Earth - electric oceans

[flyingcloud]

Are Changes In Earth's Main Magnetic Field Induced By Oceans' Circulation?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 094038.htm

ScienceDaily (June 15, 2009) — Some 400 years of discussion and we’re still not sure what creates the Earth’s magnetic field, and thus the magnetosphere, despite the importance of the latter as the only buffer between us and deadly solar wind of charged particles (made up of electrons and protons). New research raises question marks about the forces behind the magnetic field and the structure of Earth itself.

The controversial new paper, published in New Journal of Physics (co-owned by the Institute of Physics and the German Physical Society), will deflect geophysicists’ attention from postulated motion of conducting fluids in the Earth’s core, the twentieth century’s answer to the mysteries of geomagnetism and magnetosphere.

Professor Gregory Ryskin from the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University in Illinois, US, has defied the long-standing convention by applying equations from magnetohydrodynamics to our oceans’ salt water (which conducts electricity) and found that the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth’s main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans’ circulation.

With calculations thus confirming Ryskin’s suspicions, there were also time and space correlations - specific indications of the integral relationship between the oceans and our magnetospheric buffer. For example, researchers had recorded changes in the intensity of current circulation in the North Atlantic; Ryskin shows that these appear strongly correlated with sharp changes in the rate of geomagnetic secular variation (“geomagnetic jerks”).

Tim Smith, senior publisher of the New Journal of Physics, said, "This article is controversial and will no doubt cause vigorous debate, and possibly strong opposition, from some parts of the geomagnetism community. As the author acknowledges, the results by no means constitute a proof but they do suggest the need for further research into the possibility of a direct connection between ocean flow and the secular variation of the geomagnetic field."

In the early 1920s, Einstein highlighted the large challenge that understanding our Magnetosphere poses. It was later suggested that the Earth’s magnetic field could be a result of the flow of electrically-conducting fluid deep inside the Earth acting as a dynamo.

In the second half of the twentieth century, the dynamo theory, describing the process through which a rotating, convecting, and electrically conducting fluid acts to maintain a magnetic field, was used to explain how hot iron in the outer core of the Earth creates a magnetosphere.

The journal paper also raises questions about the structure of our Earth’s core.

Familiar text book images that illustrate a flow of hot and highly electrically-conducting fluid at the core of the Earth are based on conjecture and could now be rendered invalid. As the flow of fluids at the Earth’s core cannot be measured or observed, theories about changes in the magnetosphere have been used, inversely, to infer the existence of such flow at the core of the Earth.

While Ryskin’s research looks only at long-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, he points out that, “If secular variation is caused by the ocean flow, the entire concept of the dynamo operating in the Earth’s core is called into question: there exists no other evidence of hydrodynamic flow in the core.”

On a practical level, it means the next time you use a compass you might need to thank the seas and oceans for influencing the force necessary to guide the way.

Dr Raymond Shaw, professor of atmospheric physics at Michigan Technological University, said, “It should be kept in mind that the idea Professor Ryskin is proposing in his paper, if valid, has the potential to deem irrelevant the ruling paradigm of geomagnetism, so it will be no surprise to find individuals who are strongly opposed or critical."

[keeha]

"Spacecraft orbiting Mars have found only weak magnetic fields present in various regions of the Red Planet. These fields are probably remnants of an earlier global field that has since disappeared. But how and why did the global field vanish? "

[Lloyd]

* I think what all the planets that have magnetic fields have in common is large moons. I don't think the gas giants have salt water oceans, although I've heard that Neptune has a global ocean. If Pluto has a magnetic field, that would just about clinch the argument that large orbiting moons cause or induce magnetic fields in planets.
* Mars may have gotten its localized fields from megalightning. If the field is strong around Valles Marineris and maybe Olympus Mons, that would support that idea, I think.
* Well, let's see. Here's a map of Mars magnetic fields.

* Looks like I guessed wrong. Those features have little or no magnetic fields. It looks like the southern hemisphere has most of the field. According to a TPOD, http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... osnote.htm , that's where material from the northern hemisphere was deposited after EDM from the north. So perhaps the deposition provided the field. If so, the fields may be shallow. Maybe the EDM in the north and deposition in the south was the first and largest electrical event that occurred, then the canyon was gouged out and Hellas basin formed as a huge crater and the monses were raised up. Then littler craters formed as the discharges decreased in size.
* According to this http://www.astro.umd.edu/resources/intr ... pluto.html Pluto doesn't seem to have a magnetic field, so maybe having a large orbiting moon isn't what induces fields.
* This site http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/S ... 19_6a.html says:

The Moon has a weak magnetic field. ... That the Sun's magnetic field plays a large role in the current state of the Moon's field is demonstrated by the similarities (general correspondence) in the Β magnetic field vector onboard an Earth-orbiting Explorer 35 and simultaneous measurements on the ground at the Apollo 12 site.

[moses]

>So perhaps the deposition provided the field. Lloyd.

And are these magnetic deposits on Mars from Mars ?
Planetary interaction could see rocks undergoing
EDM at the south pole of one planet and being
deposited on the north pole of the other planet,
as in Mars.

So these deposits might have come from anywhere,
however the deposits underneath these would likely
have come from Mars. They might contain fossils.

Why does Earth have a stronger magnetic field ?
A remnant magnetism of some Earth rocks cannot
explain the Earth's magnetic field. There must be
something inside the Earth generating the field.
Although craters can produce some strong local
variation in magnetic field, the overall field of
the crater is not significant.
Mo

[Osmosis]

Isn't the current from the Sun the source of the Earth's magnetic field? The Faraday effect?

[moses]

Isn't the current from the Sun the source of the Earth's magnetic field? The Faraday effect?
Osmosis

This Faraday motor effect is considered by Wal to produce
the double vortexes on Venus, yet Venus has negligible
magnetic field. And why doesn't Mars or Mercury have a
stronger magnetic field ? So the Earth's field is not
explained by solar or galactic currents.

The history of the Earth is probably totally different
to that of Mars. So maybe Earth was formed differently
or else Earth went through some process that made the
inner Earth very different to that of Mars, Mercury or
Venus. And yet all the big planets have strong magnetic
fields. And, of course, is the Sun's magnetic field
really explained by the Faraday motor effect ?

One clue is that the Earth's magnetic field is getting
weaker. Which leads one to guess that some event caused
the Earth to gain a field, and now it is decaying. The
Precambrian rocks are fossil-less and twisted and probably
worn down, indicating possible great age. And thus too
long a time for an ancient magnetic field to decay to
present levels.

All a bit difficult.
Mo

[nick c]

hi Mo,

One clue is that the Earth's magnetic field is getting
weaker. Which leads one to guess that some event caused
the Earth to gain a field, and now it is decaying.

I have heard of this, but do not know of any support from any studies. Are there any sources for this claim?
That is very interesting.

nick c

[nick c]

All right you piqued my curiousity

"Right now, historic records show that the strength of the magnetic field is declining very rapidly. From a quick back-of-the-envelope prediction, in 1,500 years the field will be as weak as it's ever been and we could go into a state of polarity reversal," says Singer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 105021.htm

The strength of the Earth's magnetic field has decreased 10 percent over the past 150 years, raising the remote possibility that it may collapse and later reverse, flipping the planet's poles for the first time in nearly a million years, scientists said Thursday.

At that rate of decline, the field could vanish altogether in 1,500 to 2,000 years, said Jeremy Bloxham of Harvard University.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/e ... 31212.html

Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... field.html

This raises the question of whether or not the decline in magnetic field strength is part of a cycle or a temporary dip, or, an indicator that the Earth is (permanently) losing it's magnetic field?
If the later, would the Earth then begin to lose it's atmosphere to the electric current from the Sun, aka the solar wind?

nick c

[keeha]

So Lloyd large Mars impacts had the least magnetic field strength? If one theorizes of a crystal core (many good links from lizzie here), many theories can be accomidated, including the mainstream of loss of magnetic field via comet craters.

[Lloyd]

* Keeha, at that link Lizzie said, "The Earth is hollow and has an interior sun." The first part is plausible, that the Earth has a hollow center, but probably not very large. The crystal core, also mentioned there, is also plausible, like in the center of geodes, in case Earth and other planets are formed like geodes. The idea of the interior sun that's nuclear powered and was called the black sun is highly unlikely, because geodes do not have central plasma, nor do stars very likely have central nuclear furnaces, and because the black sun clearly referred to Saturn in ancient times.
* If you found an explanation in her post of how craters reduce the magnetic field in an area, such as on Mars, please quote relevant parts. Comets likely do not form craters, but meteors, comets and asteroids can attract electrical discharges between the ionosphere and ground that result in craters on the ground. Si?

[moses]

This raises the question of whether or not the decline in magnetic field strength is part of a cycle or a temporary dip, or, an indicator that the Earth is (permanently) losing it's magnetic field?
If the later, would the Earth then begin to lose it's atmosphere to the electric current from the Sun, aka the solar wind?
nick c
Is the magnetic sheath around the Earth shrinking ?
Then CMEs from the Sun could be much more dangerous.
I think we can forget about magnetic cycles. 10 %
reduction in Earth's field in 150 years is a real
worry. 3000 years ago there would have been a much
more electrical Earth, and probably much easier to
dowse.

But still the mystery remains - why only Earth ?
Did Mars get magnetised less than the Earth and
over 3000 years or so the magnetic field decayed
to near nil ?
Mo

[flyingcloud]

* Keeha, at that link Lizzie said, "The Earth is hollow and has an interior sun." The first part is plausible, that the Earth has a hollow center, but probably not very large. The crystal core, also mentioned there, is also plausible, like in the center of geodes, in case Earth and other planets are formed like geodes. The idea of the interior sun that's nuclear powered and was called the black sun is highly unlikely, because geodes do not have central plasma, nor do stars very likely have central nuclear furnaces, and because the black sun clearly referred to Saturn in ancient times.
* If you found an explanation in her post of how craters reduce the magnetic field in an area, such as on Mars, please quote relevant parts. Comets likely do not form craters, but meteors, comets and asteroids can attract electrical discharges between the ionosphere and ground that result in craters on the ground. Si?

I can reduce or eliminate magnetism by impact shock.

If I magnetize my screwdriver then drop it from a ladder, I have to re-magnetize it.

[moses]

I can reduce or eliminate magnetism by impact shock.
If I magnetize my screwdriver then drop it from a ladder, I have to re-magnetize it.
flyingcloud
Perhaps a big electrical discharge will produce a lot
of eddy currents that are powerful enough to reset
the remnant magnetism into effectively random remnant
magnetism. An old trick is to put an iron bar in a vice
and hammer it to produce a magnet. So perhaps Mars lost
a lot of it's remnant magnetism through interplanetary
electrical interaction. And so help explain why Mars
has little magnetic field.
Mo

[keeha]

Lloyd, I've posted to correct you before, please do not associate me with hollow thinking. In fact the idea makes most sense if the entire core was solid (or plasma?), that is a theory with no liquid geodynamo. But a central organizing crystal with surface and 'crack' telluric currents. I will be more specific to the links: http://www.psc.edu/science/Cohen_Stix/cohen_stix.html

Earth's solid-iron inner core is "anisotropic"...

"Hexagonal crystals have a unique directionality," says Stixrude, "which must be aligned and oriented with Earth's spin axis for every crystal in the inner core." This led Stixrude and Cohen to try a computational experiment. If all the crystals must point in the same direction, why not one big crystal? The results, published in Science, offer the simplest, most convincing explanation yet put forward for the observed seismic data and have stirred new thinking about the inner core.

Could an iron ball 1,500 miles across be a single crystal? Unheard of until this work, the idea has prompted realization that the temperature-pressure extremes of the inner core offer ideal conditions for crystal growth. Several high-pressure laboratories have experiments planned to test these results. A strongly oriented inner core could also explain anomalies of Earth's magnetic field, such as tilted field lines near the equator.

And now and example of the mainstream 'impact' repots: University of California-Berkeley September 3, 1998; LUNAR PROSPECTOR MEASUREMENTS SHOW HOW METEOR IMPACTS HAVE SHAPED THE MOON'S MAGNETIC FIELD

"The fact that regions of strong magnetic field cover whole basins antipodal to the point of impact makes the hypothesis that the magnetism has something to do with these large impacts seem much firmer." These regions of strong magnetic field also create their own miniature magnetospheres several hundred kilometers across, akin to the much larger magnetospheres that surround planets like Earth and block the solar wind.

[nick c]

I would like to take a time out, to clarify a few questions I have pertaining to this thread. Please excuse me if this seems overly simplistic....we know that magnetic fields do not stand alone, they are created by electric currents. If so what is the source of the electric current that creates the Earth's magnetic field? The article cited in the original post casts doubt on the validity of the currently popular theory of the internal dynamo, which of course has been the position stated numerous times in EU literature.

Familiar text book images that illustrate a flow of hot and highly electrically-conducting fluid at the core of the Earth are based on conjecture and could now be rendered invalid. As the flow of fluids at the Earth’s core cannot be measured or observed, theories about changes in the magnetosphere have been used, inversely, to infer the existence of such flow at the core of the Earth.

While Ryskin’s research looks only at long-term changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, he points out that, “If secular variation is caused by the ocean flow, the entire concept of the dynamo operating in the Earth’s core is called into question: there exists no other evidence of hydrodynamic flow in the core.”

So if the Earth is a charged body in the plasmasphere of the Sun, where is it getting its' charge from? if not from the Sun? and what role do the oceans play in all this?

nick c