This link was sent in by a member of SIS – http://crev.info/2017/01/earths-magnetic-field-3/ …. which concerns a New Scientist piece by Marcus Woo on the magnetic field. It is useful as it illustrates how some people may reinterpret what other people say – and no doubt I do this all the time as well. What Woo appears to do is point out anomalies concerning earth's magnetic field – and most science journalists would not bother to mention anomalies so Woo is to be congratulated. A recent paper by Francis Nimmo has claimed the dynamo in the core of the earth is only one billion years old – which means it had no dynamo between 4.5 billion years and 1 billion years ago (or that is one way to interpret what Nimmo said). Does this mean the earth is not 4.5 billion years of age, which appears to be the thrust of the argument. Rather than go on what Woo says, and he is writing in a magazine that is fully converted to the CAGW meme and dominates every editorial, and one might suspect nearly everything else is full on mainstream, one would need to read what Nimmo said. I did come across a press release on this issue some weeks ago but did not post anything on the subject. Might be worth going back to the horses mouth. We also need to remember there are currently a lot of uncertainties in solar science and the old consensus theories so Marcus Woo does have a problem. Solar science is not like cosmology. The latter is full of theory, conjecture, and modelling. Solar science is changing because there is a barrage of clever technology being deployed in order to understand the sun and its effects on the magnetic field of the earth. A lot of new information is arriving courtesy of the HiNODE and SWARM missions – and then we have all those big new space telescopes. Solar science is finding new facts on a regular basis. It may at present differ from the Electric Universe theory – but we should always bear in mind the latter is a theory. The truth of the pudding will emerge – in the not too distant future. Whether that agrees with EU theory is something we shall have to wait and see. A critical point will arrive and old consensus theories will be dropped like a hot chestnut.
What Nimmo actually said can be found at https://websites.pmc.ucsc.edu/~fnimmo/website/nimmo_core.pdf … when you read this piece you can understand why Marcus Woo might have said what he did. It is a short succinct article and Nimmo works in the University of California's department of Earth Sciences. On the origin of the earth's core he poses some interesting queries. It is thought by mainstream that the planets of the inner solar system are made up in the main by iron and silicates. Due to the density of iron it is thought this means that iron would migrate to the core over a period of time. Nimmo queries what the core is made from, how and when it was formed via the accretion theory, and queries differentiation, and how the earth might have developed a core. If it did how did the core change subsequent to its original function (ie become a dynamo). In other words, is the mechanics of the consensus opinion still valid.