Can we control the temperature of Earth?

MRC_Hans said:
How come we can't observe this?.
Click to expand...
What is a MF
It must have something with space to do right ?
BUT WHAT ?
If not it is because space moves.

No. We don't observe space moving.
Click to expand...
Soon you are force to accept that matter contracts / consumes space.
This mean, that day you then know how a particle "interact" / connect with space.
And that day you will also understand how logic it is that the only thing that can move a particle in a MF , - is when the MF = space in motion.

It is the same cow logic main thread we speak about.

Saying that it returns is wrong.
A magnet field is a closed loop, but there is no motion.
Click to expand...
How can we can't observe this? - that it doesn’t move. ?

Bjarne, you have no idea what so ever of what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Hans, you have no idea what so ever of what you are talking about.

Go learn some basic physics. Right now you are making a total fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Go understand some basic physics. Right now you are making a total fool of yourself
 
Last edited:
Yet another fundemantally flawed idea from Bjarne

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.
    A deafening silence so far :eye-poppi !
    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!
  5. I am currently trying to get him to explain his MF reversal in simple terms but just fantasies so far.
    First Asked 2 March 2010
  6. Where does Jupiter's magnetic field come from?
    First Asked 20 March 2010
    Jupiter does not have a ferromagnetic crust.
    The answer is an internal dynamo similar to Earth's
  7. Where does the Sun's magnetic field come from?
    First Asked 23 March 2010
    The Sun does not have a ferromagnetic crust.
    The answer is an internal dynamo similar to Earth's
 
This thesis has several problems
Read about these here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Try reading what you link to

Quote:
Problems
Because the observed periodicities of climate fit so well with the orbital periods, the orbital theory has overwhelming support. Nonetheless, there are several difficulties in reconciling theory with observations.
(emphasis added)
Followed by a list of the difficulties.
Click to expand...

So what time will the next ice age start ?
What was causing the "little iceage" ?

You can't answer.
This is why that idear >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles is soooooo stupid.
 
The next glacial period is due in about 15,000 years. The LIA was caused by a combination of low solar activity and high volcanic activity (ie. high albedo) but it wasn't actually an ice age, despite its name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes

There is nothing wrong with the Milankovitch Cycle, it is demonstrable, the only problem here is that you are confusing a REAL ice age with a period of relative coolness that actually has very little to do with ice ages as we understand them. There is a big difference between the Thames freezing and northern Europe being under 20 metres of ice.
 
Last edited:
The next glacial period is due in about 15,000 years

So why should this ige ace last 2* 15000 year = 30.000 Years and the 3 previously less that half that time ??

No sence
 
Because the Milankovitch Cycle is based on the elliptical orbit of the planet PLUS its axial wobble PLUS the precessional movement, among other factors. I'm sure all of this is spelled out in the link provided to you. Maybe google it and research it some more? Hell, my 15,000 year figure is probably wrong, I can't even remember what I was basing it on tbh, and a brief scan of the NOAA page on the cycles shows that we shouldn't expect another Milankovitch cooling for 50,000 - 100,000 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

There is HEAPS of information out there for you to research for yourself. Here's a basic diagram that explains:

picture.php
 
Last edited:
BTW - What is the name of the documentary made by an English "scientist" that you have seen/recorded? I'd be fascinated to know what it was called. It wasn't "The Great Global Warming Swindle" by any chance, was it?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWBlJ1kB7Q
Click to expand...
I am afraid that this video is another display of your inability to understand science as in this thread and The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his threads

  1. This has no effect on climate.
  2. This has no effect on the overall strength of the Earth's magnetic field though it does change its shape.
What THEMIS found is that when the Sun's and Earth's magnetic fields interact they can let the solar wind leak into the Earth's magnetosphere as already known. The new informaiton is that the amount of solar wind particles is much bigger than expected. This means that the effect of this can be better modeled, e.g. we have better predictions of the damage that the solar wind (espacially during flares) can do to spacecraft and astronauts.
 
I think we can shorten this discussion to few headlines

1.) We don’t understand the cause of the Suns Magnetic Field (MF)
2.) We do now that the Sun’s MF is not comparable of a dipole field, that idea is disproven since the MF south is not found where we expect it to be.
3.) We don’t know if the Suns MF can almost disappear, and if that can happens in thousands of years.
4.) We don’t understand how the Sun’s MF interacts with the Earth’s MF on long term period, since we have only measured this in few decades.
5.) We don’t understand why the temperature variation of the Earth and the MF of the Earths is connected. But it is obviously that there is such connection, - that can’t be connected / explained based on the geo dynamo idea.
6.) We don’t know if it will have catastrophically effect on the Earth temperature when the Suns MF for a long period almost disappears.
7.) We don’t know the cause of Ice ages; - if we really did we should be able to predict when the next ice age would strike.
8.) We don’t know if Henrik Svendsmark theory is right or wrong, but we know it could be right since it is have been possible objective to check the essence of it.
9.) We don’t know if the strength of the Suns MF is the cause of ice ages, - because it affects the earth MF. But we know the earth MF theoretical could be responsible for the amount of clouds, - and the amount of clouds is certainly responsible for the global temperature.
Felt2.jpg

The red curve is the Earth’s MF

So, we also don’t know if the placement of the Earth MF north pole (MNP) is important for the Earth’s magnetic susceptibility from magnetic contribution for the Sun. (according to this theory it is >> http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm)
Also we don’t know and if we can affect it to be stable where we want to have it, - and like that control the Earth MF and hence control the temperature on earth, - to prevent a new ice age.

RC
You have ask me, what the cause of polar reverse is:
Click to expand...
The Sun change magnetic polarity every 11 year.
But in these years we discover that these cycles are not stable.
What would happen to the Earth’s MF if these periods extend to for example 100 years or 500 years.
SunM.jpg


Periods where the Sun’s MF is aligned with the Earth MF, the Sun’s MF (will slowly) counteract/ discourage the Earth MF, - and if it is opposite, - it will reinforce the earth MF.
This statement I am sure will be confirmed soon.

Short (11 year’s period) magnetic polar reversal on the Sun wouldn’t do big damage, to the MF of the Earth.

But what if these period is changing dramatically to last for example 500 years. ?

Such could in period strongly periodical reinforce the Earth MF, - but also strongly brake down the Earth’s MF, all depending on if the Sun’s MF is aligned or not.

I am afraid that the Sun’s reversal period could extend a lot, - when its MF get’s weaker.

This can easy trigger a destruction of the Earth’s MF as well as start ice ages.

We have a lot more to learn, and we also certainly have to give up the geo dynamo crap.

There is much more to take into consideration >> http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I think we can shorten this discussion to few headlines
....
Click to expand...
I think we can shorten this discussion to few points of ignorance

1.) We do understand the cause of the Suns Magnetic Field (MF)

2.) We do that the Sun’s MF is not a dipole field, that idea is correct since the MF south was found to be spread around the equator during a polarity reversal. Also multiple poles have been observed.

3.) We know that the Suns MF can almost disappear, and it happens every roughly 11 years. There is no evidence that the Sun's MF has ever vanished for periods of thousands of years or will vanish in thousands of years (Bjarne's bad English "and if that can happens in thousands of years").
See the scientific dynamo theory that is backed up with actual data.

4.) We do understand how the Sun’s MF interacts with the Earth’s MF on long term period, but we have only measured this over few decades.

5.) We understand why the temperature variation of the Earth and the MF of the Earths is connected. But it is obviously that there is such connection, - that has nothing at all to do with the scientific dynamo theory that is backed up with actual data.

6.) We know it will have catastrophically effect on the Earth temperature if the Suns MF for a long period almost disappears.

7.) We know the cause of Ice ages; -we are able to predict when the next ice age would strike.

The only right item in the list but really obvious:
8.) We don’t know if Henrik Svendsmark theory is right or wrong, but we know it could be right since it is have been possible objective to check the essence of it.
Click to expand...



9.) We know that the strength of the Suns MF is not among the causes of ice ages which are numerous
  • Changes in Earth's atmosphere
  • Position of the continents
  • Fluctuations in ocean currents
  • Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snow-line
  • Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
  • Variations in the Sun's energy output
  • Volcanism
  • Biological effects
"But we know the earth MF theoretical could be responsible for the amount of clouds, - and the amount of clouds is certainly responsible for the global temperature."


And we know that variations in cosmic ray due to the complex interaction of the Earth's MF with the solar and galactic MF's has little effect on global warming. See the scientific papers listed in the following blog entry - Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
  • Krivova 2003 and Lockwood 2007 show that "the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming".
  • Laut 2003 showed that low cloud cover actually preceded cosmic ray flus increased by about six months. So low clouds "caused" cosmic rays :eye-poppi!
And we know that amount of clouds is certainly not responsible for the global temperature increases - CO2 is.

The rest of this post is just a repeat of your ideas so easily debunked in the Yet another fundamentally flawed idea from Bjarne a few posts above.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I think we can shorten this discussion to few headlines
Click to expand...

I think we can shorten it even more:

1) Bjarne does not know more about science than the average cow.

2) Bjarne is not interested in learning about science more than the average cow.

Hans
 
We do understand the cause of the Suns Magnetic Field (MF)
Click to expand...
Crap
Especially after it is a fact that the Sun’s MF not is the dipole field, since a MF South pole hasn’t been found, - we have no idea at all what the cause of the Suns MF is.
There is no evidence that the Sun's MF has ever vanished for periods of thousands of years
Click to expand...
Not evidence, but broad hints, - points to that the Earth MF and the Sun’s MF is connected.
To understand this you must read the whole new theory>>> http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm

We understand why the temperature variation of the Earth and the MF of the Earths is connected.
Click to expand...
Completely crap, tell us about it.
You have no idea at all

We know that the strength of the Suns MF is not among the causes of ice ages which are numerous
  • Changes in Earth's atmosphere
  • Position of the continents
  • Fluctuations in ocean currents
  • Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snow-line
  • Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
  • Variations in the Sun's energy output
  • Volcanism
  • Biological effects
Click to expand...

Crap , yours arguments are completely without any logic coherence or connection.
It would be the same as If I say we know there is a 27 cows in your house because of :
  • Changes in Earth's atmosphere
  • Position of the continents
  • Fluctuations in ocean currents
  • Uplift of the Tibetan plateau and surrounding mountain areas above the snow-line
  • Variations in Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles)
  • Variations in the Sun's energy output
  • Volcanism
  • Biological effects

we are able to predict when the next ice age would strike.
Click to expand...
Completely crap,
- so when will the next ice age strike according to your opinion / religion ?

I didn't realize the sun's magnetic field was caused by electric currents.
Click to expand...
It is not, such ideas are nothing but completely blind religion.

Is the same thing happening inside the earth?
Click to expand...
Several mysteries that should be able to connect to the Earth MF so called ; "inner dynam"o, can't impossible be so. THERE ARE NO CONNECTION POSIBLE
http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
These proves that the inner dynamo idea is crap from A to Z
 
Bjarne said:
Crap
Especially after it is a fact that the Sun’s MF not is the dipole field, since a MF South pole hasn’t been found, - we have no idea at all what the cause of the Suns MF is.
Click to expand...
It is a fact that Sun’s MF not is always a dipole field and that this is what dynamo theory predicts. Thus we have a good idea what the Suns MF is.

Bjarne said:
Not evidence, but broad hints, - points to that the Earth MF and the Sun’s MF is connected.
Click to expand...
The Sun's magentic field affects the shpae of the Earth's.
They are connected in that the same mechanism creates them but continue to ignore what dynamo theory actually is (see Yet another fundamentally flawed idea from Bjarne )
http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
Bjarne said:
Completely crap, tell us about it.
You have no idea at all
Click to expand...
We understand why the temperature variation of the Earth and the MF of the Earths is connected. Thsi is Henrik Svendsmark theory that you cite.

Bjarne said:
Crap , yours arguments are completely without any logic coherence or connection.
Click to expand...
Nice "Crap " Bjarne.

Bjarne said:
Completely crap,
- so when will the next ice age strike according to your opinion / religion ?
Click to expand...
"Completely crap" Bjarne.
A good way to discuss science rationally :jaw-dropp !
We are have been in an interglacial period (the Holocene) for the last ~12,000 years. When it will end is a complicated matter and there are a variety of predictions. But since interglacial periods tend to last ~11,000 yeras we are in fact overdue for the next glacial period. N.B. this is not an Ice Age but is often called so in popular science articles. The next ice age is sometimes cited as 80,000 years away.

Bjarne said:
It is not, such ideas are nothing but completely blind religion.
Click to expand...
It probably is as the evidence shows, such ideas are science.

Bjarne said:
....
http://www.science27.com/Earth/index.htm
These proves that the inner dynamo idea is crap from A to Z
Click to expand...
There are no mysteries in that link - only Bjarne's ignorance of the science. You will note that he does not cite many sources for his assertions in the web page.
  • Fluctuations (instability) of the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is explained by dynamo theory .
  • The South Atlantic Anomaly.
    The South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) refers to the area where the Earth's inner Van Allen radiation belt comes closest to the Earth's surface. This leads to an increased flux of energetic particles in this region and exposes orbiting satellites to higher than usual levels of radiation. The effect is caused by the non-concentricity of the Earth and its magnetic dipole, and the SAA is the near-Earth region where the Earth's magnetic field is weakest.
    Click to expand...
  • Many of the crust anomalies (for instance the African crust anomaly). Magnetic anomaly.
  • The reversal of the Magnetic Poles every 200,000 years is explained by dynamo theory .
  • The coinciding periods (of thousands of years) of correlation between the Earth’s global temperature and the strength of the Earth’s global magnetic field is because the strength of the Earth's MF has an effect on global temperature :jaw-dropp !
    One cause of this effect is thought to be that a weaker MF allows more cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere. This leads to more cloud formation.
  • The periodical decreasing of the Earth's magnetic field to only a few percent of its average strength is explained by dynamo theory .
  • The correlation between Magnetic Anomalies & Thermal Activities.
    There is no such correlation.
  • The periodic emergence of 2 (or possibly 4) different Magnetic South and North poles is explained by dynamo theory .
And the fatal flaw in Bjarne's fantasy abut the MF coming from the surface is
 
r-j said:
I didn't realize the sun's magnetic field was caused by electric currents. Is the same thing happening inside the earth?
Click to expand...
Hi r-j,
The prevailing scientific theory for the magnetic fields of planet and stars is dynamo theory. This is based on the properties of rotating, conducting fluids. For the sun, the fluid is plasma. For the Earth and other rocky planets, the fluid is the iron core of the planet. For gas planets, the fluid is thought to be metallic hydrogen.

Dynamo theory makes several predictions that are verified by observation:
  • The MF's of rocky bodies will correlate with the properties of the iron cores. For example, the Moon has a small core that seems to be solid. It's magnetic field is not dipole and is <1% that of Earth's.
  • MF's can reverse polarity.
  • MF's need not be dipole (north and south poles) but can also quadrupole (2 N and S poles) and even greater multiples.
  • The more "fluid" the fluid, the faster the MF changes and the more variations there can be in the MF configuration.
    The sun's MF swaps about every 11 years but the Earth's swaps on a scale of ~300,000 years.
    The sun's MF frequently has multiple poles, especially when it is about to swap. The Earth's MF rarely has multiple poles and usually when it is about to swap.
Like all science, dynamo theory is subject to refinement, change and even discarding (if the evidence is against it). So far it has withstood the test of time (about 100 years).
 
The Wikipedia article said "The magnetic field of a rotating body of conductive gas or liquid develops self-amplifying electric currents, and thus a self-generated magnetic field, "

So, the sun has electric currents in it?

Does the earth as well?
 
I thought we were technically still in an ice age and will be until the big ice sheets melt away.
 
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