the evidence of his lack of knowledge of physics:
Questions that he is unable to answer:
  1. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    He seems to think that oceanic crust is hotter than continental crust. As far as I know, he is wrong.
  5. What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
    First asked 1 March 2010
    So far just vague stuff about thermal heat, e.g. "Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat". But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials!
 
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.
At this point his idea is totally invalid. There is no point in looking at it any more but there are even more flaws
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
Then there is the evidence of his lack of knowledge of physics:
Questions that he is unable to answer:
  1. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    He seems to think that oceanic crust is hotter than continental crust. As far as I know, he is wrong.
  5. What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
    First asked 1 March 2010
    So far just vague stuff about thermal heat, e.g. "Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat". But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials!

PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
We have been all that through serveral times
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
Is the concrete thick where you live ?

You can bring the cow (and RC) to the water source, but you can’t force it to drink.

The next couple of days I am offline.
 
PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
We have been all that through serveral times
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
Is the concrete thick where you live ?

You can bring the cow (and RC) to the water source, but you can’t force it to drink.

The next couple of days I am offline.
Then when you come back, you should be able to give me the links to where you give the answers to the following questions.
Remember that a "thermal heat did it" answer is the same as "fairies did it" unless you can back it up with some mathematics, science or actual observations.
  1. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
  2. Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
  3. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
  4. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
  5. What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
I think the answer to 4 is that your Big Box of Thermal Heat (BBTH) is the oceanic crust. But I must be wrong. AFAIK the oceanic crust is not hotter than the continental crust - just thinner. But the major flaw is that in order to explain the movement of the magnetic poles (kilometers per year), your BBTH must
  • Move at smiliar rates.
    This is not possible since tectonic plates move at centimeters per year.
  • Or there is your idea that the MF of the BBTH pushes the magnetic poles around.
    In that case you can cite the observations that some oceans are getting stronger in MF relative to others in order to do the pushing.
Or perhaps you would like to tackle the question about how Gauss 172 years ago and every other scientist since then have been wrong when they measure that the Earth's MF originates 5000 km below the surface of the Earth.
 
]Or perhaps you would like to tackle the question about how Gauss 172 years ago and every other scientist since then have been wrong when they measure that the Earth's MF originates 5000 km below the surface of the Earth.

The answer is that they were not geniuses chock full of cow logic like Bjarne.
 
What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
It’s a question of the level of magnetic integration.
This Q can’t be answered in one single answer but rather by the theory as a whole.

Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field

Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
I never said that.
The flow of solar wind contributes to the Earth's MF in period where MNP is in he central Arctic Ocean..

The source >>
http://www.science27.com/Earth/Felt2.jpg

What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
You mean this:
Heatstrem.jpg
?

This is created by this .....
Gryde3.gif

(The thickness of the crust / cracks etc)

And the result is this : http://www.science27.com/Earth/2.htm

My dear friend I have also give you that answer 117 times now. If you need it one time more, just tell me, no problem..

What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
What about the thickness of the concrete ??
Do I need to put the messages into a bunker blaster, to reach you ?
Sorry my connection to such is not so good. I suggest instead to read by clicking the link..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5669549&postcount=252

I think the answer to 4 is that your Big Box of Thermal Heat (BBTH) is the oceanic crust. But I must be wrong. AFAIK the oceanic crust is not hotter than the continental crust - just thinner.
We know the Arctic Ocean is a a huge thermal hot area

But the major flaw is that in order to explain the movement of the magnetic poles (kilometers per year), your BBTH must
No not at all
I have mentioned at least 3 times above that; Thermal heat is everywhere inside the crust.
The more the better it is in the magnetic collision zone.
If it is bad heat flow, the magnetic collisions are larger, - as also means the magnetic entrance are more closed / disrupted../ disturbed.
Therefore MNPs motion in a cold area closing (part of) the magnetic entrance, this is in fact enough to magnetic weakening and hence disintegration.

Or there is your idea that the MF of the BBTH pushes the magnetic poles around.
This again clearly demonstrate that it seem like you read NOTHING of what I am writing.
Honestly are you really in a bunker discussions with you self?
PLEASE read this
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5673547&postcount=266

I am not saying that everything is crystal clear.
BUT only that there is plenty off reasons to do a much better down job, - down to earth, and also that a ferro magnetic model doesn’t seem to have any problem at all. This you can't say about the goe dynamo speculation.

Or in other words
I am saying there are HUGE broad hints, that we MUST at least seriously try to understand / adapt to a coherent working brain and coherent working magnetic field, - rather then only just ignoring such huge “paint on the wall” combined with concrete creeds + brainwash + Amen.
---
 
But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials! The Moon has a MF that is 100 times less than the Earths.

PLEASE (from now on) read what I am writing
WHY shall I repeat it all 117 times
Is the concrete thick where you live ?

Just the skull.
 
The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF at any time

The solar wind does not have any relevance to the orgin of the Earth's magnetic field.
If the solar wind did not exist then the Earth's magnetic field will still exist. The solar wind has stopped (The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared) and no effects on the strength of the Earth's magnetic field were reported.

I may be wrong in which case Bjarne can cite the measurements that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field did something on that day.

What Bjarne is confused about is that the solar wind changes the shape of the Earth's magnetic field. So a change in the solar wind changes what can reach the Earth's surface, e.g. electrons (as in the aurora) and cosmic rays.

Latest reply
I never said that.
The flow of solar wind contributes to the Earth's MF in period where MNP is in he central Arctic Ocean..
So apparently the solar wind only "contributes to the Earth's MF" when the North Magnetic Pole is in the "central Artic Ocean".

First asked 5 March 2010
Bjarne,
Why does the solar wind not contribute at other times?
Please show your calculations fully.

Bjarne,
How does the measured strength of the MF of the Earth vary as the North Magnetic Pole moves to the "central Artic Ocean"?
Please cite your all of your sources.
 
Can you explain any actual polarity reversal event in simple terms

First asked 2 March 2010 (now a formal question)
Bjarne,
Can you explain any actual polarity reversal event in simple, understandable terms?
Use only 2 magnetic poles. Pick an actual polarity reversal event rather than your fantasy.


Start with
  1. The North Magnet Pole is near the north pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the south pole.
  2. Event A happens.
  3. Event B happens.
  4. Event C happens.
  5. The North Magnet Pole is now near the south pole and the South Magnetic Pole is near the north pole.
Event's A, B and C (and D, etc. if you need to add them) should correspond with the actual observations of how an actual MF reversal happened.
 
Flaws in and outstanding questions about 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 at any time.
    It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
    AFAIK The strength of the MF does not vary as the Magnetic North Pole moves around the Artic Ocean nor with the strength of the solar wind as it is in the "central Artic ocean". But I am sure Bjarne can correct me with many scientific papers showing just that :rolleyes: .
At this point his idea is totally invalid. There is no point in looking at it any more but there are even more flaws
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
    First Asked 2 March 2010
    I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
Then there is the evidence of his lack of knowledge of physics:
Questions that he is unable to answer coherently:
  1. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
    First asked 15 February 2010
  2. 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.
  3. Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF strength is influenced by the solar wind at any time
    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.
  4. What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
    First asked 26 February 2010
    He seems to think that oceanic crust is hotter than continental crust. As far as I know, he is wrong. He can prove me wrong with some citations to the literature that he isusing for his idea.
  5. What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
    First asked 1 March 2010
    So far just vague stuff about thermal heat, e.g. "Simply because the Moon do not have thermal Heat". But a lack of "thermal heat" increases the MF strength of ferromagnetic materials!
 
Last edited:
What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
It’s a question of the level of magnetic integration.
This Q can’t be answered in one single answer but rather by the theory as a whole.

Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field

Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind
I never said that.
The flow of solar wind contributes to the Earth's MF in period where MNP is in he central Arctic Ocean..

The source >>
http://www.science27.com/Earth/Felt2.jpg

What creates your Big Box of Thermal Heat?
You mean this:
Heatstrem.jpg
?

This is created by this .....
Gryde3.gif

(The thickness of the crust / cracks etc)

And the result is this : http://www.science27.com/Earth/2.htm

My dear friend I have also give you that answer 117 times now. If you need it one time more, just tell me, no problem..

What about the magnetic field of the Moon?
What about the thickness of the concrete ??
Do I need to put the messages into a bunker blaster, to reach you ?
Sorry my connection to such is not so good. I suggest instead to read by clicking the link..
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5669549&postcount=252

I think the answer to 4 is that your Big Box of Thermal Heat (BBTH) is the oceanic crust. But I must be wrong. AFAIK the oceanic crust is not hotter than the continental crust - just thinner.
We know the Arctic Ocean is a a huge thermal hot area

But the major flaw is that in order to explain the movement of the magnetic poles (kilometers per year), your BBTH must
No not at all
I have mentioned at least 3 times above that; Thermal heat is everywhere inside the crust.
The more the better it is in the magnetic collision zone.
If it is bad heat flow, the magnetic collisions are larger, - as also means the magnetic entrance are more closed / disrupted../ disturbed.
Therefore MNPs motion in a cold area closing (part of) the magnetic entrance, this is in fact enough to magnetic weakening and hence disintegration.

Or there is your idea that the MF of the BBTH pushes the magnetic poles around.
This again clearly demonstrate that it seem like you read NOTHING of what I am writing.
Honestly are you really in a bunker discussions with you self?
PLEASE read this
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5673547&postcount=266

I am not saying that everything is crystal clear.
BUT only that there is plenty off reasons to do a much better down job, - down to earth, and also that a ferro magnetic model doesn’t seem to have any problem at all. This you can't say about the goe dynamo speculation.

Or in other words
I am saying there are HUGE broad hints, that we MUST at least seriously try to understand / adapt to a coherent working brain and coherent working magnetic field, - rather then only just ignoring such huge “paint on the wall” combined with concrete creeds + brainwash + Amen.
---
 
I wonder where this set of Geophysics class notes got its information from?​

Magnetic field of the Earth measured at the surface comes from three sources:
97-99% Main field generated by dynamo action in the outer core
​

1-2% External field generated in space in the magnetosphere
1-2% Crustal field from remnant magnetization above the Curie depth​

 

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