Can we control the temperature of Earth?

[Bjarne]

RC
The basic fact that the Earth's magnetic field originates 5000 km below the ………

The fact that you have 1 shot in you gun, but this doesn’t prove that you will hit the cow.

RC
Your ignorance of the dynamo model does not mean that it contradicts reality. It scientifically predicts all of the known features of the Earth's MF.

I have mentioned several times, that there are a lot of facts that can’t be adapted to that speculation.
And that’s in fact a BIG problem that shows the idea is dead. (or should be) Just face it, it's dead...

RC
A paramagnet easily "adapts" to an external magnetic field.
And therefore a MF can avoid magnetic collision and be bended away from the magnetic poles.

We should execute experiments to figure out what happens in the magnetic collision point in a ball shaped magnetic ferro field, when heating up the magnetic collision point.
But science is one-eyed completely blinded by a nuts idea preventing them to se any coherent or even obviously contradiction.
Time will soon come where this old crap creed will turn over.

Let me again to ask you, would you honestly still believe in the geo-creeds when a experiments shows that heat can bend the magnetic lines outwards away from the magnetic poles in a way suitable to cheat a geo-blinded crowds to believe the MF “must” be caused by electromagnetic?

What I am really are asking you, the day you do not have one single argument to support the geo-speculation, will you still be a geo-believer ? – Or are the still some ferro-MF left in you brain ?

It’s simply too stupid that all efforts only follows a one-eyed geo-fixated creeds-mainstream, even though it is clear that a geo-speculation never will be able to comprehend the cause of several magnetic phenomena’s (facts), - we know should and must be able connect to the way the magnetic field works as a whole.

For example these fatc can’t be adapted to a geo-dynamo but only bal bla bla…..

• The fact that variation of the strength of the Earth magnetic field and global temperatures are coincident, - and that fits perfectly to a ferro-magnetic model, and a much better coherent overall understanding of much more.
• The facts that in period the Earth magnetic field is so weak that it remind of the magnetic field of Mars, that doesn’t have any inner dynamo, but only a weak and chaotic ferro magnetic crust field. - In these periods not the worlds must stupid cow can see any need for a inner dynamo.
• The South Atlantic Anomaly can’t be explained by a inner dynamo muddle, but a ferro magnetic crust theory doesn’t have that problem.
• The many of the crust anomalies can’t be explain by the geo speculation, - but a ferro magnetic field combined with thermal heat flow doesn’t have that problem.
• The coincidence between thermal heat and magnetic anomalies can not be explained by a inner dynamo speculation, but a ferro magnetic crust field theory doesn’t have that problem.

And worse at all, even though the worlds most stupid cow, wouldn’t ever even dream that is it’s possible to “connect” global temperature with the geo-speculation, simple because it is complete cow-logic impossible.
This infact contradict the goe-speculation even at cow-logic-level.
And hence bla bla bla is not the way further...
A ferro MF doesn’t have that cow-logic contradiction.

BECAUSE

1. The solar wind is a MF dynamo. We already know the solar wind have a “magnetic dynamo property” ( that isn’t fully understood) …
2. Svensmarks objective findings (experiments and data coincidence support that this is the road out of the darkness.

We are on the wrong track.
It is impossible to find 1 single cow on Earth that doesn’t agree.
Instead of using billion of USD on geo-speculation, - I suggest to use 100 USD on ferro-MF speculation.

Hans
Several observed phenomenon contradict it. Most importantly, of course, the fact that we can measure that the magnetic field originates below the crust.

Hence you should be more carefully to CLAIM that the cause of the Earth MF is geo-dynamo driven.

Hans
Yes, we know what happens to magnetism in the presence of heat. And it is not bended magnet lines.

You haven't shown this by experiment. So have can you claim so ?
The fact is when you are heating up at the collision point. You MUST change the way the magnetic field flows into the field.
You can not just guess. Experiments (and many different) MUST be executed.

Pixel 42
And yet globally last month was the warmest January in the satellite record:
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly rose to +0.72 deg. C in January 2010 on the UAH satellite measure. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.

Off course when clouds and snow reflect the heat from the Sun. This demonstrate that at the surface the heat is "gone".

Hans
Why don't you DO those experiments, then? Your gravity experiment never happened, your very simple magnetic experiment has not been done.
What are you waiting for? Are you afraid that you will find you are wrong?

Gravity will be measured, it’s in progress.
Already test measurement have been done and is very promising.
But this forum is not the right place to publish first.
Regarding test of heat + MF collision I have suggested you to bet and /or participate, What are you waiting for ?

Hans
There is no such thing as negative velocity. If a moving object encounters resistance, it will loose energy and have a negative acceleration.

We have been though this 100 times
Off course there is increasing resistance, it so cow logic, and that’s why you must use increasing energy to get dismissing of speed.

This seems to be what you are doing.
And this doesn’t solve the fact that you haven’t understood what you are talking about as well as mysophobia…

Why this resistance
Why does gravity increase
Why increasing KE to get a object into motion.

EXPLAIN why, not just "Intertia" (or Ersplitten Ladenburmer") - WHY ?

Come on man, don't export human and cow logic to a fourth dimension junkyard.

 

[dafydd]

This just gets funnier and funnier.Is there another person in the world who knows so little about basic physics as Bjarne? By the way,I posted a link to Bjarne's threads on fbook and they are causing a great deal of amusement.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Gravity will be measured, it’s in progress.
Already test measurement have been done and is very promising.
But this forum is not the right place to publish first.

Just state where you will publish, and we can look.

Regarding test of heat + MF collision I have suggested you to bet and /or participate, What are you waiting for ?

Why should I bet or participate? I can't test every silly idea some ignoramus comes up with.

It is YOUR idea, you prove it. Prove it, or shut up.

We have been though this 100 times
*snip*
EXPLAIN why, not just "Intertia" (or Ersplitten Ladenburmer") - WHY ?

Just go back and read the other 100 times. You see, the explanation is still the same, and I predict you won't get it the 101th time, either.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Just state where you will publish, and we can look.

OKIDOK

Why should I bet or participate? I can't test every silly idea some ignoramus comes up with.
It is YOUR idea, you prove it. Prove it, or shut up.

Because I am so lazy, - and even if I smashed the only geo-argument it wouldn’t impress anyone.

Just go back and read the other 100 times.

I prefer to go where the Sun is shinning, rather than to an invented 4 dimension junkyard that doesn’t exist.

 

[Bjarne]

Prove it, or shut up.

Tell that to the fanatic

• geo-sect,
• dark matter sect,
• higgs sect
• subduction sect,
• multi-dimension sect
• parallel universe sect
• Scientology
• Moon sect
• etc...
• etc....
• etc...

 

[Reality Check]

Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:

1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
   This has been known for 172 years !
2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
   It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
   The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
4. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
   The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
   And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.
7. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
   First asked 15 Februaray 2010
   A resounding sileance from Bjarne so far.

First asked 16 February 2010
Bjarne,
What is the strength of the magnetic field produced by the measured magnetic material in the Earth's crust as needed by your ferromagnetic crust model?

In other words, please cite your source that shows that this web site is wrong:

History of Magnetics

The question of why the Earth has a magnetic field was one of the first to be asked in the arena of magnetic research and, perhaps even today does not remain fully understood. In De Magnete, William Gilbert, later the doctor of Queen Elizateth, identified that the Earth's magnetic field had its origin from inside the Earth. He proposed that their was a lodestone with a permanent magnetic field associated with it at the center of the Earth. Later, in the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes proposed that the Earth's magnetism was channelled in one-way ducts through the Earth that exited and entered at the North and South poles. These theories are no longer accepted however. We now know that rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field and that below depth of about 30 km, rocks are so hot that they are above their Curie temperature and are nonmagnetic. Another difficulty with these theories is that the Earth's magnetic field varies over time scales from about a decade to 10,000 years.

(my emphasis)

 

[Reality Check]

The fact that you have 1 shot in you gun, but this doesn’t prove that you will hit the cow.

The cow has been hit 4 times (learn to count Bjarne), is dead and stinking in the paddock:

1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
   This has been known for 172 years !
2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
   It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
   The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
4. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
   The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
   You have no coherent mechanism to do this.

All you need is the first shot to kill a cow. Your cow is dead. Call the tanner and turn it into shoes!

 

[Bjarne]

The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.This has been known for 172 years

Stupid idea.
You can't measure so deep, but only believe you do.
And that believe is the only and whole foundation for the ramshackle speculation everybody MUST believe in.
Also even though this specualtion it obviously screams to heaven for help, from every corner of it.

The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.

It does.
What is you source that there was no effect ? (Asked 3 times, and still no answer.) .

The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.

Irrelevant Thermal heat is the most important factor, and everyone can see that thicker crust also mean stronger magnetic field.
http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg

MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea

Liar.
Magnetic disintegration splits apart the field.
Still it seems like you speak about one MNP/MNS, - this make no sense.
When a magnetic flip happens the Earth can have up to 4 MNP and 4 MNS.
Every cow can figure out that when chaos rules everything happens, - and it does.
Rather ask why the variations of the field are so great from time to time, and why it disintergrate.
I have been given a simple down to Earth explanation to that too.
You can bring the cow to the water sourse. But you can't force the it to drink.

The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.

Irrelevant what you believe.
There are no need for a geo-speculation, and that's it.
Ferro-magnetism is enough, so why invent something a child can see doesn’t adapts to realty, but rather clearly contradicts it.

Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.

Liar.
The magnetic field is not strengthening by heat, I never said that.
But, as soon as the Magnetic North Pole arrives at a huge thermal area, it makes it much easier for a huge amount of magnetic "power lines" to align with the rest of the crust.
That reinforces the global magnetic strength.
The heat of the Arctic Ocean causes magnetic structures in this area to be less frozen and more magnetically flexible.
As a result, such an area can adapt more easily to prevailing magnetic direction
Thermal heat flow and temperature variation makes it possible for the field EVERYWHERE to both relocate and bend, (and hence better to adapt).
Better overall adaption is much more important as the magnetic heat lost caused by heat. .

What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
What is the strength of the magnetic field produced by the measured magnetic material in the Earth's crust as needed by your ferromagnetic crust model?

Stupid Question.

The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material.

Thermal heat flow and variation is much more important.
But the amount of ferro-magnetic materiel off course also counts.

 

[Reality Check]

Stupid idea.
You can't measure so deep, but only believe you do.
And that believe is the only and whole foundation for the ramshackle speculation everybody MUST believe in.
Also even though this specualtion it obviously screams to heaven for help, from every corner of it.

Stupid idea.
We do not "measure so deep". We measure the magnetic field and it tells use where it originates.

It does.
What is you source that there was no effect ? (Asked 3 times, and still no answer.) .

Liar.
I did not say there is no effect. If you could read you would see that I state that the solar wind affects the shape of the Earth's MF.
The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF. That is your assertion. What is your source for it?

Irrelevant Thermal heat is the most important factor, and everyone can see that thicker crust also mean stronger magnetic field.
http://www.science27.com/Earth/orsted-2.jpg

Ignorance. Thermal heat is the least omportant important factor, and everyone can see that thicker crust does not mean stronger magnetic field since the continents are not stringeer magnetically than the oceans.

Liar.
Magnetic disintegration splits apart the field.

Liar.
There is no such thing as "magnetic disintegration" and so it cannot "apart the field"

Still it seems like you speak about one MNP/MNS, - this make no sense.
When a magnetic flip happens the Earth can have up to 4 MNP and 4 MNS.

Wrong. I know that in the past the Earth has had multiple pairs of poles.

Irrelevant what you believe.
There are no need for a geo-speculation, and that's it.
Ferro-magnetism is enough, so why invent something a child can see doesn’t adapts to realty, but rather clearly contradicts it.

Irrelevant what you believe.
There are no need for a geo-speculation, and that's it.
Dynamic theory is enough, so why invent something a child can see doesn’t adapts to realty, but rather clearly contradicts it.

Liar.
The magnetic field is not strengthening by heat, I never said that.
But, as soon as the Magnetic North Pole arrives at a huge thermal area, it makes it much easier for a huge amount of magnetic "power lines" to align with the rest of the crust.
That reinforces the global magnetic strength.

Liar
There is no "huge thermal area" near the Magnetic North Pole.
There are no magnetic "power lines".
A huge thermal area would weaken the magnetic field.

The heat of the Arctic Ocean causes magnetic structures in this area to be less frozen and more magnetically flexible.

Ignorance - the Arctic Ocean is cold.
"Magnetic structures" are more frozen in the Arctic Ocean.
From what textbook did you get the "magnetically flexible" from?

Stupid Question.

Then the answer should be easy for you to provide:

• What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
• What is the strength of the magnetic field produced by the measured magnetic material in the Earth's crust as needed by your ferromagnetic crust model?

Or is your "model" so dumb that it cannot predict the basics like the actual magnetic field of the Earth?

 

[Reality Check]

Sources to support your assertion that the Earth's MF is caused by the solar wind

Bjarne has an idea that the Earth's magnetic field is generated by ferromagnets in the Earth's crust and the solar wind.The flaws in this idea are easy to see:

1. The magnetic poles have been measured to be ~5000 kilometers below the surface of the Earth.
   This has been known for 172 years !
2. The solar wind does not change the overall strength of the Earth's MF.
   It has even stopped without any effects on the MF.
3. The crust varies in thickness - the MF does not correlate
   The strength of a magnetic field from a ferromagnetic material depends on the amount of the material. There is less crust under oceans and so Bjarne's idea predicts a geographical correlation between the MF strength and oceans.
4. MF reversals are not explained by Bjarne's idea
   The only ways that I can think of to reverse the MF in his idea are to turn the Earth's crust inside out or to heat it all up to ~800K and apply an external field.
5. Bjarne is ignorant that heat decreases the strength of ferromagnets
   And that is all that happens until the Curie temperature where they become paramagnetic.
6. An abysmal lack of physics and mathematics on his crank web page.
7. What magnetic field is predicted by a ferromagnetic crust model?
   First asked 15 February 2010
   A resounding silence from Bjarne so far.
8. Rocks aren't strongly enough magnetized to account for the observed geomagnetic field
   First asked 16 February 2010
   Bjarne, if you have sources that contradict this please cite them.

First asked 16 February 2010
Bjarne,
You assert that the solar wind is a cause of the Earth's magnetic field.
As I stated before:

The solar wind does not have any relevance to the argon of the Earth's magnetic field.
If the solar wind did not exist then the Earth's magnetic field will still exist. The solar wind has stopped (The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared) and no effects on the strength of the Earth's magnetic field were reported.

I may be wrong in which case Bjarne can cite the measurements that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field did something on that day.

What Bjarne is confused about is that the solar wind changes the shape of the Earth's magnetic field. So a change in the solar wind changes what can reach the Earth's surface, e.g. electrons (as in the aurora) and cosmic rays.

So the physical evidence is that the solar wind obviously shapes the Earth's magnetosphere. Geomagnetic storms can even influence the Earth's surface over short periods. But when the solar wind varies (or even stops) the overall strength of the MF does not change.
But lets make the question in that post explicit.

What are your sources to support your assertion?

These sources should provide evidence that that correlate changes in the solar wind with changes in the overall strength of the Earth's MF. So ignore sources about a local, short term effects - it is well nown that this happens.

 

[Ocelot]

I keep getting this strange feeling of Deja Woo.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ehr, Bjarne: Most of this discussion has been about how temperature might affect Earth's magnetic field. Nobody seems to have found your argumentation for that to be good at all, but what about the suggestion you make in the opening post? There you claim that we might control the temperature by controlling the magnet field, which is exactly the opposite!

Whatever the model, it is a fact that a magnet field is somewhat affected by temperature, but we have absolutely no indication anywhere of the opposite being the case.

You seem to think that if you can argue for the ferromagnetic model, you have shown that the magnet field controls the temperature, but that is not even the case.

So even if you were right, you would still be wrong. (Note: I'm not even hinting that you might be right on the ferromagnetic model, because you are not, but temperature might also affect other models)

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I keep getting this strange feeling of Deja Woo.

Heheh..

More like a broken record, actually.

I try to find out why we bother. Must be the same thing that makes people want to look at accidents.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

---------

Ehr, Bjarne: Most of this discussion has been about how temperature might affect Earth's magnetic field. Nobody seems to have found your argumentation for that to be good at all, but what about the suggestion you make in the opening post? There you claim that we might control the temperature by controlling the magnet field, which is exactly the opposite!

Whatever the model, it is a fact that a magnet field is somewhat affected by temperature, but we have absolutely no indication anywhere of the opposite being the case.

You seem to think that if you can argue for the ferromagnetic model, you have shown that the magnet field controls the temperature, but that is not even the case.

So even if you were right, you would still be wrong. (Note: I'm not even hinting that you might be right on the ferromagnetic model, because you are not, but temperature might also affect other models)

Hans

I must say I am surprised that the point haven't got thought to you.,
Before continuing PLEASE use 3½ minutes to read what I am claiming:

English >> http://www.science27.com/HS/Index.htm
Danish >> http://www.science27.com/Svensmark/Index.htm

We know there is coincidence between global temperature and the magnetic field.
http://www.science27.com/Svensmark/Felt2.jpg

Of course this sounds VERY strange that this is so.
BUT this is a FACT, and we shall not just ignore that fact.

So far in history there has been no serious believable explanation to how this is possible.

BUT when Henrik Svensmark is correct, - and the strength of the solar wind (the Suns magnetic field) shields us from Cosmic rays, and hence reducing the numbers of clouds this would be first time in history where it also would be possible to understand the mystery; > temperature-MF coincidence.
Notice Henrik Svensmark theory is experimentical and statistic proven.

We also know that the solar wind can affect the magnetic field, and does so.
We have measured this only a few a few decades, and only in a period where the Earths MF were decreasing.

I predict that right now in these years we will see the Global MF of the Earth field increase.
This have not happen in 2500 years.

It will happen now again simply because the ferro-magnetic field susceptibility will be must greater when MNP right now enters the arctic.
Paleo magnetic measurement clearly support this http://www.science27.com/Earth/2.htm
What happens when MNP is in a thermal area ? - well it’s simple, MNP is the entrance and thermal heat OPENS THE ENTRANCE widely.
This mean that at the crowds of scientist at Danish space centre soon will fall down from their chars, when they soon can measure 1 simple difference. >>> That the magnetic contributions from the solar wind SUDDENLY become permanent.

This is all what is needed to one time for all to knife down the fuc……. geo-speculation,, and it will happen within few years or many only month. (except when MNP suddenly should change it’s mind and turn opposite or the Suns MF sudenly get more weak. )
Check it you self, how far is MNP from the arctic anomaly, what time will it enter the magnetic Anomaly ? - That's the day.

I have measure the magnetic field in 30 radiators, it clearly seems that the higher heat the more a magnetic field is possible to adapt to a global radiator-magnetic-field. This doesn’t contradicts that the LOCAL magnetic strength is reduces, BUT local strength is almost nothing (look at Mars) compared to the force of intergration. The real strength happens when a field integrate / adapts and become 1 field, and not "a field" pointing in a million diffrent directions.

I would like to execute a simple experiment,.
I need a ball shaped iron ball (diameter 20 to 100 cm) .
The ball wall should only be about 1 to 10 mm.
Now it is only to measure how the magnetic field is.

• What would happen when we locally heat up different places.
• Would there be a “global field” ?
• Would there be many local weak and strong MNP ?
• What would happen when heating up below the MNP.
• Could we force MNP to move, just by heating (cooling) different places.
• Would the global strength all the time weakening and become stronger when MNP moves?
• Would the GLOBAL field become stronger when heating the whole ball up to 100 – 200 – 300 - 400 degree.
• Would it be possible to entangle the field, (for exsample form a extern sourse) - would that disintegrate the field ?

This could show where the secret cow is buried.
You are invited to participate.
So here is the change to be objective.....
Find a suitable ball; I have the rest that is needed.
But let us first bet a yacht that I am right if you don't mind.
---------

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

Notice Henrik Svensmark theory is experimentical and statistic proven.

No.

While Svensmark has indeed verified in the lab that cosmic rays can seed clouds, the acutal correlation between cosmic radiation and global temperature just isn't there - at least not in the last 30 years.

The real strength happens when a field integrate / adapts and become 1 field, and not "a field" pointing in a million diffrent directions.

Utter gibberish. At every point in the universe, there exists exactly one magnetic field, which points in exactly one direction - But with regards to Bjarne's previous ramblings about gravity, one shouldn't be surprised to hear such nonsense

 

[Bjarne]

No.

While Svensmark has indeed verified in the lab that cosmic rays can seed clouds, the acutal correlation between cosmic radiation and global temperature just isn't there - at least not in the last 30 years.

It depends on the eyes that see, and especially the (proven manipulating) mainstream emotion.

At every point in the universe, there exists exactly one magnetic field,

Crap.
Yours USB stick is different from mine.

But with regards to Bjarne's previous ramblings about gravity

Ohh amigo
This spring you'll see who is the dummy, and there are plenty.
God save the Queen

 

[Sensation_of_physics]

It depends on the eyes that see, and especially the (proven manipulating) mainstream emotion.

In politics and religion, maybe - not in science

Crap.
Yours USD stick is different from mine.

What is USD? Some new fancy hallucinating drug? That would indeed explain alot

Ohh amigo
This spring you'll see who is the dummy, and there are plenty.
God save the Queen

Really? Thought the Earth was not due to perish until this fall.

 

[steenkh]

What is USD? Some new fancy hallucinating drug? That would indeed explain alot

He corrected it. He meant USB stick.

 

[MRC_Hans]

---------


I must say I am surprised that the point haven't got thought to you.,
Before continuing PLEASE use 3½ minutes to read what I am claiming:

English >> http://www.science27.com/HS/Index.htm
Danish >> http://www.science27.com/Svensmark/Index.htm

Just to humor you, I made an exception and read your homepage. You explain your ferromagnetic thesis, just like you have done here. It is nonsense, but that is what it is. However, in the opening post, you claim that we might regulate the climate through changing the magnetic field. You do not explain how.

We know there is coincidence between global temperature and the magnetic field.
http://www.science27.com/Svensmark/Felt2.jpg

Not exactly. At best you may say that there is some correlation between global temperature and the magnet field.

Of course this sounds VERY strange that this is so.
BUT this is a FACT, and we shall not just ignore that fact.

No, it is not very strange. We know there is also a correlation between climate and solar wind, and between magnetism and solar wind.

The whole interaction is very complex, and it makes no sense to try and build a thesis based on just one of these interdependencies.

I know this is lost on you, but there is actually a lot of serious research going on these days on climate models. You can rest assured, that if there was any single important correlation, it would have been discovered by now.

*snipped: A lot of empty speculations with no basis in known physics *

I would like to execute a simple experiment,.
I need a ball shaped iron ball (diameter 20 to 100 cm) .
The ball wall should only be about 1 to 10 mm.
Now it is only to measure how the magnetic field is.

Unless you magnetize it somehow, there should be none.

What would happen when we locally heat up different places.
Would there be a “global field” ?

I answer the questions below on the assumption that you have magnetized the ball with a single, bi-polar field, creating a north pole in one place and a south pole approximately diametrically opposite the north pole.

Would there be many local weak and strong MNP ?

No, there would be a single, uniformly distributed field, with field lines originating from the surface near the poles.

What would happen when heating up below the MNP.

Depending on the magnetic properties of the steel alloy used, the entire magnet field will weaken with increased heat.

Could we force MNP to move, just by heating (cooling) different places.

The exact position of the poles depends on the total field from all the parts of the ball, so if you heat parts enough to demagnetize them, the balance, and hence position of the poles, can change.

Would the global strength all the time weakening and become stronger when MNP moves?

The question is nearly incomprehensible, but the total strenght is not dependent on the position of the poles, but on .. the total strenght of the magnetization.

Would the GLOBAL field become stronger when heating the whole ball up to 100 – 200 – 300 - 400 degree.

No, it would almost certainly become weaker. Some magnetic materials can retain their magnetism even to those temperatures, but it would never become stronger.

Would it be possible to entangle the field, (for exsample form a extern sourse) - would that disintegrate the field ?

If by 'entangle' you mean could the field interact with an external field, then yes, of course it could.

An external field could override the field, provided it is strong enough, but whether this would affect the field of your steel ball again depends on its magnetic properties. If it is easy to magnetize, it is also easy to change, so you may find, upon removing the external field, that the ball's magnetic field has changed its orientation.

But let us first bet a yacht that I am right if you don't mind.

What is it with your betting? Do you have a yacht you can't sell?

Bjarne, you can't bet till you have made a precise prediction of the outcome. (and you can't use the outcomes I have predicted above, since they are the ones predicted by common physics)

Hans
---------

 

[MRC_Hans]

At every point in the universe, there exists exactly one magnetic field, which points in exactly one direction -

Exactly! And until you understand this simple fact, Bjarne, you are in no position to theorize about magnetic models.

Hans