Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paul.g.griffiths

Are we loosing earths magnetic shield?

Recommended Posts

If earths magnetic shield protects us from the suns radiation, evidence is the ice mass at the earths poles where magnetism is at it's strongest.

The earth is tilting at an angle, this is proof it's not simply temperature distance from the sun.

 

If were loosing our ice mass, is the shield weakening?

 

Global warming is only 1 to 2 degrese, but the ice is melting. fast.

What is our future?

 

Something to think about.

 


It may even be the case that magnatism pulls in the suns radiation and radiation is cold, cooling our planet.

Or it may be the case that magnatism does not protect us at all, its our air that protects us and simply magnatism is cold.

I don't believe our atmosphere is being striped away, only 1 to 2 degree global temperature change is causing ice to melt.

 

I'm living near the north pole in good old Britain, is this good for me?

 

It may not be "Global Warming" but "Poles Warming."

 

Are we going to become an underground nocturnal species? We were cavemen after all.

I'm guessing 10 degrease change over the next few centuries. Expect a lot of change.

It may even become tropical. The more heat the more water evaporation the more cloud, the more rain.

 

Life on mars? look into old caves.

 

​I think I've got something here. Though nothing new beyond what's staring us in the face.

I don't think we can do anything about this, and don't think we should even try.

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If earths magnetic shield protects us from the suns radiation, evidence is the ice mass at the earths poles where magnetism is at it's strongest.

That sentence makes no sense. The geomagnetic fields partially shields the Earth from certain forms of radiation. It does not shield it from the electromagnetic spectrum. (i.e. light, UV, IR, X-rays etc.) If you are trying to suggest that there is ice at the poles because the pole is partially shielded from light by the field, then you are mistaken. Also, the field is not at its strongest in this location. That is simply the general area where the field lines penetrate the planet.

 

The earth is tilting at an angle, this is proof it's not simply temperature distance from the sun.

Another sentence that makes no sense. What is temperature distance? The reason the poles are colder is that a given amount of sunlight is spread out over a wider area because of axial tilt and its orientation with respect to the sun. This is so well established and so straightforward that it is taught to students in primary school.

 

If were loosing our ice mass, is the shield weakening?

 

We are losing ice mass. The shield is in a state of flux and may be headed for a significant reduction and reversal in the near future - say sometime in the next fifty thousand years. However these two observations are completely unrelated.

 

Global warming is only 1 to 2 degrese, but the ice is melting. fast.

What is our future?

 

 

A 1 or 2 degree change in average temperature represents a massive increase in total environmental heat. The rate of ice loss is not surprising given these large (not small) increases.

 

It may even be the case that magnatism pulls in the suns radiation and radiation is cold, cooling our planet.

Magnetism does not "pull in the sun's radiation"

Radiation is not cold.

Cold radiation from the sun, pulled in by the magenetic field, is not cooling our planet.

 

I'm living near the north pole in good old Britain, is this good for me?

It's quite good for you. I'm not sure it's so good for the rest of us sharing these islands with you.

 

 

​I think I've got something here

I think you have, but it's nothing that bed rest and a proper education won't cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

So it's the case the north pole is smaller than the south pole?

 

http://images.wisegeek.com/different-lattitudes-on-earth.jpg

 

Looking at this image, I firmly believe it's due to magnatism else we would have no north pole.

My intelegance tells me this.

 

Theres no need to get personal your a bit immature for me.

 

You said "The reason the poles are colder is that a given amount of sunlight is spread out over a wider area because of axial tilt and its orientation with respect to the sun."

Do you honestly believe this yourself?

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If earths magnetic shield protects us from the suns radiation, evidence is the ice mass at the earths poles where magnetism is at it's strongest.

The earth is tilting at an angle, this is proof it's not simply temperature distance from the sun.

 

If were loosing our ice mass, is the shield weakening?

 

Global warming is only 1 to 2 degrese, but the ice is melting. fast.

What is our future?

 

Something to think about.

Magnetism is neither hot nor cold, nor does it make hot or cold. Hold a magnet in your hand to discover this fact.

 

Ice at the poles does not significantly affect magnetism, nor does it make magnetism. Get an ice cube and use a compass to check whether it is magnetic or not (it's not).

 

Yes, ice melts when it warms.

 

It may even be the case that magnatism pulls in the suns radiation and radiation is cold, cooling our planet.

Put your hand in the sun for a few minutes; that is radiation from the sun. It is warm/hot, not cold.

 

Or it may be the case that magnatism does not protect us at all, its our air that protects us and simply magnatism is cold.

Our air does help protect us from radiation, and the Earth's magnetism does too. Magnetism is not cold.

 

I don't believe our atmosphere is being striped away, only 1 to 2 degree global temperature change is causing ice to melt.

I'm living near the north pole in good old Britain, is this good for me?

Ask your physician.

 

It may not be "Global Warming" but "Poles Warming."

Temperature measurements around the world show it is warming most places, but it is uneven and the poles are warming more than elsewhere.

 

Are we going to become an underground nocturnal species? We were cavemen after all.

I'm guessing 10 degrease change over the next few centuries. Expect a lot of change.

 

Life on mars? look into old caves.

 

​I think I've got something here.

Underground is a bit excessive, but an earthship (http:earthship.com) is a smart idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

So it's the case the north pole is smaller than the south pole?

I don't understand what you mean by that. The poles are points on the Earth's surface through which the axis of rotation passes. As points, they have no dimension.

 

The land mass at the south pole is clearly larger than that at the north pole, since the latter is entirely ocean.

 

Could you explain exactly what you mean by the north pole being smaller, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain exactly what you mean by the north pole being smaller, please?

 

 

I'm meaning the ice coverage, thought that would be possibly obvious.

If the arctic circle is 24 hours of daylight then there would be no north pole as angle of radiation /direction/thickness of our atmosphere is so small compared to the temperature of our sun.

 

I may not have any maths to prove this but firmly believe the magnatism of the poles comes into play some how.

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE - POST#3 ".... orientation with respect to the sun. Do you honestly believe this yourself?"

 

Yes - so do most 10 year olds - it is taught to 10 years olds in the UK at school.... at least it was when I was at school.

 

Test it yourself - get a basket ball or a soccer ball and shine a torch at it. Adjust your distance so that you get a small circle. Then tilt the torch so it shines at the 'poles' of the ball.... you will see that the same amount of incident light spreads out over much larger elliptical shape. The same happens with our incident sunlight upon the planet. At the equator it is equivalent to the small concentrated circle of light... at the poles it is spread over a much larger area. Thus - it is colder at the poles. (nothing to do with magnetism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE - POST#3 ".... orientation with respect to the sun. Do you honestly believe this yourself?"

 

Yes - so do most 10 year olds - it is taught to 10 years olds in the UK at school.... at least it was when I was at school.

 

Test it yourself - get a basket ball or a soccer ball and shine a torch at it. Adjust your distance so that you get a small circle. Then tilt the torch so it shines at the 'poles' of the ball.... you will see that the same amount of incident light spreads out over much larger elliptical shape. The same happens with our incident sunlight upon the planet. At the equator it is equivalent to the small concentrated circle of light... at the poles it is spread over a much larger area. Thus - it is colder at the poles. (nothing to do with magnetism).

 

That makes absolutely no sense and if that's your education then who was your teacher?, a ten year old? check pic I just made: https://s10.postimg.org/qw4zxk749/beam.png

The sun is massive compared to our earth, Things don't become smaller at a distance and angles do not change/bend.

Our planet is being heated consistently..

It's our eye lenses that makes things smaller at a distance. For real things don't get smaller at a distance. Distance is irrelevant. And to be honist the sun is not a beam.

This debate is becoming funny. I don't belive you are very clever, infact you may be stupid? Learn to think for yourself before posting.

You are obviously following your education and this is holding you back.

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even from your diagram you can see that the incident rays that hit the poles are spread over a wider area than those at the equator. If you want to understand it then zoom into your diagram of the earth and draw parallel lines in for the incident rays at 1 cm apart. ... you will see that on the curved part they are more spaced out and hit the areas closer to the poles at more than 1 cm apart. At the equator they will be closer together, like 1cm. This is the same for the energy in the rays - they are more spread out in the incident light that glances the earth rather than those that hit head on.

 

Honestly, as I said, we teach that at junior school - no insult meant, it's just a fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DrP is making sense. If you don't understand his basketball analogy, they you should think again.

 

The Earth is not heated consistently; the N pole is nighttime almost 6 months of the year while the S pole is daylight, and every 6 months they switch. The sun rises above the horizon and circles the Earth around the pole. If there is a slight depression at either one of the poles, the depression will never have sunlight fall directly on it. There is a crater on the moon at one pole (at least) where the sun never shines.

Edited by EdEarl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - This diagram is crude - but I have done it for you. The lines are parallel and (about) equidistant - look at how they incident onto the curved surface.... Can you see that they are further apart at impact on the curve (pole) and closer together at the middle?

 

The same happens with the light from the sun... think back to your school days.

post-5432-0-11394500-1493132333_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I may not have any maths to prove this but firmly believe the magnatism of the poles comes into play some how.

I sense that you have no interest in learning and probably little capacity for it. Consequently, I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK - This diagram is crude - but I have done it for you. The lines are parallel and (about) equidistant - look at how they incident onto the curved surface.... Can you see that they are further apart at impact on the curve (pole) and closer together at the middle?

 

The same happens with the light from the sun... think back to your school days.

 

 

That pic is not true, you have terrible education, the run radiates, it's radial, think onion rings and not a beam.
Infact its radial from every atom of the sun. Draw that then!
The suns heat loss distance A/B calculation has never been done in outerspace, weve barely been in outerspace.
So theres no way a temperature at point C on the earth can be compared to point D on earth, if it has then it's complete dribble.
The sun could be changing temperature for all we know, this has yet to be proven otherwise as it's near impossible to get a decent round orbit around the sun to perform such a calculation.
People here are just making things up without evidance or decent education. The calculations have never been performed and to be honist the result would be so minute it wouldnt even fit on the decimal point of the worlds most powerful calculator.
Anyway this is the last post I can do as the forum alows no more as im a newcomer, so I'm going to do my currency trading.
Please think for yourselves. Infact don't think for yourselves as you would become dangerous. Ill be back. What am I dealing with here, it's like a group of boys wearing superhero outfits. Get changed, wipe your own asses and grow a beard. And stop playing with your barbies.
Ill leave you this though, how do you know the size and distance of the sun?
it's too far away to know it's size and and if we don't know it's size how can we measure it's distance? Chicken and the egg without a ruler.
​Man/Girls you all have a lot to learn.
Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol - maybe science just isn't for you mate. ;-) Try a career in the arts. Talk to your school teacher about it - you will learn that I am right about those incident light rays that hit our planet,... as I said - if you can't get your head around that then maybe you should try something other than science. It doesn't get much easier.

 

PS - You CAN measure the incident radiation with light detectors and things.... if you plonk them at the poles they register less incident rays than at the equator. The calculations HAVE been performed and you CAN think of the incident light from the sun in the way I showed it in the diagram.

 

I'm not going round in circles with you - it is obvious where you are coming from so I'm out too. I reckon you know all this and are trolling (due to some past disgruntlement with us)... or, you really believe what you are saying, in which case, sorry I couldn't be a better teacher, but I'm out.

Edited by DrP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol - maybe science just isn't for you mate. ;-) Try a career in the arts. Talk to your school teacher about it - you will learn that I am right about those incident light rays that hit our planet,... as I said - if you can't get your head around that then maybe you should try something other than science. It doesn't get much easier.

 

PS - You CAN measure the incident radiation with light detectors and things.... if you plonk them at the poles they register less incident rays than at the equator. The calculations HAVE been performed and you CAN think of the incident light from the sun in the way I showed it in the diagram.

 

I'm not going round in circles with you - it is obvious where you are coming from so I'm out too. I reckon you know all this and are trolling (due to some past disgruntlement with us)... or, you really believe what you are saying, in which case, sorry I couldn't be a better teacher, but I'm out.

Knowing about this and being able to run the calculations is pretty critical to the business models of solar farms. If you don't know how much energy is incident on the surface you can't work out whether you'll make a profit or a loss. Shockingly our calculations are pretty accurate. There are some organisations that have good models that even take cloud cover into account with climatological or forecasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back.

 

Lets say the poles atmoshphere sun beam thing going on is 100 times more at some point, ok. Why doesn't it freeze at night all over the dark side of our spinning planet?

 

Don't say heat does not disipate, else we would be so hot...

 

Yes we have a core but does it have to have superheated iron spinning malarkey? It may just be a non spinning steel core that got struck at some point to give it magnatism.

Yes there is lava but go caving it's cooler...

 

This may be newscience.com to some...

 

I

It is said "The magnetic field protects us from the suns radiation."

Poles are stronger... I may be CORRECT!

 

Think someone needs to time a compass swing for the future, a high speed frame rate camera is a definate require.

 

Other than natural process the only thing I can think of is electric generators(Nuclear) or motors/speakers etc drawing in the magnatism from the core. Guess this could be tested...

 

Natural process could be exponential, where it's at is anyones guess.

 

TEST!

 

 

Electric generator magnatism draw test.

Compass near running generator. Pull back until compass needle ballanced with earths magnetic field. Turn off generator to measure result.

 

I'm posting to wikipedia as honistly don't know who to contact or even if I should...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

 

We may be sort of ok if you like an iceage... :ph34r: :doh: :P :eek: :blink: <_<

Got it wrong way around but felt less panic and the smileys bought tears to my eyes, there quite funny. >:D :unsure:(Yes I believe I inventer smileystory on kvr-audio forum... few years back. https://soundcloud.com/attractune)

 

So how hot is it going to get? Posts on a forum...

 

As this magnetic reversal has been discovered may be my theory can be proven? Whever Nobal Prize worthy...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Geomagnetic_reversal#It.27s_getting_hot_in_here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Structure_of_the_Earth#Malarkey.3F

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult to know where to start when addressing something like that.
School kids understand it: why don't you?

Light (and heat) reaching us from the sun are pretty nearly parallel simply because the sun is a very long way off.
The sun's heat is more spread out near the poles than near the equator.

Also, because the Earth's axis is tilted with respect to the orbit the surface gets less hours of sunshine in Winter than in Summer.
None of this is complicated.

 

Also the different size fonts in your post just make it hard to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm back.

 

Lets say the poles atmoshphere sun beam thing going on is 100 times more at some point, ok. Why doesn't it freeze at night all over the dark side of our spinning planet?

 

Don't say heat does not disipate, else we would be so hot...

 

It takes time for things to cool off. Surely you've noticed this, perhaps when preparing food. Do pots and pans cool immediately?

 

Yes we have a core but does it have to have superheated iron spinning malarkey? It may just be a non spinning steel core that got struck at some point to give it magnatism.

Yes there is lava but go caving it's cooler...

If you have an alternative model, feel free to present it. Explain how "just got struck" would create the field we have, and explain the field reversals we have had over our history.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sun's heat is more spread out near the poles than near the equator.

Is true but the sun is very hot to say the least and at night on earth it's not that much cooler.

How can you honestly believe it?

 

You have 1 evidence and I have many. Ill stick with mine, others will come around and your be the one alone.

Post dump from wikipedia:

 

Guess extra to be taken in to consideration, Global Warming/Poles Warming? Magnetic shield, stronger at the poles. An amount at the poles is a lot compared to at the equator. Temperature change greater at the poles. Next comes the iceage. Exponential?

Seems to be random, Yes we have a Core but does it have to have superheated Iron spinning malarkey? It may just be a non spinning Steel Core that got struck at some point to give it Magnatism. So it may not be reversal but random impacts? Mounteverest and the rest?

Poles may be polarity produced anywhere? Could this change the spin of the planet due to a Sun magnetism? Sun made of Steel/Iron... All this extends my theory "New planets from the Sun". Oldest ones eventually flying off..

Just read up a tiny amount of Sun Magnatism. Many metals? Ejected? Surface of metals not pure? Purer gold Patent! Nice!Paul.g.griffiths (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Why Earth and not Mars? Does a Compass Needle have to be small? We may be unlucky lucky.

Time-Lapse a compass for future reference.

Me, new science, curiosity.

If it is reversal, expect a complete planet spin change too.

Explain how "just got struck" would create the field we have

 

 

That's how steel magnets are made junior. The reversal may not be reversal as in above text.

 

Seriously your 36,000 posts moderator and you don't know how to make a steel magnet?

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how steel magnets are made junior. The reversal may not be reversal as in above text.

 

 

Steel magnets sit in the earth's magnetic field, or this is done while exposed to some other strong field, whelp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Steel magnets sit in the earth's magnetic field, or this is done while exposed to some other strong field, whelp.

 

Strike a screwdriver... Guess your no electronic servicing technician like me...

 

 

 

My prediction:

 

Britain 2025,

Temperature simular to Africa...

 

Britain is getting warmer, poles is changing a lot, Africa probably mildly hotter?

 

...may be even the case humanity moves to the poles... but then probably no point so underground we go....

 

I didn't come here for the fun of it. Trash-Can me indeed.

Edited by paul.g.griffiths

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ill leave you this though, how do you know the size and distance of the sun?
it's too far away to know it's size and and if we don't know it's size how can we measure it's distance? Chicken and the egg without a ruler.

 

 

Orbital distances of planets are known from Newton's law. The distances to planets can be measured by parallax and by direct radar measurements. From that, the distance to the Sun can be calculated. Also, we have sent spacecraft to several planets, which also allows us to confirm the distances.

 

Here are some simple explanations (but perhaps not simple enough for you):

 

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-solar-system/planet-distances.html

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Strike a screwdriver... Guess your no electronic servicing technician like me...

 

 

 

It gets a field because the domains align themselves with the earth's field. If there was no field, no alignment. Where is the external field that the struck core would align to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Strike a screwdriver... Guess your no electronic servicing technician like me...

 

LOL

 

Well, it's not exactly wrong...

Is true but the sun is very hot to say the least and at night on earth it's not that much cooler.

How can you honestly believe it?

 

You have 1 evidence and I have many. Ill stick with mine, others will come around and your be the one alone.

Post dump from wikipedia:

 

Guess extra to be taken in to consideration, Global Warming/Poles Warming? Magnetic shield, stronger at the poles. An amount at the poles is a lot compared to at the equator. Temperature change greater at the poles. Next comes the iceage. Exponential?

Seems to be random, Yes we have a Core but does it have to have superheated Iron spinning malarkey? It may just be a non spinning Steel Core that got struck at some point to give it Magnatism. So it may not be reversal but random impacts? Mounteverest and the rest?

Poles may be polarity produced anywhere? Could this change the spin of the planet due to a Sun magnetism? Sun made of Steel/Iron... All this extends my theory "New planets from the Sun". Oldest ones eventually flying off..

Just read up a tiny amount of Sun Magnatism. Many metals? Ejected? Surface of metals not pure? Purer gold Patent! Nice!Paul.g.griffiths (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Why Earth and not Mars? Does a Compass Needle have to be small? We may be unlucky lucky.

Time-Lapse a compass for future reference.

Me, new science, curiosity.

If it is reversal, expect a complete planet spin change too.

That's how steel magnets are made junior. The reversal may not be reversal as in above text.

 

Seriously your 36,000 posts moderator and you don't know how to make a steel magnet?

"at night on earth it's not that much cooler.

How can you honestly believe it?"

Well, the earth is big, so it warms and cools slowly.

It's also heated from within by heat from radioactive decay of things like uranium and thorium.

And it's "lagged" by the atmosphere.

So, it takes a log while to warm up + cool down.

 

However you have to accept that it's generally colder at night so it's clear that the sun supplies us with heat.

 

"You have 1 evidence and I have many. Ill stick with mine, others will come around and your be the one alone."

No, you have a single misunderstood observation.

Science has zillions of bits of evidence.

Don't expect to overturn a whole lot of science without even bothering to understand it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.