Earth magnetic field and the salty ocean's.

[William Gaatjes]

I have a question. The earth is surrounded by sea. In every local part of the sea the amount of salt per water layer fluctuate because of temperature and flows inside the sea. I have always learned that salt water is a good electrical conductor. And since sea water contains much more minerals then just salt it is a great electrical conductor. When i google around , i have difficulty finding about research done about the earth's core generating a magnetic field and what the effect's of the ocean's are. And especially the ocean's flow currents ( not the electrical current).

The reason why i ask this is because well, you have this very large moving conductor(s) (the ocean's currents) moving in 3 dimensions in a magnetic field because of the rotating earth. Thus there should be electrical currents flowing in the ocean which on their turn also cause again magnetic fields. Is there research done about this ?

It looks to me we have a rotating magnetic generator in the core and a rotating generator outside. I guess the ocean's would have a huge effect on the earth's magnetic field.


Is there any research done on this ? I am very curious about it.
Has there for example been done research between the magnetic field and el nino or el nina ?


EDIT :

I guess i typed it wrong during googling.

(few minutes later )

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6493481.ece

Scientists have always linked variation with turbulence in the outer core, but Ryskin suggests it actually correlates with changes in ocean circulation. In the north Atlantic, for example, changes in the strength of currents were matched by sharp changes in magnetic fields.

One idea is that changes in ocean circulation may explain the curious reversals shown by Earth’s magnetic field, in which the north and south magnetic poles suddenly flip over. This last happened 780,000 years ago.

This could also be linked to tectonic plate movements that have shifted the world’s land masses around the globe, forcing ocean currents to adopt entirely new routes.

If Ryskin is right, then climate change, predicted to alter the strength and course of ocean currents, could also alter the planet's magnetic field.

A wild and crazy thought would be then that mars lost it's atmosphere after it lost it's water. That is if it ever had any water. That is if you need ocean's and a molten iron core for a magnetic protective planetary shield...

No water is no magnetic field.
Solar wind would sputter away the atmosphere of mars.
And mars is as it is today.

Coming back to the earth.
Another idea can be that the ocean's keep causing friction (Lorentz force) through magnetic interaction as well as the rotation and tektonic movement, in the molten core. Thereby refueling the core with energy as well.

Electric current in salt water is 1 big movement of ions. It is not like electron flow in a solid metal.

 

[William Gaatjes]

If the ocean's can effect the magnetic field, i have another question :

Has there ever been researched if there is a link between the strength of the magnetic field (or maybe at local positions) and the tides ?
I would say possibly not.


Spring Tides

Neap tides

Proxigean Spring Tide

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/moon/Tides.shtml

http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

EDIT :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_tides

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

 

[sao123]

in order for there to be an actual magnetic effect on the water currents, there would have to be a net displacement, which there is none.

AFAIK, ocean currents are primarily caused by the pressure diffences in the layers of different temps and salinity.

 

[William Gaatjes]

in order for there to be an actual magnetic effect on the water currents, there would have to be a net displacement, which there is none.

AFAIK, ocean currents are primarily caused by the pressure diffences in the layers of different temps and salinity.

I would not doubt that ocean currents flow because of rotation of the earth , wind, pressure, evaporation changes, temperature , gravity and density.

But what i was wondering about is the electrical currents which may be caused by ocean currents. These electrical currents flowing perhaps cause magnetic fields of their own.

According to these websites, there are locations of the planet where the compass might not actually show the magnetic north or seem to have done this in the past.

The bermuda triangle could have been such a location.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq8-1.htm

It has been inaccurately claimed that the Bermuda Triangle is one of the two places on earth at which a magnetic compass points towards true north. Normally a compass will point toward magnetic north. The difference between the two is known as compass variation. The amount of variation changes by as much as 60 degrees at various locations around the World. If this compass variation or error is not compensated for, navigators can find themselves far off course and in deep trouble. Although in the past this compass variation did affect the "Bermuda Triangle" region, due to fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field this has apparently not been the case since the nineteenth century.

http://fishwrecked.com/forum/magnetic-north-or-true-north

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination

In this pdf it is written about external influences seen from the earth it self.
That could be the sun and perhaps even our solar system flowing through our milkyway and when our milkyway flows through the bigger spiral Which on it's own seems to rotate around a massive blackhole.
Another influence at earth could be lot's of concentrated magnetite in the crust.


http://rses.anu.edu.au/~ted/gji514.pdf

 

[sao123]

I would not doubt that ocean currents flow because of rotation of the earth , wind, pressure, evaporation changes, temperature , gravity and density.

But what i was wondering about is the electrical currents which may be caused by ocean currents. These electrical currents flowing perhaps cause magnetic fields of their own.

ocean currents will not cause electrical currents.

movement to create current must cut across the field flux lines, which would require ocean currents to be perpendicular to the surface (IE +-Z/R).

Since ocean currents only flow parallel to the surface plane, with No Net Displacement = No mechanical work = no current...



Also, let me point out that all research done by Gregory Ryskin is highly controversial, as most physicists have denounced him as doing "junk" science.
Personally having read some of his articles, I think he's a moron.

 

[William Gaatjes]

ocean currents will not cause electrical currents.

movement to create current must cut across the field flux lines, which would require ocean currents to be perpendicular to the surface (IE +-Z/R).

Since ocean currents only flow parallel to the surface plane, with No Net Displacement = No mechanical work = no current...

I see what you mean.
The magnetic field lines go from the south pole to the north pole ( or other way around). If a sea current would flow in the same direction as the earth rotation it would be perpendicular. But the field would stay more or less (bulging earth) constant at the same distance form the crust. Or their must happen a depth change within a certain time frame as well. This does happen though, but is it enough ? What would happen in case of a vortex ? Another possibility could be if the current flows from a position located to the poles and then moves more to the equator. Maybe the coriolis effect ? Combine that with the effect of the tides, maybe it is enough...

http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/ejs/inertial_oscillation_simulation.php


EDIT :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

Faraday found that the electromotive force (EMF) produced around a closed path is proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through any surface bounded by that path.

In practice, this means that an electrical current will be induced in any closed circuit when the magnetic flux through a surface bounded by the conductor changes. This applies whether the field itself changes in strength or the conductor is moved through it.

Or the field strength must change or the position from the conductor or both while following the rules that you have written.

I wonder what would happen with the field strength between episodes of solar wind bombarding and tide effects together with the earth rotation.

That is 1 pretty complex simulation i would think.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Also, let me point out that all research done by Gregory Ryskin is highly controversial, as most physicists have denounced him as doing "junk" science.
Personally having read some of his articles, I think he's a moron.

Well, that does not mean much.

There have been enough people ridiculed only to be later recognized that they where correct.


I remember this story though...
It does not seem far fetched to me but then again i am not a geologist.

http://geology.about.com/gi/o.htm?z...http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mhalb/nyos/webcam.htm

http://geology.about.com/cs/extinction/a/aa092803.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos


Another example is this man : Henrik Svensmark.
His theory is that cosmic rays can also cause an increase in rain and therefore a different weather pattern. And he seem to have pretty hard evidence.


SIDENOTE :
On a side note, I think we humans pollute way to much and that must be stopped before we ( just an example)cross some barrier and some highly toxic bacteria or other life form gets dominant in the sea.
END SIDENOTE :


This man is ridiculed by some professor in cloud forming from the UK. That officially recognized professor earns a lot of money from selling books based on his own theory. If Henrik is right, that professor is totally wrong for 25 years. And everything he has sad is wrong. Thus he ridicules Svensmark when ever he can, instead of working together. I just mean to say that not everything is always as it seems.

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24141009/Cosmic-Rain

The cloud mystery. parts 1 to 6. In the series it is clearly to see how he gets treated by that utterly arrogant professor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA&feature=related

 

[bobsmith1492]

Some scientists are ridiculed for good reason. The fact that others may have been inappropriately ridiculed is a completely independent fact with no correlation to the first group of scientists.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Some scientists are ridiculed for good reason. The fact that others may have been inappropriately ridiculed is a completely independent fact with no correlation to the first group of scientists.

When other scientists have hard proof that a theory is wrong or incomplete i can understand that. But even while there is no proof delivered that the particular scientist is wrong... That is just not right. The scientific community should not be fighting each other but working for the truth. And there more then once lies the problem primarily because of economical reasons like personal gain.


EDIT :

In the case off Henrik Svensmark

The "expert" is John Mason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_John_Mason

8:05 of the 3rd chapter.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I did some reading and if indeed the theory of Gregory Ryskin is that the molten core is not responsible but the ocean's for the magnetic field, well i have to agree that that would be wrong.

But that does not mean that the ocean's can not have some effect on the magnetic field generated by the molten core. I mean, we assume the magnetic field as a homogeneous field but it is not. It seems to be pretty complex already without any interference. Increasing and decreasing in strength on it's own. Take the sun itself. It deforms the earth field in a big way just by the solar wind. But the earth magnetic field has a big interaction with the magnetic field from the sun. Not so long ago it is discovered that a magnetic portal is being created between the earth and the sun every 8 minutes. Yep, light takes 8 minutes too it seems to get from the sun to the earth, coincidence ? I really do not know. Maybe it is the case those 8 minutes arise from a connection, when it connects, the connection get's severed and has to be build up again ? What is the traveling speed of a magnetic field line ?

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm

I wonder if all this compressing would mean that the part of the field that
faces the sun is more concentrated. From pictures i would think so. Is it ever measured if the magnetic field is stronger on the day side then on the night side of the earth ? And that this is location independent ?

Simulation of earths magnetic field.

http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/applied/Research/agf/images/geodynamo.gif

EDIT:
If i read this, maybe ocean electrical current is possible. Because according to this website, the same thing happens at high altitude with ionized air. And geomagnetic currents run through gas/oil pipelines on the ground as well.

http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/earthmag.html#_Toc2075560

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetically_induced_current

 

[wiretap]

Prepare for blackouts as we reach peak solar activity cycles in the next few years.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/16dec_giantbreach.htm

 

[William Gaatjes]

According to this website, a solar wind stream is aimed right at us and will reach us next week.
http://spaceweather.com/


I wonder if the overal sunactivity will go down or up ?
Is the sun activity purely related to sunspot only ? Because i doubt that.

Theoretically, if cosmis rays increase and the protective field of the sun weakens we get a 1 2 punch. A weaker protective shield from the sun and more cosmic rays. That means it will get cold.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Cosmic ray flux

The outward expansion of solar ejecta into interplanetary space provides overdensities of plasma that are efficient at scattering high-energy cosmic rays entering the solar system from elsewhere in the galaxy. Since the frequency of solar eruptive events is strongly modulated by the solar cycle, the degree of cosmic ray scattering in the outer solar system varies in step. As a consequence, the cosmic ray flux in the inner solar system is anticorrelated with the overall level of solar activity. This anticorrelation is clearly detected in cosmic ray flux measurements at the Earth's surface.

A drawing of a sunspot in the Chronicles of John of Worcester.

Some high-energy cosmic rays entering Earth's atmosphere collide hard enough with molecular atmospheric constituents to cause occasionally nuclear spallation reactions. Some of the fission products include radionuclides such as 14C and 10Be, which settle down on Earth's surface. Their concentration can be measured in ice cores, allowing a reconstruction of solar activity levels into the distant past.[18] Such reconstructions indicate that the overall level of solar activity since the middle of the twentieth century stands amongst the highest of the past 10,000 years, and that Maunder minimum-like epochs of suppressed activity, of varying durations have occurred repeatedly over that time span.

To give an idea.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_08126_Chandra_Supernova.html

The supernova in Cassiopeia A happened in 1680. The distance is 11000 light years. This means roughly that the cosmic rays from that nova will be here in 9320 years if the cosmic rays continue to move at light speed and through vacuum.


http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

EDIT :

forgot to quote this :

In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.” How did you react?

I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was exactly the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me, “This is something that you should not have done.” That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.

I am happy to read that Henrik Svensmark theory is put to the test.

At cern the advanced cloud formation test is already being done.

If you type cloud in the searchbox of cern you get a lot of results.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/iaci_workshop/

I am very curious to the results.

 

[beginner99]

A wild and crazy thought would be then that mars lost it's atmosphere after it lost it's water. That is if it ever had any water. That is if you need ocean's and a molten iron core for a magnetic protective planetary shield...

No water is no magnetic field.
Solar wind would sputter away the atmosphere of mars.
And mars is as it is today.

Earth will end that way sooner or later too once all energy/heat is lost to space. Nothing left for Vulcanoes, Platetectoncis and so on. Planet then "dies" or turn to a desert liek mars or moon.

Coming back to the earth.
Another idea can be that the ocean's keep causing friction (Lorentz force) through magnetic interaction as well as the rotation and tektonic movement, in the molten core. Thereby refueling the core with energy as well.

That now sound like a perpetuum mobile. Core powers ocean and vice versa. You need an external energy source.
Only posible energy source is the sun.

On further thought climate (evaporation of water) should have an influence on currents? And evaporation is powered by the sun.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Earth will end that way sooner or later too once all energy/heat is lost to space. Nothing left for Vulcanoes, Platetectoncis and so on. Planet then "dies" or turn to a desert liek mars or moon.

True, sooner or later there will not be enough energy anywhere anymore in the universe not just earth or mars. But this will after a very long time.

That now sound like a perpetuum mobile. Core powers ocean and vice versa. You need an external energy source.
Only posible energy source is the sun.

On further thought climate (evaporation of water) should have an influence on currents? And evaporation is powered by the sun.

No, no. I do not mean perpetuum mobile. These devices can never exists in our universe. There always has to be an offset, a displacement of energy that means something where energy can be drawn from. The sun supplies enough energy radiation wise and gravity wise together with the moon to feed a lot of processes on the earth. I mean the ocean current flows in the ocean are because of the rotation of the earth and the moon around the earth. Then there is the tidal function of the moon on the earth itself if i remember correct. This is all gravity wise, then we have still the heating up and cooling down cycle of day and night. The effect of radiation on the atmosphere. Pressure differences and more that i cannot right now think of.

To come back to a perpetuum mobile. This can never work, but you can use different source of energy forms to compensate for the net powerdraw and for compensating for all the losses. Then you would not truly have a perpetuum mobile, but it is the best you can get. There is energy every where. Humanity just need to know how to harvest every kind of energy and if we harvest an amount of energy it must be small enough to not disturb important systems and must be large enough to be useful.

This is one idea. But it would need 2 very large basins and a lot of smaller onces used as a temporary steps. See it as an execution pipeline but to get water from a lower position to a higher position and then use gravity again. If i would build a very large dump basin and use the displacement of the water in the basin to use tidal energy, and use parabolic mirror concentrated solar heat energy, and use geothermal power heat energy, and use mechanical wind power all to pump it to a higher buffer /store basin and use this as a buffer storage while constantly letting water run down again to the dump basin... Then we could use all these different forms of energy where a large part is created directly by the radiation energy of the sun and the gravitational energy of the earth, the sun and the moon.
But it needs to be huge to have effort and a net gain. A lot of one way valve's /sluices/ pumps and using Buoyancy to get the water up without losing to much energy to keep a net profit. It is an engineering challenge but i am positive it can be done. Designing it to make sure that only gravity and the tidal functions of the moon ( spring tides can come in very handy as a boost ) and geothermal energy are used at near the maximum energy you can draw from them. And use the other forces like solar and wind to boost the effect while not being solely dependent on these forms of energy. When they are there, they speed up the process , when they are not, the energy retrieved from this is stored as energy that means as pumped up water in the storage/buffer basin. All of these combined would look like a perpetuum mobile but it is not. Energy harvesting from everywhere possible to compensate for losses that are inevitable.

 

[beginner99]

Problem with storing energy by using damns is that you need a hill/mountain to begin with. Impossible somewhere in the mid-west like indianapolis were everything is flat. it's also not feasbale to build very long networks of power cables. energy loss is too big.

I live in Switzerland were we of course have the possiilites for damns. This pumping up is used widley at times mor energy is produced than consumed. Then during the peak hours the water is used again. Energy companies make quite alot of money with this trick.
Just fyi Switzerland has 0 C02 emission from power creation. it's pretty much 70% water and 30% nuclear.
But I agree the only feasible fashion to store large amounts of energy are damns (potential energy).