Claim CD701: Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field
Dan Watts
shown to be wrong. See http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag-Prn.pdf
and both references need updating.
Mike Dworetsky
Well, at least Humphries has taken to heart the criticism that the field
strength plots fit a linear change rather than an exponential decay.
But seriously, how do creationists respond to geological patterns in the
Atlantic sea bed rocks that show many magnetic polarity reversals in the
past? Presumably they have to deny the observations of continental drift,
of sea floor formation, and of polarity changes in the rocks.
All the observations show is that we may be heading for a magnetic field
reversal in the relatively near future, something that has happened many
times in the past.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I'm not an expert, but I think probably the criticism of Barnes
stands, as a criticism of Barnes.
This piece by Humphreys evidently was written and/or published shortly
after the first version of this "Creationist Claims" entry, which was
more recently updated but hasn't taken account of it. If creationists
nowadays are citing Humphreys, then arguably the nature of the claim
has evolved, but are creationists doing that?
Anyway, essentially, the claim in original form is:
"The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate indicating that the
earth must be young."
The response is:
"The earth's magnetic field is decaying, and this is something that
happens from time to time, it comes and goes."
By the way, is there any recent news about that?
jillery
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> Dan Watts wrote:
> > The response #4 athttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.htmlis
> > shown to be wrong. See
> >http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag-Prn.pdf
> > and both references need updating.
>
> Well, at least Humphries has taken to heart the criticism that the field
> strength plots fit a linear change rather than an exponential decay.
>
> But seriously, how do creationists respond to geological patterns in the
> Atlantic sea bed rocks that show many magnetic polarity reversals in the
> past? Presumably they have to deny the observations of continental drift,
> of sea floor formation, and of polarity changes in the rocks.
Just as you say, as indicated by this quote from Humphreys' pdf:
"In the absence of any workable analytical
theory (or data) to the contrary from the evolutionists,
these data are quite consistent with the face-value
Biblical age of the earth, about 6000 years."
Despite the impressive-looking formulae and graphs, Humphreys follows
the same style as other blinkered and nonsensical arguments which
pretend "is consistent with" means "I'm right and you're wrong so
neener neener."
Randy C
> Atlantic sea bed rocks that show many magnetic polarity reversals in the
> past? Presumably they have to deny the observations of continental drift,
> of sea floor formation, and of polarity changes in the rocks.
>
> All the observations show is that we may be heading for a magnetic field
> reversal in the relatively near future, something that has happened many
> times in the past.
Creationists don't address such things because they falsify their
claims. Ignoring such evidence works better for them.
Note that these creationist arguments are not really intended for the
scientific community or even the community of people who investigate
claims made by the creationists. Instead the arguments are intended
for other creationists particularly those who WANT to believe.
The chief irony is that this argument is a completely uniformitarian
argument - that processes we see in the present can always be extended
back into the past. Creationism 101 rejects uniformitarianism.
Unless, of course, they can use such an argument to try to support
their silly claims about a young Earth.
Dan Watts
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> But seriously, how do creationists respond to geological patterns in the
> Atlantic sea bed rocks that show many magnetic polarity reversals in the
> past? Presumably they have to deny the observations of continental drift,
> of sea floor formation, and of polarity changes in the rocks.
>
I guess they could reply that according to uniformitarian hypotheses,
these should be regarded as anomalies since there were no direct
measurements of the earth's magnetic field at those times, and the
measurements that have been taken agree with their position.
Stuart
> The response #4 athttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.htmlis
> and both references need updating.
Uhhh not really.
And yes the Dipole field is till weakening. Duh. I also not aware of
claims to the effect that
energy loss in the Dipole filed is compensated by higher order
moments, and Humpfree does not reference
that claim. What is published shows that the higher order components
become more prominent during
reversals (mostly cuz the dipole field is toast) not thay compensate
for the loss of the dipole field.
And yes the evidence of polarity reversals is till right in front of
you. The Sun's magnetic field
reverses every 11 years. The Earth's magenetic field reverse
chaotically.
Estimating the age of the earth based on decay of the dipole field is
the
ultimate douchebaggery.
Humpfree does not address the issue.
Stuart
Stuart
Sure, cuz they have their heads up their ass.
This is another variant of the "Were you there?" argument.
Hilarious. Given that other bodies are observed to have reversals,
given that
remanent maganetism is a fact of nature, the creationist position is
hopelessly bankrupt
and suggestive of collective mental disease.
Stuart
Dan Watts
> On Apr 13, 1:22 am, Dan Watts <wdanwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The response #4 athttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.htmlis
> > shown to be wrong. Seehttp://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag-Prn.pdf
> > and both references need updating.
>
> Uhhh not really.
>
> And yes the Dipole field is till weakening. Duh. I also not aware of
> claims to the effect that
> energy loss in the Dipole filed is compensated by higher order
From Claim CD701:
Response:
...
4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic
field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength.
The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains
unchanged.
Stuart
Thats not the way I would have written it. But none the less it is
correct in
the sense that decay of the dipole does not in and of itself mean that
the total
field strength must decrease. Indeed, some numerical simulations show
that the
higher order components might grow at the expense of the dipole.
However, 100%
buffering of the total field strength is not likely. I don't see the
above statement
as claiming there is a one for one tradeoff.
Dan Watts
>
> > From Claim CD701:
>
> > Response:
> > ...
>
> > 4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic
> > field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength.
> > The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains
> > unchanged.
>
> Thats not the way I would have written it. But none the less it is
> correct in
> the sense that decay of the dipole does not in and of itself mean that
> the total
> field strength must decrease. Indeed, some numerical simulations show
> that the
> higher order components might grow at the expense of the dipole.
> However, 100%
> buffering of the total field strength is not likely. I don't see the
> above statement
> as claiming there is a one for one tradeoff.
Perhaps "remain unchanged" means something other than what the plain
text appears to say. What would you propose that meaning to be?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I think the point is not that the Earth's magnetic field isn't
currently weakening, but that Barnes's measurement doesn't properly
show that.
Like, people were shorter before the twentieth century, but you don't
demonstrate that by showing that they had smaller shoes than we do
now. It's the wrong measurement.
Friar Broccoli
.
But there were *direct* measurements. The sea floor sediments are an
instrument which measured the direction, inclination and strength of
the earth's magnetic field at various times in the past.
Mike Dworetsky
Not sediments; the actual underlying basaltic rocks that solidified in the
past and were pushed out along the ocean floor by subsequent eruptions along
the mid-oceanic ridge.
Stuart
To be more clear, I don't see the above statement as claiming there is
a one for one tradeoff as a matter of principle. What it does suggest
is that measuring the dipole field and ignoring the contributions from
higher order components doesn't allow you to claim definitively how
the overall strength
of th field is varying.
Stu
Stuart
xls in deep-sea
sediment cores.
Brad Clement, Neil Opdyke, etc. did a alot of work on that topic.
Stuart
Stu
Dan Watts
> > > 4. Barnes measures only the dipole component of the total magnetic
> > > field, but the dipole field is not a measure of total field strength.
> > > The dipole field can vary as the total magnetic field strength remains
> > > unchanged.
>
> > Thats not the way I would have written it. But none the less it is
> > correct in
> > the sense that decay of the dipole does not in and of itself mean that
> > the total
> > field strength must decrease. Indeed, some numerical simulations show
> > that the
> > higher order components might grow at the expense of the dipole.
> > However, 100%
> > buffering of the total field strength is not likely. I don't see the
> > above statement
> > as claiming there is a one for one tradeoff.
>
> To be more clear, I don't see the above statement as claiming there is
> a one for one tradeoff as a matter of principle. What it does suggest
> is that measuring the dipole field and ignoring the contributions from
> higher order components doesn't allow you to claim definitively how
> the overall strength
> of th field is varying.
>
> Stu
Perhaps the reply to the claim could also address the Humphreys 2002
paper in which case reply #4 would need some (at least) revision.
Dan
Mark Buchanan
The creationist explanation for the magnetic reversals is part of what
they call catastrophic plate tectonics. Roughly it is as follow:
- just before the flood all land was together in the super continent
called Laurasia & Gondwana
- massive cracks in the oceans plate caused very large slabs of it to
turn over and sink
- the super continent also broke up at the same time and started
moving into their current positions
- this all happened during the one year flood
- the magnetic reversals were part of this massive tectonic activity
Mike Dworetsky
Shows what happens when you get your info from TV documentaries as opposed
to basic literature. (Scientist holds up piece of sea-floor basalt to
camera. It deflects his boy scout compass needle by about 10 degrees.)
Mitigation, it isn't my area.
Friar Broccoli
.
> Mitigation, it isn't my area.
Lucky me. I can say that about everything
Mike Dworetsky
Isn't that the screenplay of "2012"?
John Stockwell
> The response #4 athttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.htmlis
> and both references need updating.
Actually, 4) in http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html is
still correct.
Humphreys calculates the energy in the quadrupole, etc. up to the 10th
harmonic,
but there is more to the geomagnetic field than these part, which
includes
torroidal modes that Humphreys tosses off, because we cannot measure
them.
Humphreys wants to lead you to believe that he has computed the full
energy
budget of the geomagnetic field. However, he doesn't tell you that
this isn't a
closed system. There are electrical currents induced in the earth due
to the
solar wind, and to lightning, as well as due to chemical processes in
the earth.
The energy budget of the earth's magnetic field, without an estimate
of the
energy budget of the telluric currents in the earth doesn't really
tell us anything.
Of course, all of his young earth stuff is crap. He can create young
earth theories
to his heart's content, but he isn't doing any relevant science.
-John
Friar Broccoli
.
> - the magnetic reversals were part of this massive tectonic activity
I'm afraid I must have missed something here. How does this explain
why so many spreading plates show mirror symmetry around their active
ridges? (Let alone why the pattern in the overlying sediments
matches the pattern in the spreading volcanic rock)
Stuart
> On Apr 13, 5:22 am, Dan Watts <wdanwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The response #4 athttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.htmlis
> > shown to be wrong. Seehttp://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag-Prn.pdf
> > and both references need updating.
>
> Actually, 4) inhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.htmlis
> still correct.
>
> Humphreys calculates the energy in the quadrupole, etc. up to the 10th
> harmonic,
> but there is more to the geomagnetic field than these part, which
> includes
> torroidal modes that Humphreys tosses off, because we cannot measure
> them.
Thats true, the toroidal field is restricted to the conductor, or in
tbis
case the outer core.
Stuart
Mark Buchanan
>
> I'm afraid I must have missed something here. How does this explain
> why so many spreading plates show mirror symmetry around their active
> ridges? (Let alone why the pattern in the overlying sediments
> matches the pattern in the spreading volcanic rock)
See this article for a better explanation than what I gave.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/catastrophic-plate-tectonics
Dan Watts
> to the
> solar wind, and to lightning, as well as due to chemical processes in
> the earth.
>
> The energy budget of the earth's magnetic field, without an estimate
> of the
> energy budget of the telluric currents in the earth doesn't really
> tell us anything.
Well, since the atmospheric current (induced by solar wind and
lightning?) is at most 2000 amperes, mostly radial, and the core
current for the observed dipole filed is estimated to be 6 billion
amperes, even assuming the atmospheric current could be directed about
the equator, and the inductance of the whole earth was 100X the
earth's core inductance, the relative energy would be (100*4*10^6)/
(36*10^18) less than 1 part in 10^10. Why bother?
Friar Broccoli
If I understand this article properly it is arguing that something
like 1/3rd (about 100 million sqr. km) of the 6 km thick ocean crust
was replaced by lava of over 1000 degrees C in under a year
(apparently within 40 days) about 4500 years ago.
Dan Watts
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> But seriously, how do creationists respond to geological patterns in the
> Atlantic sea bed rocks that show many magnetic polarity reversals in the
> past? Presumably they have to deny the observations of continental drift,
> of sea floor formation, and of polarity changes in the rocks.
>
Well, since both Science News (
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62947/title/Geomagnetic_field_flip-flops_in_a_flash
) and Nature ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/n6524/abs/374687a0.html
) reported evidence for very fast field reversals, even creationists
don't have to deny magnetic polarity reversals. The reversals can
quite comfortably fit within the short confines of a YEC timeline.
John Stockwell
Good point. However, my comment about the toroidal field modes which
certainly are of the same order as the components that we can
measure,
stands. Humphreys blows it off without appropriate justification.
-John
John Stockwell
> On Apr 13, 7:18 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
>
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > But seriously, how do creationists respond to geological patterns in the
> > Atlantic sea bed rocks that show many magnetic polarity reversals in the
> > past? Presumably they have to deny the observations of continental drift,
> > of sea floor formation, and of polarity changes in the rocks.
>
> ) and Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v374/n6524/abs/374687a0.html
> ) reported evidence for very fast field reversals, even creationists
> don't have to deny magnetic polarity reversals. The reversals can
> quite comfortably fit within the short confines of a YEC timeline.
The "YEC timeline" would have the Atlantic ocean opening up, via
really rapid seafloor spreading, and assuming its present
configuration
in something like a year. Even a thousand years were allowed, how
pray tell would all of that new ocean floor, which is extruded in a
molten
state, cool really fast trapping the magnetic field reversals,
leaving no evidence of
a more rapid deposition? There is no "brake mark" where the rate of
seafloor creation was really fast and then slowed down to assume its
current
speed. What the physical evidence supports is that the speed of
opening
of the Atlantic was more or less what it is today, and not tens of
thousands
or millions of times faster. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a
massive
dumping of heat into the oceans (we are talking ocean boiling amounts
of
heat).
-John
Dan Watts
> On Apr 15, 10:06 pm, Dan Watts <wdanwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > . There are electrical currents induced in the earth due
> > > to the
> > > solar wind, and to lightning, as well as due to chemical processes in
> > > the earth.
>
> > > The energy budget of the earth's magnetic field, without an estimate
> > > of the
> > > energy budget of the telluric currents in the earth doesn't really
> > > tell us anything.
> > (36*10^18) less than 1 part in 10^10. Why bother?
>
> Good point. However, my comment about the toroidal field modes which
> certainly are of the same order as the components that we can
> measure,
> stands. Humphreys blows it off without appropriate justification.
>
> -John
"Dalrymple also claimed that some energy from the di-
pole part was going into an unobservable “toroidal” part of
the field, in which the lines of force wind through the
earth’s core in the east-west direction. Because such lines
of force would remain within the core, they would only re-
veal their presence indirectly, by currents traveling outside
the core in the earth’s mantle and crust. Shortly after Dal-
rymple made that claim, several Bell Laboratories scien-
tists found that such currents are very small (Lanzerotti et
al., 1985). Barring very improbable structure (alternating
layers of conductors and insulators) in the earth’s mantle,
their result implies that the toroidal part of the earth’s mag-
netic field is small, removing such fields as a significant
reservoir for energy disappearing from the dipole part."
Perhaps appropriate is in the eye of the beholder.
-Dan
John Stockwell
The low numbers of Lanzerotti 1985 and 1993,
are consistent with the fact that the
mantle is not very conductive. Lanzerotti 1993 downward continued
surface
measurments of the field to infer the values at the core mantle
boundary.
In Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995 simulations, extremely high values
for the toroidal field appeared in the simulation.
By no means does Humphreys have a strong argument for his claim
that the geomagentic field is just fading away. Nor has he refuted the
claim that the partition of energy get traded around between various
modes.
>
> -Dan
-John
Stuart
Humphrey makes little sense. In this paper he uses observations of the
field
over a narrow stretch of time to extrapolate backwards and claim the
field was
totally dipolar at most a few tens of thousands of years ago.
One wonders where reversals fit into this picture? How do you
extrapolate
backwards thousands of years all the while knowing there must have
been hundreds
of reversals during this time.
Sorry, you still got a reveresal problem.
Stuart
Stuart
He's exactly right, what a number of other studies have tried to do is
downward project (not exactly a projection per se) the field to
understand what
the field looks like at the CMB. I believe these kind of results can
be
used as boundary conditions on dynamo experiments. I'll see if I can
dig
some up. However, this procedure alone, without a magnetohydrodynamic
model can't claim doodley squat about the toroidal field strength
*within* the core.
Stuart
Dan Watts
> extrapolate
> backwards thousands of years all the while knowing there must have
> been hundreds
> of reversals during this time.
>
> Sorry, you still got a reveresal problem.
>
> Stuart
Reversals-of-Earths-Magnetic-Field-During-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf ) with
a model of core surface currents.
Dan
John Stockwell
Humphreys "tried" do address that. Please see the papers by more
modern investigators.
Humphreys is doing high-tech apologetics, he is not doing research.
>
> Dan
AGW Facts
<wdan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The response #4 at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html is
> shown to be wrong. See http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag-Prn.pdf
> and both references need updating.
This is a joke, right?
Dan Watts
Dan
jillery
your cite. It's been known for at least 50 years now that the
strength of Earth's magnetic field waxes and wanes, and even flips,
over time. And without even looking, I'm almost certain all this was
explained to you almost 3 years ago. Your concern is no more valid
now than it was then.
Robert Carnegie
"At the current rate of decline, the field could vanish altogether
in 1,500 to 2,000 years, said Jeremy Bloxham of Harvard University."
As a small point, that means that he has "linear" change in mind -
like buying a bar of chocolate once a week with money you were given
at Christmas - and not "exponential", such as spending half of
your money each month: $20, $10, $5, $2.50.
Or, approximately linear, anyway; minus 10% in 150 years, and
linear, would mean that the remaining 90% of what you started
with is gone in 1500 years from when you started, but 1350 years
from now - or, rather, from 2003; i.e. the year 3353, not 3503.
And I thought it was going to be sooner than that, anyway.
Anyway, science sez that the earth's magnetic field has often
faded out and then reappeared with the same or opposite direction.
It's almost regular, but not quite. When it's weak, its overall
direction is not one dominant "north" and "south", but probably
more messy, with lots of magnetic north and south poles...
Young-earth-ism prefers a model of simple exponential decay of the
magnetic field because it implies that, oh, one million years ago
we'd all be laid flat on the ground by the force of it.
The truth of the matter is other than that.
Paul J Gans
at times in the geological record, the field has reversed polarity
a number of times.
All well know.
--
--- Paul J. Gans