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

[jamesbond007]

-_-
1. There are plenty of conditions that can result in compasses being ineffective for navigation, such as being in an area high in iron or another magnetic material.

Agreed.

3. Planets where life as we know it could not exist have strong magnetic fields. In our solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are confirmed to have magnetic fields way stronger than Earth's. Venus and Mars have negligible magnetic fields. That means that the only planet in the solar system that doesn't have a confirmed magnetic field (because Pluto got demoted) is Mercury. I wouldn't view what is apparently a very common trait for planets to have independent of the presence of life to be an indication of a trait being designed for life.

Okay, if Venus and Mars have negligible magnetic fields, then did it decay into nothing or what do you think happened?

-_- those measurements do not account for the fact that the magnetic field periodically gets weaker and stronger. It fluctuates. Basically, he took out a segment of data that lies solely within a weakening period, and ignored the data that didn't have that trend.

Agreed that field gets weaker and stronger, but in what period of time? We see the hotter and cooler areas occur, but overall it's been decreasing as SWARM reports state. What it means for the future, is where we disagree.

Weakening and strengthening of the magnetic field isn't even consistent across the globe, so it would be very easy to get results that do not fit reality entirely by focusing on a specific region. Is it true that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing? What's the effect?

So much so that this Scientific American article suggests that it isn't even within the realm of possibility to provide an outlook for the magnetic field far into the future.

I'm willing to be open minded. If the magnetic field moves and fluctuates, as the heat convection flow moves and fluctuates, then we get results that vary and it appears that's what we get from the measurements.

Part of the problem is no one knows how the magnetic field is generated. We think it's due to the heat convection and understand that it causes the top layer to become more dense and the hotter core material to rise.

 

[jamesbond007]

I recently commented to a moderator that "Report rather than Retort" was a pithy way of expressing the best way of handling members who made false accusations. I think it might also be the best way of handling trolls. I may add it to my signature.

The best way to handle a troll is to ignore, so that's what I'll do.

 

[jamesbond007]

One learns science from books, journals, experiment, and fieldwork. Good videos are very rare.



I think you have me mixed up with someone else.



Because the circulating currents in the outer core are chaotic. Spontaneous pole reversals happen in computer simulations of the physics. It's a bit like reversals of the triple pendulum:

Report rather than retort, I guess.

We agree that the circulating currents in the outer core are chaotic. That's about as far as I will go.

 

[Brightmoon]

Typical creationist blather is to misquote or take something a legitimate scientist like Dr Feduccia says and twist the meaning . He thought ( since this was before they discovered those feathered Chinese dinobirds and dinosaurs) that birds were descended from the archosaurs that feathered theropods also descended from as a separate lineage . The current hypothesis within the scientific community ( I’m not talking about creationist blather here) is that birds might have evolved more than once and that only one lineage hasn’t gone extinct. They aren’t sure and they’re in the process of examining this . This happens more frequently than you think . Two groups of scientists disagree and eventually discover that they’re both right. The last time I remember this happening is with the multi regional hypothesis of human evolution and the out of Africa hypothesis. Out of Africa was correct but humans did breed with other species of humans - Neanderthals and the Denisovians for example. The only reason that creationists get shot down in flames is because they deliberately misrepresent scientific facts to support their beliefs

 

[USincognito]

Typical creationist blather is to misquote or take something a legitimate scientist like Dr Feduccia says and twist the meaning . He thought ( since this was before they discovered those feathered Chinese dinobirds and dinosaurs) that birds were descended from the archosaurs that feathered theropods also descended from as a separate lineage . The current hypothesis within the scientific community ( I’m not talking about creationist blather here) is that birds might have evolved more than once and that only one lineage hasn’t gone extinct. They aren’t sure and they’re in the process of examining this . This happens more frequently than you think . Two groups of scientists disagree and eventually discover that they’re both right. The last time I remember this happening is with the multi regional hypothesis of human evolution and the out of Africa hypothesis. Out of Africa was correct but humans did breed with other species of humans - Neanderthals and the Denisovians for example. The only reason that creationists get shot down in flames is because they deliberately misrepresent scientific facts to support their beliefs

Great post Brightmoon, but are you sure it was to the correct thread?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay, if Venus and Mars have negligible magnetic fields, then did it decay into nothing or what do you think happened?

My degree is in biology, not astronomy or physics, but from my understanding, Mars used to have a magnetic field and a molten core like Earth, but that core eventually froze over and the magnetic field was lost as a result. The sources I find attribute the freezing to Mars having a much smaller mass than Earth.

I looked up sources to make sure my understanding of Mars was still fairly accurate, but I had to look up why Venus has a minimal magnetic field because I had no prior knowledge about it. Apparently, Venus has a minimal magnetic field due to its slow rotation. Its core is still molten, but it moves so slowly that it doesn't produce a magnetic field. The little magnetic field it does have is due to interactions with its atmosphere and solar winds. I can't find anything conclusive on whether or not Venus used to have a decent magnetic field. Seeing as Venus is almost the same age as Earth, I would assume that if it ever did have a magnetic field it lost it due to some event unlikely to be replicated on our planet any time soon if at all. It spins in the wrong direction so who knows, maybe that fact in and of itself caused its spin to slow down very quickly.

Agreed that field gets weaker and stronger, but in what period of time?

Given that there is a specific term for when magnetic poles do not change after longer than 10 million years have passed (superchron), I guess that would give some sense of scale for how frequent weakening is that actually has a long term impact. Geologists apparently tell previous states of the magnetic field by deep layers of rock that retain the old polarity, but my level of knowledge on the topic is not sufficient to be able to go into great detail. Nothing I find suggests any continuous lessening trends for the magnetic field of the Earth.

We see the hotter and cooler areas occur, but overall it's been decreasing as SWARM reports state. What it means for the future, is where we disagree.

Not really, in fact, what we disagree on is time scale. I don't think that the changes that result in the loss of a magnetic field would occur as quickly on a planet the size of Earth as you do. I have no doubt that the loss of the magnetic field would be catastrophic for life on our planet.

I'm willing to be open minded. If the magnetic field moves and fluctuates, as the heat convection flow moves and fluctuates, then we get results that vary and it appears that's what we get from the measurements.

I agree.

Part of the problem is no one knows how the magnetic field is generated. We think it's due to the heat convection and understand that it causes the top layer to become more dense and the hotter core material to rise.

All the more reason not to consider the magnetic field of the planet to be useful in determining the age of the planet, right? We understand radioactive decay down to the atomic level, so why not consider that method instead of utilizing something you consider to be poorly understood?

 

[Brightmoon]

If fossils have feathers then they could be birds dinosaurs or archosaurs.

 

[sfs]

I have no doubt that the loss of the magnetic field would be catastrophic for life on our planet.

Why?

 

[jamesbond007]

My degree is in biology, not astronomy or physics, but from my understanding, Mars used to have a magnetic field and a molten core like Earth, but that core eventually froze over and the magnetic field was lost as a result. The sources I find attribute the freezing to Mars having a much smaller mass than Earth.

I looked up sources to make sure my understanding of Mars was still fairly accurate, but I had to look up why Venus has a minimal magnetic field because I had no prior knowledge about it. Apparently, Venus has a minimal magnetic field due to its slow rotation. Its core is still molten, but it moves so slowly that it doesn't produce a magnetic field. The little magnetic field it does have is due to interactions with its atmosphere and solar winds. I can't find anything conclusive on whether or not Venus used to have a decent magnetic field. Seeing as Venus is almost the same age as Earth, I would assume that if it ever did have a magnetic field it lost it due to some event unlikely to be replicated on our planet any time soon if at all. It spins in the wrong direction so who knows, maybe that fact in and of itself caused its spin to slow down very quickly.

Interesting. My daughter's interested in biology (because I'm YEC; funny how God works) and is choosing colleges right now. She's going to be the valedict (proud dad ). My degree is in computer science.

Given that there is a specific term for when magnetic poles do not change after longer than 10 million years have passed (superchron), I guess that would give some sense of scale for how frequent weakening is that actually has a long term impact. Geologists apparently tell previous states of the magnetic field by deep layers of rock that retain the old polarity, but my level of knowledge on the topic is not sufficient to be able to go into great detail. Nothing I find suggests any continuous lessening trends for the magnetic field of the Earth.

I'm going to bite my tongue on magnetic pole reversal for now. Both creation science and secular science think it reversed.

Not really, in fact, what we disagree on is time scale. I don't think that the changes that result in the loss of a magnetic field would occur as quickly on a planet the size of Earth as you do. I have no doubt that the loss of the magnetic field would be catastrophic for life on our planet.

Okay. I think, just my opinion, that we're spending an awful lot of money on magnetic field, so there are some people worried about it decreasing. We do not have a handle on how the magnetic field works from the heat convection and plate tectonics. It doesn't work like an electric motor. I have a couple of supercomputer modeling (more money spent) to show you if you're interested. One actually backs up the magnetic reversal, but it takes time.

All the more reason not to consider the magnetic field of the planet to be useful in determining the age of the planet, right? We understand radioactive decay down to the atomic level, so why not consider that method instead of utilizing something you consider to be poorly understood?

I'll accept your opinion of the magnetic field and age of the Earth. With radioactive decay, we make some assumptions that may not be correct. As humans, we can create things at the molecular level, but cannot create things at the atomic level. Thus, we have to rely on what God has given us and make assumptions on how it works. Also, it's interesting that radioactive decay, it decays exponentially, as well.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why?

The magnetic field deflects a large portion harmful cosmic rays, preventing them from traveling through the atmosphere and thus damaging terrestrial life. Cancer rates would skyrocket, if nothing else. Organisms more sensitive to radiation would probably die.

But, I have no idea precisely how severe the increase in radiation would be; it could be high enough that most terrestrial life would die, for all I know.

This assessment neglects the actual cause of the loss of the magnetic field, though. I think we can both agree that the Earth's core cooling enough that the planet's magnetic field becomes negligible would have additional impacts on environments across the globe, as well as anything that might slow the speed of the rotation of the planet drastically enough to do it (the latter would probably wipe out most if not all life).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Interesting. My daughter's interested in biology (because I'm YEC; funny how God works) and is choosing colleges right now. She's going to be the valedict (proud dad ). My degree is in computer science.

Warn her about organic chemistry. For her sake. A lot of biology majors have to take chemistry courses, and if she can look at this and say "yeah, I'm still interested", then maybe she is ready for any of the majors that do require it:

Because my final project in one of my semesters of organic chemistry was looking at a molecule like this and designing a sequence of reactions that would produce it with none of the reactants that weren't products of a previous reaction in the sequence exceeding 6 carbons. Also, they explicitly couldn't be pathways already patented. College is hell you willingly attend -_-

Okay. I think, just my opinion, that we're spending an awful lot of money on magnetic field, so there are some people worried about it decreasing.

I know of no significant expenditures on that particular field of study compared to any other. Based on the papers I have looked at, what people are actually worried about is a pole reversal, not the magnetic field disappearing. A pole reversal would mess with various forms of navigational equipment, and they correlate with mass extinctions, hence the concern with that.

We do not have a handle on how the magnetic field works from the heat convection and plate tectonics. It doesn't work like an electric motor. I have a couple of supercomputer modeling (more money spent) to show you if you're interested. One actually backs up the magnetic reversal, but it takes time.

I wish I had the knowledge in this particular field of study to appreciate those models and give informed commentary, but alas, I don't. You should post them in the thread anyways, though, because I am sure there are other people more well informed than I am that would love to look at them

I'll accept your opinion of the magnetic field and age of the Earth. With radioactive decay, we make some assumptions that may not be correct. As humans, we can create things at the molecular level, but cannot create things at the atomic level. Thus, we have to rely on what God has given us and make assumptions on how it works. Also, it's interesting that radioactive decay, it decays exponentially, as well.

Yup, radioactive decay is an exponential curve; a very mathematically friendly one. Exponential curves aren't an issue for calculating trends as long as people actually treat them as an exponential curve and restrictions on the continued pattern are acknowledged. For example, human population growth is on an exponential curve, but you and I both know that humans aren't going to keep increasing in number until we exceed the number of atoms in the universe no matter how much time passes. Likewise, radioactive isotopes will eventually decay to the point that the ratios are useless for dating.


Basically, the methods are most reliable before the line begins kissing the X axis like in this graph

Thankfully, uranium decays so slowly that it'll be usable for radioactive dating until the sun explodes.

 

[sfs]

The magnetic field deflects a large portion harmful cosmic rays, preventing them from traveling through the atmosphere and thus damaging terrestrial life. Cancer rates would skyrocket, if nothing else. Organisms more sensitive to radiation would probably die.

The magnetic field only deflects low energy particles, from which we are mostly shielded by our atmosphere anyway. Cosmic radiation is indeed higher at the poles, where the Earth's magnetic field provides no shielding, but not enough to have a dramatic effect on life. Loss of the magnetic field would mean a modest increase in background radiation -- equivalent to moving to a location a few thousand feet higher in altitude.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The magnetic field only deflects low energy particles, from which we are mostly shielded by our atmosphere anyway. Cosmic radiation is indeed higher at the poles, where the Earth's magnetic field provides no shielding, but not enough to have a dramatic effect on life. Loss of the magnetic field would mean a modest increase in background radiation -- equivalent to moving to a location a few thousand feet higher in altitude.

And that's what I get for trying to discuss a topic I am not particularly informed in. Sarah, out!

 

[sfs]

And that's what I get for trying to discuss a topic I am not particularly informed in.

Hey, if people only talked about topics they were informed in it would get awfully quiet around here.

 

[Astrophile]

Planets where life as we know it could not exist have strong magnetic fields. In our solar system, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are confirmed to have magnetic fields way stronger than Earth's. Venus and Mars have negligible magnetic fields. That means that the only planet in the solar system that doesn't have a confirmed magnetic field (because Pluto got demoted) is Mercury. I wouldn't view what is apparently a very common trait for planets to have independent of the presence of life to be an indication of a trait being designed for life.

Mercury has a weak magnetic field; its magnetic dipole moment is about 0.05% of the Earth's dipole moment.

 

[Ophiolite]

The magnetic field only deflects low energy particles, from which we are mostly shielded by our atmosphere anyway. Cosmic radiation is indeed higher at the poles, where the Earth's magnetic field provides no shielding, but not enough to have a dramatic effect on life. Loss of the magnetic field would mean a modest increase in background radiation -- equivalent to moving to a location a few thousand feet higher in altitude.

Exactly. When this subject came up several years ago on another forum one of the members made an assertion similar to Sarah's. My response was to ask why penguins and polar bears seemed unbothered.

That said, there will be effects, some of them unanticipated. One we can anticipate is that individuals who breed racing pigeons may need to take up a new hobby. It seems unlikely, however, that there will be any major effect on the biosphere. There have been numerous attempts to identify a correlation between magnetic reversals and extinction events. As far as I am aware these have all had negative results.

I am less sanguine about the robustness of our electrical/electronic civilisation. This is well outside my area of expertise*, but I would imagine a direct hit from a coronal mass ejection, such as caused the Canadian power grid failure, would be even more devastating with only a weakened magnetic shield in place.

*I'm not sure I have an area of expertise, but this is definitely outside it, wherever it is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Mercury has a weak magnetic field; its magnetic dipole moment is about 0.05% of the Earth's dipole moment.

Ok, make that 0 planets without a magnetic field.

 

[jamesbond007]

Warn her about organic chemistry. For her sake. A lot of biology majors have to take chemistry courses, and if she can look at this and say "yeah, I'm still interested", then maybe she is ready for any of the majors that do require it:

Because my final project in one of my semesters of organic chemistry was looking at a molecule like this and designing a sequence of reactions that would produce it with none of the reactants that weren't products of a previous reaction in the sequence exceeding 6 carbons. Also, they explicitly couldn't be pathways already patented. College is hell you willingly attend -_-


I know of no significant expenditures on that particular field of study compared to any other. Based on the papers I have looked at, what people are actually worried about is a pole reversal, not the magnetic field disappearing. A pole reversal would mess with various forms of navigational equipment, and they correlate with mass extinctions, hence the concern with that.


I wish I had the knowledge in this particular field of study to appreciate those models and give informed commentary, but alas, I don't. You should post them in the thread anyways, though, because I am sure there are other people more well informed than I am that would love to look at them




Yup, radioactive decay is an exponential curve; a very mathematically friendly one. Exponential curves aren't an issue for calculating trends as long as people actually treat them as an exponential curve and restrictions on the continued pattern are acknowledged. For example, human population growth is on an exponential curve, but you and I both know that humans aren't going to keep increasing in number until we exceed the number of atoms in the universe no matter how much time passes. Likewise, radioactive isotopes will eventually decay to the point that the ratios are useless for dating.


Basically, the methods are most reliable before the line begins kissing the X axis like in this graph

Thankfully, uranium decays so slowly that it'll be usable for radioactive dating until the sun explodes.

Thank you for the advice and information. I'll be sure to discuss it with her.

As for the expenditures, it is based on the SWARM satellites launched, East Indian satellites whose name I forget and I just found four NASA launches for the magnetic field here -- 4 NASA Satellites to Launch on Magnetic Field Mission This Thursday. Also, the supercomputer time allocated would cost a nice sum.

Glatzmaier and Roberts on magnetic pole reversal (based on time of100 years per second!; which I do not think has happened)

Geodynamo

WHEN NORTH GOES SOUTH: Three-Dimensional Simulation of Geomagnetic Field Reversal

You have to understand that I'm going to inject some creation science in here, and apparently people do not believe that authority. In this case, it's human.

 

[jamesbond007]

Also, I think I found what Bernard Brunhes saw. It's all based on the seafloor spreading and, sure enough, igneous layers. Isn't that a coincidence ? This vid just happens to be another Bill Nye one (presumably the same program). It is also evidence of catastrophism forming the earth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you for the advice and information. I'll be sure to discuss it with her.

As for the expenditures, it is based on the SWARM satellites launched, East Indian satellites whose name I forget and I just found four NASA launches for the magnetic field here -- 4 NASA Satellites to Launch on Magnetic Field Mission This Thursday. Also, the supercomputer time allocated would cost a nice sum.

Glatzmaier and Roberts on magnetic pole reversal (based on time of100 years per second!; which I do not think has happened)

Geodynamo

WHEN NORTH GOES SOUTH: Three-Dimensional Simulation of Geomagnetic Field Reversal

You have to understand that I'm going to inject some creation science in here, and apparently people do not believe that authority. In this case, it's human.

I don't like it personally when people let their personal biases get involved in their interpretations. There are plenty of creationist scientists that do honest work, and if they have any that supports creationism then so be it. But science makes no distinctions on religion, gender, etc. when it comes to the scientist themselves. If I, an atheist, found a real Precambrian rabbit fossil, I would not assert that every single test performed on it that reached that conclusion "must be incorrect" just because I am an evolution supporter. Heck, I'd be thrilled to disprove evolution, because that would mean improving our understanding of the world by getting rid of a theory that is an inaccurate representation of reality. I'd be even more thrilled to discover conclusive evidence of any deity. The pursuit of truth carries with it the need to be able to accept being incorrect if it comes to it.

Would you be thrilled if you could definitively disprove the existence of the god you believe in, though? If you had access to such evidence, what would you do with it?

It's a neat simulation of the poles reversing. Though, I have no idea why there would be any substances which have the "wrong" magnetic field orientation if the planet never had pole switches, nor why they would correlated with specific time periods. That is, the evidence available to us doesn't make sense outside of a context in which the poles switch from time to time.