Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening And Not A Dynamo.

[jamesbond007]

Not really. There's good geological evidence that the outer core is liquid iron. Currents in liquid iron produce a magnetic field. No other explanation for a magnetic field exists.

Plate tectonics and the age of the earth have nothing to do with it.

I know this. Give me some real updates like from SWARM (watch video in post #1). Your great-great-great grandchildren's lives in the year 3000 may depend on it. And don't just give me the poles are reversing and that's why we have nothing to be concerned about. Give me a reason to believe in the dynamo. Give me the source.

I've highlighted in BOLD.

ETA: Here's the plate tectonics article -- https://phys.org/news/2011-10-plate-tectonics-reversals-earth-magnetic.html.

"The first set of high-resolution results from ESA’s three-satellite Swarm constellation reveals the most recent changes in the magnetic field that protects our planet.

Launched in November 2013, Swarm is providing unprecedented insights into the complex workings of Earth’s magnetic field, which safeguards us from the bombarding cosmic radiation and charged particles.


June 2014 magnetic field

Measurements made over the past six months confirm the general trend of the field’s weakening, with the most dramatic declines over the Western Hemisphere.

But in other areas, such as the southern Indian Ocean, the magnetic field has strengthened since January.

The latest measurements also confirm the movement of magnetic North towards Siberia.

These changes are based on the magnetic signals stemming from Earth’s core. Over the coming months, scientists will analyse the data to unravel the magnetic contributions from other sources, namely the mantle, crust, oceans, ionosphere and magnetosphere.

This will provide new insight into many natural processes, from those occurring deep inside our planet to space weather triggered by solar activity. In turn, this information will yield a better understanding of why the magnetic field is weakening.


Earth's magnetic field

“These initial results demonstrate the excellent performance of Swarm,” said Rune Floberghagen, ESA’s Swarm Mission Manager.

“With unprecedented resolution, the data also exhibit Swarm’s capability to map fine-scale features of the magnetic field.”

The first results were presented today at the ‘Third Swarm Science Meeting’ in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Sofie Carsten Nielsen, Danish Minister of Higher Education and Science, highlighted the Danish contribution to the mission. Swarm continues the legacy of the Danish Ørsted satellite, which is still operational, as well as the German Champ mission. Swarm’s core instrument – the Vector Field Magnetometer – was provided by the Technical University of Denmark.


Swarm
Denmark’s National Space Institute, DTU Space, has a leading role – together with 10 European and Canadian research institutes – in the Swarm Satellite Constellation Application and Research Facility, which produces advanced models based on Swarm data describing each of the various sources of the measured field.

“I’m extremely happy to see that Swarm has materialised,” said Kristian Pedersen, Director of DTU Space.

Swarm reveals Earth’s changing magnetism

 

[Radagast]

Give me a reason to believe in the dynamo. Give me the source.

The article you linked to says there's a dynamo. And we already knew that the magnetic field weakens, strengthens, and reverses itself.

The article you dug out is not terribly good, but it is generally accepted that long-term variations in the strength of the dynamo are influenced by convection processes in the mantle altering the currents in the liquid outer core (and these convection processes in the mantle also drive plate tectonics). There was a paper on this in Nature in 1999, and multiple follow-ups since (like this).

 

[jamesbond007]

Here where I KNOW we are getting magnetic field reversals. From igneous flow.

"PAHOA, Hawaii — Fresh volcanic eruptions on the southern end of the island of Hawaii after a series of tremors left residents displaced and frightened as the authorities evacuated the state’s largest park on Friday and worked to keep people out of two subdivisions that had been evacuated."

In Hawaii, Kilauea Volcano Erupts, Spewing Lava and Gases Near Homes

 

[jamesbond007]

The article you linked to says there's a dynamo. And we already knew that the magnetic field weakens, strengthens, and reverses itself.

The article you dug out is not terribly good, but it is generally accepted that long-term variations in the strength of the dynamo are influenced by convection processes in the mantle altering the currents in the liquid outer core (and these convection processes in the mantle also drive plate tectonics). There was a paper on this in Nature in 1999, and multiple follow-ups since (like this).

That's fine for you, but for YEC there is no dynamo. I'm keeping an open mind about since creation scientists have admitted Thomas Barnes made some errors with his decay theory, such as pole reversals. Yet, are there actually pole reversals? All that is theory by secular scientists.

If the scientists are looking at igneous layers, then it's not a pole reversal. If they're finding reversals in sedimentary layers, then it probably is a pole reversal.

 

[Radagast]

That's fine for you, but for YEC there is no dynamo.

(1) Why ever not? Currents in the outer core are perfectly compatible with YEC.

(2) Where does the magnetism come from, then?

 

[DennisTate]

There could be a good side to this....... perhaps it may somewhat delay this possible effect?

Graham Hancock:

"Let us consider Antarctica for a moment.
We have already seen that it is big. It has a land area of 5.5
million square miles, and is presently covered by something in excess
of seven million cubic miles of ice weighing an estimated 19
quadrillion tons (19 followed by 15 zeros). What worries the
theorists of earth-crust displacement is that this vast ice-cap is
remorselessly increasing in size and weight:'at the rate of 293 cubic
miles of ice each year--almost as much as if Lake Ontario were frozen
solidly annually and added to it.// (Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of
the Gods, page 480)

I just recently discovered that the moon and Mars have lost their magnetic fields. Doesn't this mean that earth's magnetic field isn't a dynamo? What are the differences between Earth's vs Mars vs Earth's moon? Creation believes that the earth's magnetic field was given by God, has been decaying and will run out around year 3000. I don't think there's any argument about the earth's magnetic field weakening.

Earth's magnetic field as dynamo
Earth's magnetic field - Wikipedia

Exponential decay and other theories
The Earth’s Magnetic Field

What Happened to Mars' Atmosphere?

Mystery of Moon's Lost Magnetism Solved?

 

[jamesbond007]

The article you linked to says there's a dynamo. And we already knew that the magnetic field weakens, strengthens, and reverses itself.

The article you dug out is not terribly good, but it is generally accepted that long-term variations in the strength of the dynamo are influenced by convection processes in the mantle altering the currents in the liquid outer core (and these convection processes in the mantle also drive plate tectonics). There was a paper on this in Nature in 1999, and multiple follow-ups since (like this).

The ones who came up with the dynamo theory are American atheist scientists, but I hope they are right this time. We know that the field fluctuates, but we also know that Mars and the moon had magnetic fields at one time. For some reason, their fields are gone now. Mars is a God forsaken planet. And we can't live on the moon even though it's close. One of the posters here said they both do not have plate tectonics, so that's something we got going for us. Better hope that not terribly good article turns out.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hm... so, you don't want put it under evolutionary thinking? Yet, you're willing to put geology under evolution.

-_- the age of the planet is relevant to evolutionary history, because time and number of generations heavily influences how much a population changes. The age of the planet is not, however, explained by the theory of evolution. Aspects of various disciplines and theories (because geology isn't a theory, it is a field of study) can and usually are relevant to each other to some extent. It's not as if viruses aren't made up of atoms, despite viral diseases not being explained by atomic theory.

The magnetic field is natural science and part of geology. The magnetic field comes into the discussion because it has to do with the young age of the earth proposed by creation science.

-_- we aren't saying it can't be a part of the discussion, only that the theory of evolution in and of itself doesn't say anything about the Earth's magnetic field so it is incorrect to act as if it does or even that it demands a specific model for the magnetic field.

By the way, the magnetic field of the planet is well known to fluctuate in strength, it doesn't continuously decline like some creationists suggest it does. Weakening can occur before a pole shift, which is why if you look up "Earth's magnetic field weakening articles", you'll find a bunch talking about the potential for a pole shift to occur soon.

 

[Ophiolite]

The ones who came up with the dynamo theory are American atheist scientists, but I hope they are right this time.

The orignator (singular, not plural) of the theory was Walter Elsasser, a German-American scientist. His religion, or lack of it is irrelevant to his findings as a scientist.

We know that the field fluctuates, but we also know that Mars and the moon had magnetic fields at one time. For some reason, their fields are gone now.

The reasons are reasonably well understood. Smaller bodies lose heat faster, so that the core of Mars is mainly solid, thereby inhibiting the necessary convection. In the case of the moon there may not even have been a discreet core, but if there is, and if it were still partially molten, the slow rotation of the moon would be insufficient for the dynamo effect to work.

Mars is a God forsaken planet.

I thought God was meant to take an interest in all of his creation. Am I mistaken?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

That's fine for you, but for YEC there is no dynamo.

That the magnetic field fluctuates and moves/intensifies/weakens at various points is indicative of convection and therefore supports the dynamo theory.

 

[Ophiolite]

I return to the title of the thread:
Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening And Not A Dynamo.

So? Yes, we know it is weakening and we know it has weakened in the past and then strengthened and then weakened again. And this has happened repeatedly. And sometimes this has led to a reversal of the field. So what?

And, let's suppose it is not generated by a dynamo. Again I say, so what? If a different mechanism is repsonsible for the characteristics of the field it will not for one moment alter those characteristics. Those characteristics have been observed. It just so happens that a self sustaining dynamo represents the best explanation at present for those characteristics, but the actual, real world, observable characteristics do not depend on the theory. The theory depends on the characteristics.

So could you go over again just why you think this is somehow important? (Setting aside that it would be nice to know for sure exactly how the field is generated.)

 

[Radagast]

The ones who came up with the dynamo theory are American atheist scientists.

Well, no. And even if they were atheists, does that make their geophysics wrong?

The orignator (singular, not plural) of the theory was Walter Elsasser, a German-American scientist. His religion, or lack of it is irrelevant to his findings as a scientist.

You are correct, of course.

As a matter of fact, though, Elsasser was Jewish (he was a refugee from Nazi Germany).

 

[jamesbond007]

-_- the age of the planet is relevant to evolutionary history, because time and number of generations heavily influences how much a population changes. The age of the planet is not, however, explained by the theory of evolution. Aspects of various disciplines and theories (because geology isn't a theory, it is a field of study) can and usually are relevant to each other to some extent. It's not as if viruses aren't made up of atoms, despite viral diseases not being explained by atomic theory.


-_- we aren't saying it can't be a part of the discussion, only that the theory of evolution in and of itself doesn't say anything about the Earth's magnetic field so it is incorrect to act as if it does or even that it demands a specific model for the magnetic field.

By the way, the magnetic field of the planet is well known to fluctuate in strength, it doesn't continuously decline like some creationists suggest it does. Weakening can occur before a pole shift, which is why if you look up "Earth's magnetic field weakening articles", you'll find a bunch talking about the potential for a pole shift to occur soon.

I never made any claims that ToE (biology) and evolutionary thinking were the same. The evolution.berkeley.edu website makes it clear. What falls into today's evolutionary thinking and ToE is genetic modification and GMO foods. I use evolution to argue against GMO foods which is a topic for another day.

 

[jamesbond007]

Well, no. And even if they were atheists, does that make their geophysics wrong?

Atheists are usually wrong.

 

[jamesbond007]

I return to the title of the thread:
Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening And Not A Dynamo.

So? Yes, we know it is weakening and we know it has weakened in the past and then strengthened and then weakened again. And this has happened repeatedly. And sometimes this has led to a reversal of the field. So what?

And, let's suppose it is not generated by a dynamo. Again I say, so what? If a different mechanism is repsonsible for the characteristics of the field it will not for one moment alter those characteristics. Those characteristics have been observed. It just so happens that a self sustaining dynamo represents the best explanation at present for those characteristics, but the actual, real world, observable characteristics do not depend on the theory. The theory depends on the characteristics.

So could you go over again just why you think this is somehow important? (Setting aside that it would be nice to know for sure exactly how the field is generated.)

See my post #87 and watch the vid. Igneous layes get their magnets reversed. Also, when we have earthquakes, we know today that the ground liquefies. That could cause magnetic reversals, too. Food for thought. We've lived in a world where we always had magnetic N. It's hard for me to picture a bizarro world where our compasses are reversed.

 

[Radagast]

Atheists are usually wrong.

Actually, no. Not usually about science.

 

[Ophiolite]

You are correct, of course.

As a matter of fact, though, Elsasser was Jewish (he was a refugee from Nazi Germany).

Thanks for that. I suspected he might be, but I couldn't find any confirmation from a quick on-line search.

 

[Ophiolite]

See my post #87 and watch the vid. Igneous layes get their magnets reversed. Also, when we have earthquakes, we know today that the ground liquefies. That could cause magnetic reversals, too. Food for thought. We've lived in a world where we always had magnetic N. It's hard for me to picture a bizarro world where our compasses are reversed.

You would find it worthwhile to get some introductory books on geology, since you have an obvious interest in the subject. A little bit of study could remove some of your misunderstandings. In the meantime:
1. Igneous layers do not get their magnets reversed. As an igneous rocks cools below the Curie temperature certain minerals, most commonly magnetite, adopt the orientation of the local field. Since this local field changes over time any igneous layers that form after the next global reversal will have their induced magnetisation the opposite of the older layer.
2. The liquefaction of the ground has nothing whatsoever to do the magnetic field. It relates to packing geometry of certains sediments that can be altered when subject to the sort of vibration present during earthquakes.

 

[tas8831]

There could be a good side to this....... perhaps it may somewhat delay this possible effect?

Graham Hancock:

Hancock... Yeah, saw him on a show on the Discovery Channel (of all places) a few years back where he claimed that south is 'down' - the context was his 'theory' on the loss of Atlantis being caused by the north polar ice cap getting so heavy that it was 'pulled down' toward the equator. While 'explaining' this, his chart had a globe on it with arrows pointing down toward the south pole...

 

[USincognito]

The ones who came up with the dynamo theory are American atheist scientists...

Really? I didn't realize that German born Jewish sons of Protestant converts "are" "American atheist scientists".