Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Relative

Magnetic field decrease of the Earth!

Recommended Posts

Gamma radiation. That ionises the core.

''electromagnetic waves that carry enough kinetic energy to liberate electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby ionizing them''.


''Ionizing radiation occurs in the environment from naturally occurring radioactive materials and cosmic rays''.


''Ionization is the process by which an atom or a molecule acquires a negative or positive charge by gaining or losing electrons. ''




So by all the of above, the Earth reaches a thermodynamic equilibrium , the mantle etc, reaching maximum ''curie'' point of equal , equilibrium to the core of Electrostatic/Electromagnetism energy, making the ''outer casing of the motor, no longer effective, causing the electron output to fail''.

links -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14678002

 

 

http://www.kellyresearchtech.com/images/krr/krr-1-1-magnetic-field.pdf

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_internal_heat_budget

 

http://www.viewsoftheworld.net/?p=1889

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth

 

 

Population growth meaning the rise of usage of power, helping to create an equilibrium of thermodynamics in less of a time frame.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray

Edited by Relative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Population growth meaning the rise of usage of power helping to create a faster equilibrium of thermodynamics.

...

Rather than humans creating a faster equilibrium, doesn't it make sense that's it's monkeys because of the static electric charges on their fur generated as they move around in trees trying to escape people?

From your link:

...Most of the growth occurs in the nations with the most poverty, showing the direct link between high population growth and low standards of living. ...

Where there are more poor people there are more monkeys running from them.

 

The many species of monkey have varied relationships with humans. Some are kept as pets, others used as model organisms in laboratories or in space missions. They may be killed in monkey drives (when they threaten agriculture) or used as service animals for the disabled.

...

Monkey brains are eaten as a delicacy in parts of South Asia, Africa and China.[20] In traditional Islamic dietary laws, the eating of monkeys is forbidden. However, monkeys are sometimes eaten in parts of Africa, where they can be sold as "bushmeat".[21] ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey

 

Do you agree that we should be sending more monkeys into space like we used to do so they intercept the cosmic rays and then the mantle won't ionize to the core?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than humans creating a faster equilibrium, doesn't it make sense that's it's monkeys because of the static electric charges on their fur generated as they move around in trees trying to escape people?

From your link:

 

Where there are more poor people there are more monkeys running from them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey

 

Do you agree that we should be sending more monkeys into space like we used to do so they intercept the cosmic rays and then the mantle won't ionize to the core?

I can answer to the question in several different ways, depending on how I perceive the question, I feel sorry for the monkeys, but to be or not to be, is to be. Sorry monkeys I hope I do not get caught in the cage.

Edited by Relative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can answer to the question in several different ways, depending on how I perceive the question, I feel sorry for the monkeys, but to be or not to be, is to be. Sorry monkeys I hope I do not get caught in the cage.

Good! It will be monkey-small Faraday cage traps to neutralize the electromagnetic charges, save on rocket costs, protect the monkeys from their brains getting eaten, settle how you perceive, keep you from getting caged, keep the monkeys from running around in trees, and create a thermodynamic stasis that we can all live with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Magnetic field is caused by liquid iron/metal core of Earth.

 

Gamma rays from cosmos don't penetrate that deep.

If they would reach surface of Earth in large quantity no life would exists on the Earth.

 

Ionization is one of the worst est enemies of life.

Ions are very reactive and causes unpredicted chemical reactions.

 

Magnetic field is decreasing very slowly, but as a result of cooling down core of Earth.

This process will be taking billions of years.


Internal temperature of the Earth is result of radioactive decay of unstable isotopes present in Earth.

Quantity of these isotopes is very large but finite.
So some day the all of them will decay to stable isotopes and no longer energy will be released by radioactive decay.
And liquid core will freeze to solid state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Magnetic field is decreasing very slowly, but as a result of cooling down core of Earth.

Not exactly. If you have a source saying that, I would be happy to challenge it.

 

Is it true that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing? What's the effect?

The Earth's magnetic field is constantly changing, and the way which it changes also changes. When describing the magnetic field of the Earth we must specify both the direction and the intensity of the field. Since both of these change, and change differently in different places, it is not easy to say how the field of the Earth as a whole is changing. It must be measured at many places to get a good picture of its distribution.

...

At most places there has been a general decrease in the strength over the past century, typically ten percent or so. No one can say with any certainty whether this represents a fluctuation or whether it is a decrease which will eventually lead to a reversal. Past reversals have taken place over a short period of time geologically speaking, 10,000 years or so. In order for a reversal to take place there must be a brief time during which the field is non existent.

...

 

This process will be taking billions of years.

There is no current way to predict the condition of Earth's magnetic field so far into the future. Since our Sun is a prime candidate to turn into a red giant and swallow the Earth in 5 billion* or so years, the state of the magnetic field will be of little consequence to humans or charge-carrying monkeys.

 

*http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/25oct_friedplanets/

Edited by Acme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. If you have a source saying that, I would be happy to challenge it.

 

 

There is no current way to predict the condition of Earth's magnetic field so far into the future. Since our Sun is a prime candidate to turn into a red giant and swallow the Earth in 5 billion* or so years, the state of the magnetic field will be of little consequence to humans or charge-carrying monkeys.

 

*http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/25oct_friedplanets/

would your monkey cages, also not find equilibrium in time and also be useless, would it not be better to just fix the problem?

''Gamma rays from cosmos don't penetrate that deep.

If they would reach surface of Earth in large quantity no life would exists on the Earth.''

How we know that we can not go that deep? Thermodynamics would allow the layers to be penetrated from the outside to within,

Just the crust finding an equilibrium could have catastrophic effect on the EMF?

would your monkey cages, also not find equilibrium in time and also be useless, would it not be better to just fix the problem?

''Gamma rays from cosmos don't penetrate that deep.

If they would reach surface of Earth in large quantity no life would exists on the Earth.''

How we know that we can not go that deep? Thermodynamics would allow the layers to be penetrated from the outside to within,

Just the crust finding an equilibrium could have catastrophic effect on the EMF?

I do not need to be a scientist to know that a steady trickle makes a puddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

''Gamma rays from cosmos don't penetrate that deep.

If they would reach surface of Earth in large quantity no life would exists on the Earth.''

How we know that we can not go that deep?

 

 

Gamma rays are high energy photons. On Earth usually made by annihilation of electron with positron.

Gamma photon energy will be absorbed in Compton scattering very quickly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

 

dist.gif

 

There are hypothesis that if Earth would be on path of extremely high quantity of gamma rays from distant f.e. exploding star, they would destroy protection layer of ozone in upper region of atmosphere.

And that would be the end of life we know.

 

Thermodynamics would allow the layers to be penetrated from the outside to within,

 

What on Earth thermodynamics has to do with gamma rays?

 

There are billions of billions of gamma rays from decay of unstable isotopes inside of Earth per second. They travel a few mili meters and are absorbed by particles. Result is heat.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Gamma rays are high energy photons. On Earth usually made by annihilation of electron with positron.

Gamma photon energy will be absorbed in Compton scattering very quickly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

 

dist.gif

 

There are hypothesis that if Earth would be on path of extremely high quantity of gamma rays from distant f.e. exploding star, they would destroy protection layer of ozone in upper region of atmosphere.

And that would be the end of life we know.

 

 

What on Earth thermodynamics has to do with gamma rays?

 

There are billions of billions of gamma rays from decay of unstable isotopes inside of Earth per second. They travel a few mili meters and are absorbed by particles. Result is heat.

I was under the impression that Thermodynamics, covers more than just heat, also radiation, magnetism etc, and the exchange of these forces between matter?

''For equilibrium thermodynamics, in a thermodynamic state of a system, its contents are in internal thermodynamic equilibrium, with zero flows of all quantities''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would your monkey cages, also not find equilibrium in time and also be useless, would it not be better to just fix the problem?

To be clear I gave the monkey business because it makes as much sense as all you have said; which is to say non-sense. There is no 'problem'. Earth's magnetic field is in constant flux and there is nothing people can do about it or any reason that suggests they should try.

 

I do not need to be a scientist to know that a steady trickle makes a puddle.

Perhaps; but you do need to be a scientist to do science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear I gave the monkey business because it makes as much sense as all you have said; which is to say non-sense. There is no 'problem'. Earth's magnetic field is in constant flux and there is nothing people can do about it or any reason that suggests they should try.

 

 

Perhaps; but you do need to be a scientist to do science.

Well according to reliable sources there has been a 10% decrease in the shield,

 

I do not need to be a scientist to do science, I only need a scientific mind, which I do have.

''and there is nothing people can do about it or any reason that suggests they should try.''

 

 

I do not do that term, there is always something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to reliable sources there has been a 10% decrease in the shield,

As I earlier related, the field both decreases and increases over time, as well as reverses polarity.

 

I do not need to be a scientist to do science, I only need a scientific mind, which I do have.

Just keep telling yourself that. Talking about science and doing science are two entirely different things.

 

 

...and there is nothing people can do about it or any reason that suggests they should try. ...

 

I do not do that term, there is always something.

 

Just keep telling yourself that too.

Edited by Acme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote Sensei "Magnetic field is decreasing very slowly, but as a result of cooling down core of Earth.

 

This process will be taking billions of years",

I've often thought - is this process accelerating due to carbon removal from the earths crust and are these carbon 'veins' part of the earths windings?

Have you considered this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quote Sensei

Magnetic field is decreasing very slowly, but as a result of cooling down core of Earth.

 

This process will be taking billions of years, ...

I've often thought - is this process accelerating due to carbon removal from the earths crust and are these carbon 'veins' part of the earths windings?

Have you considered this?

 

If you use the quote function, it's easier for readers to find the post you want to quote in its context. :)

 

Anyway, the short answer to your question is no.

 

The longer answer is that there are no 'carbon veins' as such. Hydrocarbons such as oil and coal contain a lot of carbon, but they are insulators, not conductors.

 

Again, while a cooling core can reduce and ultimately stop the dynamo of a space body and so its magnetic field, that is not the likely cause of the measured decrease of Earth's magnetic field.

 

I'll quote just the most recent understanding of the geodynamo, but it will serve you well to read the whole article my quote comes from to get some insight into the science of space body magnetic fields. Note the mention of reversals, which I referenced earlier when I challenged Sensei's simplified cooling answer; these reversals are accompanied by periods of increasing, decreasing, disjoint, and absent magnetic fields.

 

Dynamo theory @Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

 

...

Numerical models

 

The equations for the geodynamo are enormously difficult to solve, and the realism of the solutions is limited mainly by computer power. For decades, theorists were confined to kinematic dynamo models described above, in which the fluid motion is chosen in advance and the effect on the magnetic field calculated. Kinematic dynamo theory was mainly a matter of trying different flow geometries and seeing whether they could sustain a dynamo.[14]

 

The first self-consistent dynamo models, ones that determine both the fluid motions and the magnetic field, were developed by two groups in 1995, one in Japan[15] and one in the United States.[16][17] The latter received a lot of attention because it successfully reproduced some of the characteristics of the Earth's field, including geomagnetic reversals.[14]

...

Edited by Acme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often thought - is this process accelerating due to carbon removal from the earths crust and are these carbon 'veins' part of the earths windings?

Have you considered this?

 

We are digging only at a few km depth.

 

The most abundant isotopes of Carbon C-12 98.9%, C-13 1.1%, are stable and don't decay.

 

Radioactive C-14 is trace radioisotope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_radioisotope

 

Find how much carbon is worldwide mined.

Multiply it by 200-300 years and you will have absolute maximum of carbon mined by human kind. Calculate mass of C-14 (<10^-12 of all carbon)

Compare that value with mass of Earth. It's pretty meaningless small.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Sensei and Acme, thats one less little niggle in my mind erased. The problem with physics I have found is that there's just too much interesting material to read and get ones head round, the dynamo effect you linked-me Acme is another subject that just draws you in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html

"Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times."

 

Bonds keen observation gives us multiple insights into the Earth's field generator;

-The Earth's magnetic field's energy level is coupled to the Sun's magnetic field strength.

-The ocean was cooler during periods of increased 14C, which always coincides with lower solar magnetic energy levels.

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

 

post-88603-0-52496300-1398382572_thumb.png

 

"An early association between sunspots and terrestrial phenomena was the observation that the number and intensity of aurora borealis sightings were greatest during sunspot maxima when the sun was most active (active sun), and lowest during sunspot minima (quiet sun). Another terrestrial observation was that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age."
Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That link doesn't work for me. I'd be interested to see how or if they make any accommodation for the magnetic field reversals I have mentioned inasmuch as those occurrences are random. Shouldn't we expect c14 spikes coincident with any magnetic field reduction?

 

PS On second thought, the short half-life of c14 would make it unsuitable as a marker for the much older record of pole shifts. Our rather short record of Sun activity by the same token doesn't shed much light on Earth's much longer magnetic field history.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html [/size]

 

"Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times."

 

snip...

On further further reflection I find this argument unconvincing. Plants don't have c14 because they are hit by cosmic rays, they have it because they take it in from the atmosphere during respiration. Moreover, according to the Wiki article, most of the c14 produced by cosmic rays is formed at high altitudes and high latitudes and there are no plants there.

 

...Natural production in the atmosphere

 

Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following reaction:

1n + 14N → 14C + 1p

The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 50,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes. ...

carbon-14 @Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

Edited by Acme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On further further reflection I find this argument unconvincing. Plants don't have c14 because they are hit by cosmic rays, they have it because they take it in from the atmosphere during respiration. Moreover, according to the Wiki article, most of the c14 produced by cosmic rays is formed at high altitudes and high latitudes and there are no plants there.

 

Yes I know, :) I thought it was a pretty poor attempt at describing the process. Must have been a lowly clerk at NOAA that wrote that gem. But anyway, its the correlations that Bond made that are important.

 

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

"The latest one, the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal, occurred 780,000 years ago. A brief complete reversal, known as the Laschamp event, occurred only 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years. During this change the strength of the magnetic field dropped to 5% of its present strength. Brief disruptions that do not result in reversal are called geomagnetic excursions."

 

The difficulty is finding solar magnetic proxy data from sources like 14C or 10Be (Beryllium-10) that go back far enough to compare to and possibly correlate with the most recent paleomagnetic evidence of reversals.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

"Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations."

 

post-88603-0-43410600-1398395063.jpg

This is the best (farthest back in time) record I have found.

Edited by arc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know, :) I thought it was a pretty poor attempt at describing the process. Must have been a lowly clerk at NOAA that wrote that gem. But anyway, its the correlations that Bond made that are important.

Agreed at poor attempt. I remain skeptical that Bond has made any important contribution, and positively doubtful about the connection to Earth's heat budget. (any chance you can get a working link for your reference?)

 

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

"The latest one, the BrunhesMatuyama reversal, occurred 780,000 years ago. A brief complete reversal, known as the Laschamp event, occurred only 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years. During this change the strength of the magnetic field dropped to 5% of its present strength. Brief disruptions that do not result in reversal are called geomagnetic excursions."

I had read that yesterday too; thanks for posting it. The 5% figure well makes my point that Earth's magnetic field varies greatly in strength over time and that the decrease that is the topic of this thread is no cause for alarm.

 

The difficulty is finding solar magnetic proxy data from sources like 14C or 10Be (Beryllium-10) that go back far enough to compare to and possibly correlate with the most recent paleomagnetic evidence of reversals.

I agree. Here again, that Earth's biota has weathered it all well enough to allow that we are here is a good indicator there is no cause for alarm.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html

"[/size]Here we report a reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations."

 

attachicon.gif7563524.jpg

This is the best (farthest back in time) record I have found.

What's not to love about dendrochronology!? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ncdc.noaa...clisci10kb.html [/size]

 

"Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earths magnetic field is strengthened, blocking more cosmic rays, which are a type of radiation coming in from deep space. Certain isotopes, such as carbon-14, are formed when cosmic rays hit plants and can be measured in ancient tree rings because they cause the formation of carbon-14. High levels of carbon-14 suggests an inactive sun. In his research Bond noted that increases in icebergs and drift ice occurred at the same times as the increase in carbon-14, indicating the sun was weaker at such times."

 

Bonds keen observation gives us multiple insights into the Earth's field generator;

-The Earth's magnetic field's energy level is coupled to the Sun's magnetic field strength.

-The ocean was cooler during periods of increased 14C, which always coincides with lower solar magnetic energy levels.

 

[...

I have more criticism of this report. First, I can find nothing about Sun/Earth magnetic coupling that suggests Earth's magnetic field strength is affected. As we have already read, the strength of Earth's field is determined by the dynamo effect.

 

Second, the Sun's magnetic field switches poles every 11 years or so around the time of solar max. This is a well established occurrence. In doing some reading just now I found something new on this reversal that is related to cosmic rays, but the shielding occurs in space and is not related to Earth's magnetic field. Read...

The Sun's Magnetic Field is about to Flip

...

When solar physicists talk about solar field reversals, their conversation often centers on the "current sheet." The current sheet is a sprawling surface jutting outward from the sun's equator where the sun's slowly-rotating magnetic field induces an electrical current. The current itself is small, only one ten-billionth of an amp per square meter (0.0000000001 amps/m2), but theres a lot of it: the amperage flows through a region 10,000 km thick and billions of kilometers wide. Electrically speaking, the entire heliosphere is organized around this enormous sheet.

 

During field reversals, the current sheet becomes very wavy. Scherrer likens the undulations to the seams on a baseball. As Earth orbits the sun, we dip in and out of the current sheet. Transitions from one side to another can stir up stormy space weather around our planet.

 

currentsheet_med.jpg

Field Flip (current sheet, 200px)

An artist's concept of the heliospheric current sheet, which becomes more wavy when the sun's magnetic field flips. More >http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/HCS.html

 

Cosmic rays are also affected. These are high-energy particles accelerated to nearly light speed by supernova explosions and other violent events in the galaxy. Cosmic rays are a danger to astronauts and space probes, and some researchers say they might affect the cloudiness and climate of Earth. The current sheet acts as a barrier to cosmic rays, deflecting them as they attempt to penetrate the inner solar system. A wavy, crinkly sheet acts as a better shield against these energetic particles from deep space. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more criticism of this report. First, I can find nothing about Sun/Earth magnetic coupling that suggests Earth's magnetic field strength is affected. As we have already read, the strength of Earth's field is determined by the dynamo effect.

 

The coupling of two fields should first be demonstratively shown to be possible, to have been observed and measured in a significant way.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

"Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field."

The evidence of mutual inductive coupling between the Sun and Earth must be coaxed out of multiple sources. All of them suggesting through careful comparison a link to a solar magnetic coupling.

 

1081070.png?696

 

This is of course 14C proxy data that just happens to correlate to the climate variation of the last 1100 years. Additionally, I can show this correlation going back to 11,400 years BP, just as Bond had proposed;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event

"Bond et al. (1997) argue for a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years in the North Atlantic region, and that their results imply a variation in Holocene climate in this region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas."

 

This link is to Bond's 1997 publication regarding this phenomenon.

http://www.bio.puc.cl/labs/clatorre/SemV/Bond_etal_1997_pervasivemillenialHolocene.pdf

post-88603-0-76236800-1398489094.png

 

I have multiple threads started in this regard, I believe I would be considered a thread hijacker to include any more of this material here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coupling of two fields should first be demonstratively shown to be possible, to have been observed and measured in a significant way.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf[/size]

"Magnetometer data from Galileos multiple ybys of Ganymede provide signicant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiters time-varying magnetic eld."

...

They go on to say:

...Although the data do not enable us to

establish the presence of an inductive response beyond doubt, we

favor the inductive response model because it gives a good fit to

the data using only four parameters to describe the internal sources

of fields, whereas the equally good dipole plus quadrupole fit requires

eight parameters. An inductive response is consistent with a

buried conducting shell, probably liquid water with dissolved electrolytes,

somewhere in the first few hundred km below Ganymedes

surface. The depth at which the ocean is buried beneath the surface

is somewhat uncertain, but our favored model suggests a depth of

the order of 150 km. As both temperature and pressure increase

with depth and the melting temperature of pure ice decreases to

a minimum at ∼170 km depth, it seems possible that near this

location, a layer of water would be sandwiched between layers

of ice. c 2002 Elsevier Science (USA) ...

While Ganymede does have an internal dynamo, Earth does not have a subterranean oceanic layer of water and while the authors express confidence in their analysis of this non-Earth 'analog', they also clearly state it's not confirmed and that they took an easier route than a [presumably] more accurate analysis.

 

The evidence of mutual inductive coupling between the Sun and Earth must be coaxed out of multiple sources. All of them suggesting through careful comparison a link to a solar magnetic coupling.

I think a better term than 'teased' is 'contrived' in it's most negative connotation.

 

snip...

This link is to Bond's 1997 publication regarding this phenomenon.

http://www.bio.puc.cl/labs/clatorre/SemV/Bond_etal_1997_pervasivemillenialHolocene.pdf

...

I have multiple threads started in this regard, I believe I would be considered a thread hijacker to include any more of this material here.

None of that snipped data has any bearing on the facts of Earth's dynamo and the consequent magnetic field and its variations in strength, which is the topic here. I'll have a look at the Bond link. I have done some reading in those threads and agree they are off topic here.

 

Also, can you fix or otherwise give a working link for your original Bond reference here? Danke. :)

 

Edit: From the conclusion of that latest Bond paper:

...Forcing of millennial-scale climate variability by changes in solar output has also been suggested, but that mechanism is highly controversial, and no evidence has been found of a solar cycle in the range of 1400 to 1500 years (39). ...

Connecting a suspect climate/solar relation to a geologic phenomena such as the magnetic field is quite a stretch of a neck.

Edited by Acme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They go on to say:

 

While Ganymede does have an internal dynamo, Earth does not have a subterranean oceanic layer of water and while the authors express confidence in their analysis of this non-Earth 'analog', they also clearly state it's not confirmed and that they took an easier route than a [presumably] more accurate analysis.

 

http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/people/mkivelson/Publications/ICRUS1572507.pdf

"Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto, responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field."

Are they not confirming that Europa and Callisto do "respond(s) inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field".

 

 

Also, can you fix or otherwise give a working link for your original Bond reference here? Danke. :)

 

 

OK, try this;

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html

 

I think a better term than 'teased' is 'contrived' in it's most negative connotation.

 

 

None of that snipped data has any bearing on the facts of Earth's dynamo and the consequent magnetic field and its variations in strength, which is the topic here.

 

 

Edit: From the conclusion of that latest Bond paper:

 

Connecting a suspect climate/solar relation to a geologic phenomena such as the magnetic field is quite a stretch of a neck.

 

Acme, you must stop by my Plate Tectonic thread sometime, I have some interesting things to share and discuss with you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
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.