Acme

That you both persist in the face of multiple well reasoned and patient rebuttals from numerous respondents is evidence indeed that y'all don't understand. There is nothing I can do about that and so I won't try. Stick a fork in me.

No worries. After the fact I rather expected some chastisement on my initial post for doing someone's homework, even though I left it to the original poster to figure out how to apply my method to the specifics on Millikan and Thompson. I did not anticipate folks repeating my post. Thanks. I have no doubt now that it was someone else that took umbrage to my wisdom. Que sera sera.

I'm with Ophiolite and his appallment. That you persist in the pretense that a conclusion is possible, let alone that the premise is sensible, is depressing. Good grief.

Yes, but I don't think that is 'heat flow' in regards to geothermal power, which refers to heat coming from the interior & moving outwards.

Is that a reply to my question to noxid? Do you mean to imply 'intention' because the change is variable? I'm confused by your reply. ... It is pretty cool. While not a mimic even once that I'm aware of, English Ivy vines change their leaf shape when they reach a certain height*, whether that's on a tree or not. It is only at these heights and with the leaf change that the plant produces flowers & fruit. Not sure what adaptive advantage the leaf shape change affords the ivy; perhaps it reduces wind forces. *Edit: source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Ivy

Neither Ed nor the article invoke intention. What gave you that idea?

I already have. Moreover, Sensei and Orodruin have succinctly -if not simply- echoed my explication.

Lets see... magnetohydrodynamics @ Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics So at your invitation I have re-read the thread and I have little to offer but an honest & thoughtful summary of objections already voiced. What you do not provide in the opening post, or anywhere in this thread that I can find, are the necessary magnetohydrodynamic differential equations or calculations for a Sun imposed effect on Earth's magnetic field. Moreover, you simply dismiss these calculations as 'nice maths' and move on to your speculation. No I can't do these calculations either, but competent geologists and astrophysicists can and do make the calculations and if there were anything to what you have been claiming they would be on it like Occam's razor on a welder's magnet. Contrary to your implications, those folks have a sincere interest & firm knowledge in geology and they're not some herd-mentality buffoons bent on putting stumbling blocks in the way of science. The math is not simply sufficient, it is necessary.

There are zero hours of sunlight in the trash can, where this waste-of-time thread belongs at any time of year. Seriously; there is no defensible point to be made or discussion to be had here.

Devices that convert a heat gradient directly to electricity are called thermocouples. source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocouple

For the record, I am the scum that negatively marked Mike & TAR's last posts, as well as the TAR post that launched his hissy fit. This has all been a bunch of damn nonsense from the git-go, and while much of that fault lays with the originator(s), it strikes me as an error on the part of the staff to have not ended it. The idea that we need to allow/promote mistaken ideas -to put it too kindly- in order to show correct reasoning is misguided in my humble opinion, and as often as not is what perpetuates and enforces said mistaken ideas as genuinely clever.

No, you are mistaken. No; you are again mistaken. Thank you for repeating my answer...I think.

I have no idea about Millikan or Thompson, but I'll take a math stab. Assuming there are no partial clips and all clips weigh the same have the same mass. If the first container contains 1 clip then the masses in the others must be multiples. Try 20/7.5=2.666... Nope Try 2 clips in #1. 7.5/2=3.75 then 20/3.75=5.333... Nope. Try 3 clips in #1. 7.5/3=2.5 then 20/2.5=8. Yes. Then 50/2.5=20. Yes. Then 125/2.5=50. Yes Assuming further that 'clips' mean paper clips, what's a reasonable estimate for what a paper clip weighs the mass of a paper clip? A large one might have mass 2.5 gms so we have our answer. Smaller ones would have to have masses that are even divisions of our answer or 2.5/2=1.25 gms or 2.5/4=.625 gms. That's my best guess.

Mmmm....let's see. Are there celestial objects? Stars? Planets? Molecules? Are there people who don't understand how it could happen? Are there people who question people who don't understand how it could happen? Case closed.

Without Sun, Earth's magnetic field would looks like: snip... With Sun, Earth's magnetic field looks like: snap... On the first drawing, as I have pointed out numerous times Earth's field switches polarity so that is only accurate insofar as it goes for parts of Earth history. Besides that, Earth has islands of reverse polarity that are not modeled by that simplified bar-magnet analogy. Edit: The underlined is actually a misstatement on my part. Earth's magnetic field, or that of any planet, is never a simple bar-magnet because of the dynamics of a geo-dynamo. Moreover, planetary magnetic fields are always accompanied by/deformed by a solar magnetic field because planets always orbit stars. As to the second drawing that only shows that Earth's field is deformed by the Suns', not that Earth's magnetic field strength is modulated by the Sun. Returning, once again, to the Original Post/Thread Title concerning the 10% magnetic field decline, we read this. (Bolding mine.) source: >> http://www.webcitation.org/5nDzbvFyX

What's good for the bear is not necessarily good for the fox. Regardless of other planets I have seen no reliable study that shows Sol is modulating the strength of Earth's magnetic field.

I do not know if core spins at a sufficiently different rate to have a significant effect. But the strength of the field is sensibly constant over short times, at any point on the surface. It is the rate change of the field which induces the current, either by relative motion between the conductor and the magnet or by rapid change of the field. ... I read something on this differential spin a couple years back. I don't thinkthis is the original article but perhaps it will shed some light on the idea. source: >> http://www.livescience.com/30167-earth-core-spins-slowly-magnetic-field.html

Only insomuch as a magnetic field induces currents in conductors, which is the very basis of inductance. The next line after your quote: They are attributing the supposed inductance coupling to water as a conductor in Ganymede, not to its dynamo generated magnetic field. That works. Nothing there however to counter my arguments about the errors. As I say I have read much of it. I didn't think I could add anything, but I'll have another look as time allows.

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

Hearing and speech hallucinations are not uncommon in the hypnopompic state. According to this article the 'why' is likely related to impaired short-term memory. What you remember you heard and what the actual words were could then logically differ. Hypnopompic @ Wiki: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnopompia

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...

To your first question, the nearest thing to a figure with 'million' in it that I could find is 1 million grams per year, or about 1000 tons/year. >> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_space_dust_falls_to_Earth_each_year#slide=2&article=How_much_space_dust_falls_to_Earth_each_year Other estimates vary. This 2006 article puts the estimate @ 40,000 tons/year. >> http://www.universetoday.com/443/constant-rain-of-space-dust-adds-up/#ixzz2zuvM8sbC As to your above question on Earth/Sun and Earth/Moon distance, the Moon is moving away from Earth and the Earth is moving away from the Sun. The space dust accumulation is too small to appreciably increase Earth's mass in regard to its gravitational attraction to the Sun & Moon. Earth/Sun distance increasing: >> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun.html#.U1qQ140U9LM Earth/Moon distance increasing: >> (same source)

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

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

No apology necessary. I was simply employing some hyperbole for rhetorical/stylistic purpose. I only mean to sharpen your wits. I think this rests my case. And I thought this arrested mine.