Can we control the temperature of Earth?

Bjarne said:
Don’t underestimate cows.
Theirs brains are 4 times as big as ours.
Furthermore cows are not brainwashing each other, they are simply too intelligent to do such
Click to expand...
OK, Bjarne, you just proved yourself a total fool. You just make up things as you go.

Hans
 
You've been making statements like that for a while now, soon seems to be a long time in the Bjarneverse.
Click to expand...

I think these years are right for nature to prove that the geo dynamo is a superstition.

Regarding a new understanding of central gravity, just take it easy.
This is in progress.
This forum will not be the first place to publish the results anyway.
 
What is your evidence that dynamo theory is wrong

You have been asserting in many posts that the dynamo theory ("geo dynamo") is wrong as in your latest post.
Bjarne said:
I think these years are right for nature to prove that the geo dynamo is a superstition
Click to expand...

First asked 9 March 2010
Bjarne,
What is the evidence from nature that geo dynamo is a superstition?



Dynamo theory has several successes. For the Earth:
  • It matches the shape and strength of the Earth's MF (something your idea does not).
  • It matches the movement of the magnetic poles (and explains why they are not exactly opposite each other).
  • It allows geomagnetic reversal.
  • It allows the formation of multiple pairs of poles.
P.S.
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.
 
What is the evidence from nature that geo dynamo is a superstition?
Click to expand...

It doesn’t adapt to several facts, for example the fact that global temperature and the Earth magnetic field are coincidence.

The Geodynamo is a classic example of that we MUST explain everything before we have understood anything.

This is a classic example of half brained “science”
 
Bjarne said:
It doesn’t adapt to several facts, for example the fact that global temperature and the Earth magnetic field are coincidence.
Click to expand...
Your sentence is garbled. I cannot see any facts here, and certainly not anything that cannot be explained by conventional means.
 
steenkh said:
Your sentence is garbled. I cannot see any facts here, and certainly not anything that cannot be explained by conventional means.
Click to expand...

You also can't see the wood when standing in the middle of it.
 
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: .

  3. Crustal magnetism is < 2% of the Earth's magnetism!
    Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.
    Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
    First asked 16 February 2010
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
    AFAIK, 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.
  3. What is your evidence that dynamo theory is wrong?
    First asked 9 March 2010
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. 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.
  3. 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 is using for his idea.
  4. 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 said:
It doesn’t adapt to several facts, for example the fact that global temperature and the Earth magnetic field are coincidence.
Click to expand...
This is a classic example of half brained “science”.
You totally misunderstand Henrik Svensmark's theory.
You have the idea that the climate changes cause the MF changes. That is idiotic. His theory is the other way around - MF changes cause climate changes through a chain of events (MF -> cosmic rays -> nucleation -> cloud formation). This supports the dynamo theory.

Note that your graph is really bad.
  • You do not give a source (is a product of your imagination?)
  • You state the red line is global temperature over 82,000 years but do not give a source.
  • You state that the black line is magnetic field over 100,000 years but do not give a source.
The biggest mistakes are
  1. Thinking that there is a "coincidence" in the lines. There is no real correlation.
    • There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
    • 10,000 years ago there was a big increase in MF strength that had no effect at all on temperature.
  2. Thinking that "coincidence" means causation.
    The correlation = causation fallacy is often seen in the ignorant. If you ever take a class in statistics you will hopefully learn about the absurdities that this assumption produces, e.g. there is a correlation between hem lines of skirts and the economy found in the 1920's (the longer the skirts the slower the economy). This does not mean that longer skirts cause the economy to slow.
 
You totally misunderstand Henrik Svensmark's theory.
You have the idea that the climate changes cause the MF changes. That is idiotic. His theory is the other way around - MF changes cause climate changes through a chain of events (MF -> cosmic rays -> nucleation -> cloud formation). This supports the dynamo theory.
Click to expand...

RC, - you really disappoint me
Again you demonstrate that you have used hours discussion a thread that you guaranteed not have understood.
PLEASE read this before continuing http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
It only takes you 3 minutes.
Then you will KNOW what my point is.
But in fact do you really want to know ?
Or is you true goal to misunderstand?
I am confused how you can misunderstand this http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
This is perfect English.

Note that your graph is really bad.
  • You do not give a source (is a product of your imagination?)
  • You state the red line is global temperature over 82,000 years but do not give a source.
  • You state that the black line is magnetic field over 100,000 years but do not give a source.
The biggest mistakes are
  1. Thinking that there is a "coincidence" in the lines. There is no real correlation.
    • There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
    • 10,000 years ago there was a big increase in MF strength that had no effect at all on temperature.
  2. Thinking that "coincidence" means causation.
    The correlation = causation fallacy is often seen in the ignorant. If you ever take a class in statistics you will hopefully learn about the absurdities that this assumption produces, e.g. there is a correlation between hem lines of skirts and the economy found in the 1920's (the longer the skirts the slower the economy). This does not mean that longer skirts cause the economy to slow.
Click to expand...

These data is easy to find on the Internet
For example this graph http://www.science27.com/Earth/1-Magnetfelt.jpg

You can see that the temperature curves “heavily” is coincident with the Earth Magnetic Field curves.

Why so “heavy” company ?
Simple because the Earth is a ferro-magnetic field, - this play a role too.
Randomly the Earth opens its magnetic entrance, at these period the strength of the solar wind are important too.
When MNP is inside the positive /thermal heated area the magnetic “entrance” is open, it is clearly to see that here what then happens with the MF of the Earth > http://www.science27.com/Earth/2.htm


Notice that many phenomena’s can’t be adapted to the prevailing Geo-D speculation.

  • The fact that variation of the strength of the Earth magnetic field and global temperatures are coincident, - and that fits perfectly to a ferro-magnetic model, and a much better coherent overall understanding of much more.
  • The facts that in period the Earth magnetic field is so weak that it remind of the magnetic field of Mars, that doesn’t have any inner dynamo, but only a weak and chaotic ferro magnetic crust field. - In these periods not the worlds must stupid cow can see any need for a inner dynamo.
  • The South Atlantic Anomaly can’t be explained by a inner dynamo muddle, but a ferro magnetic crust theory doesn’t have that problem.
  • The many of the crust anomalies can’t be explain by the geo speculation, - but a ferro magnetic field combined with thermal heat flow doesn’t have that problem.
  • The coincidence between thermal heat and magnetic anomalies can not be explained by a inner dynamo speculation, but a ferro magnetic crust field theory doesn’t have that problem.
Especially lets the following fact below hang in the air:
The worlds most stupid cow, wouldn’t ever even dream that is it’s possible to “connect” global temperature with the geo-speculation, simple because it is complete cow-logic impossible.
This in fact contradict the Geo-D-speculation even at cow-logic-level.
And hence bla bla bla is not the way further...
A ferro MF doesn’t have that cow-logic contradiction.

Consider WHAT is that coincidence about
How can we possible adapt this fact to a coherent none contradicting picture
 
Bjarne said:
RC, - you really disappoint me
Again you demonstrate that you have used hours discussion a thread that you guaranteed not have understood.
Click to expand...
Bjarne, - you really disappoint me
Again you demonstrate that you have used hours discussion a topicthat you guaranteed not have understood.
Pointing me to a crackpot web sit as your source is really silly and hust demonstrates your ignorance of science. A sceibtific source is a published sceintific paper or textbook.

Bjarne said:
You can see that the temperature curves “heavily” is coincident with the Earth Magnetic Field curves.
Click to expand...
A deluded peron can see that the temperature curves “heavily” is coincident with the Earth Magnetic Field curves.
An intellegent person can see that temperature curves “heavily” differs from the Earth Magnetic Field curves
  • There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
  • 10,000 years ago there was a big increase in MF strength that had no effect at all on temperature.
 
-------
Reality Check said:
Bjarne, - you really disappoint me
Again you demonstrate that you have used hours discussion a topicthat you guaranteed not have understood.
Pointing me to a crackpot web sit as your source is really silly and hust demonstrates your ignorance of science. A sceibtific source is a published sceintific paper or textbook.
Click to expand...

I only need to point to normally cow logic:

The worlds most stupid cow, wouldn’t ever even dream that is it’s possible to “connect” global temperature with the geo-speculation, simple because it is complete cow-logic impossible.
This in fact contradict the Geo-D-speculation even at cow-logic-level.
And hence bla bla bla is not the way further...
A ferro MF doesn’t have that cow-logic contradiction.

A deluded peron can see that the temperature curves “heavily” is coincident with the Earth Magnetic Field curves.
An intellegent person can see that temperature curves “heavily” differs from the Earth Magnetic Field curves
Click to expand...

An intelligent person (that have gone long enough in school like you) "should" know that Svensmarks theory is based not only on the strength of the MF of the Sun, but also of the MF of the Earth.

Hence an intelligent person should know that the global temperature coincidence not only should fit to the period magnetic strength of the sun, but also to how strong the earth MF are at the same time.
Therefore you have a "heavy" (Sun) MF-curve "mixed" with a "light" Earth "MF-curve"

Finally capito amigo ? Or shall I cut the basic logic in cardboard ?

  • There are variations in the MF over a scale of 100's of years that are not followed by global temperatures.
  • 10,000 years ago there was a big increase in MF strength that had no effect at all on temperature.
Click to expand...
You have in fact 5 factors
1.) The Suns MF
2.) The Earth MF
3.) The amount of cosmic rays
4.) The delay factor, - it takes time for the earth to cool or get warmer.
5.) Data uncertainty

The last 100 years the Suns MF have been relative strong, but the Earth MF decreasing
If the earth MF in the past 100 years would have been at its maximum, it would have been warmer in this century.

Now the Suns MF is suddenly decreasing, if also the Earth MF is continuing to decrease = global temperature is decreasing.

Based on the fact that the Earth MF already is decreasing, and that we assume that the Sun will lose pretty much of it MF strength a ice age can be a fact within 100 years.

It is not always black and white
The Sun too can have short weak magnetic period.
BUT a very long weak magnetic Sun period must be coming soon, so sure like Christmas Eve must be coming soon.

I believe MNP will stay in the Arctic Ocean for a long period and hence I predict that the Earth MF will increase in the coming year. So the role of the Sun's MF and the earth could very well be swapping now.

But we can never know. Many believe MNP will move to N-Siberia. In that case it is bad for the Earth MF and catastrophic if the Sun has started a long term magnetic weak period too.
-------
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The worlds most stupid cow, wouldn’t ever even dream that is it’s possible to “connect” global temperature with the geo-speculation, simple because it is complete cow-logic impossible.
This in fact contradict the Geo-D-speculation even at cow-logic-level.
And hence bla bla bla is not the way further...
A ferro MF doesn’t have that cow-logic contradiction.
Click to expand...
Wow you do have an obsession with cow so:
The worlds most stupid cow, would ever even dream that is it’s possible to “connect” global temperature with the geo-speculation, simple because it is complete cow-logic possible.
This in fact confirms the Geo-D-speculation even at cow-logic-level.
And hence bla bla bla is not the way further...
A ferro MF does have that cow-logic contradiction.

Bjarne said:
An intelligent person (that have gone long enough in school like you) "should" know that Svensmarks theory is based not only on the strength of the MF of the Sun, but also of the MF of the Earth.
Click to expand...
An intelligent person like me "does" know that Svensmarks theory is based not only on the strength of the MF of the Sun, but also of the MF of the Earth.

Bjarne said:
Finally capito amigo ? Or shall I cut the basic logic in cardboard ?
Click to expand...
An intellegent person would not be dumb enough to keep linking to a graph on a crackpot's web site that plots the Earth's MF against global tempertaures. That graph shows that temperature curves “heavily” differs from the Earth Magnetic Field curves.

An intellegent person would link to the scientific paper that plots global temperatures against the cosmic ray flux or all of the factors that influence the cosmic ray flux.

Finally capito amigo ? Or shall I cut the basic logic in cardboard ?
 
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