Conditions for Earth-like geodynamo models

Earth and Planetary Science Letters

Volumn 296, Issue 3-4, 2010, Pages 487-496

  Christensen, Ulrich R ^a   Aubert, Julien ^b   Hulot, Gauthier ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUT FÜR SONNENSYSTEMFORSCHUNG   (Germany)

^b INSTITUT DE PHYSIQUE DU GLOBE DE PARIS   (France)

Author keywords

Dynamo models; Geomagnetic field

Indexed keywords

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; GEOMAGNETISM; INTERACTIVE DEVICES; MAGNETIC FIELDS; MORPHOLOGY; REYNOLDS NUMBER;

CORE-MANTLE BOUNDARY; DYNAMO MODELS; FLUX BOUNDARY CONDITIONS; GEOMAGNETIC FIELDS; MAGNETIC REYNOLDS NUMBER; QUANTITATIVE CRITERIA; SECONDARY INFLUENCES; SPATIAL CONCENTRATION;

EARTH (PLANET);

BOUNDARY CONDITION; BUOYANCY; CORE-MANTLE BOUNDARY; GEODYNAMO; GEOMAGNETIC FIELD; GEOMORPHOLOGY; REYNOLDS NUMBER; VISCOSITY;

EID: 77954658642     PISSN: 0012821X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.epsl.2010.06.009     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aubert J., Amit H., Hulot G. Detecting thermal boundary control in surface flows from numerical dynamos. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2007, 160:143-156.
2. Aubert J., Amit H., Hulot G., Olson P. Thermochemical flows couple the Earth's inner core growth to mantle heterogeneity. Nature 2008, 454:758-760.
3. Aubert J., Labrosse S., Poitou C. Modelling the paleo-evolution of the geodynamo. Geophys. J. Int. 2009, 179:1414-1429.
4. Christensen U.R., Aubert J. Scaling properties of convection-driven dynamos in rotating spherical shells and applications to planetary magnetic fields. Geophys. J. Int. 2006, 166:97-114.
5. Christensen U.R., Olson P. Secular variation in numerical geodynamo models with lateral variations of boundary heat flow. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2003, 138:39-54.
6. Christensen U.R., Tilgner A. Power requirement of the geodynamo from ohmic losses in numerical and laboratory dynamos. Nature 2004, 429:169-171.
7. Christensen U.R., Olson P., Glatzmaier G.A. A dynamo model interpretation of geomagnetic field structures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1998, 25:1565-1568.
8. Christensen U.R., Holzwarth V., Reiners A. Energy flux determines magnetic field strength of planets and stars. Nature 2009, 457:167-169.
9. Coe R.S., Glatzmaier G.A. Symmetry and stability of the geomagnetic field. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33:L21311.
10. Constable C.G., Johnson C.L. Anisotropic paleosecular variation models: implication for geomagnetic field observables. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1999, 115:35-51.
11. Constable C.G., Parker R.L. Statistics of the geomagnetic secular variation for the past 5m.y. J. Geophys. Res. 1988, 93:11,569-11,581.
12. Courtillot V., Olson P. Mantle plumes link magnetic superchrons to phanerozoic mass depletion events. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2007, 260:495-504.
13. Dormy E., Valet J.-P., Courtillot V. Numerical models of the geodynamo and observational constraints. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 2000, 1. 2000GC0000062.
14. Driscoll P., Olson P. Effects of buoyancy and rotation on the polarity reversal frequency of gravitationally driven numerical dynamos. Geophys. J. Int. 2009, 178:1337-1350.
15. Finlay C.C., Jackson A. Equatorially dominated magnetic field change at the surface of Earth's core. Science 2003, 300:2084-2086.
16. Glatzmaier G.A. Geodynamo simulations-how realistic are they?. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2002, 30:237-257.
17. Glatzmaier G.A., Roberts P.H. A three-dimensional self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal. Nature 1995, 337:203-209.
18. Glatzmaier G.A., Coe R.S., Hongre L., Roberts P.H. The role of the Earth's mantle in controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals. Nature 1999, 401:885-890.
19. Gubbins D., Willis A.P., Sreenivasan B. Correlation of Earth's magnetic field with lower mantle thermal and seismic structure. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2007, 162:256-260.
20. Hatakeyama T., Kono M. Geomagnetic field model for the last 5 My: time-averaged field and secular variation. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2002, 133:181-215.
21. Hongre L., Hulot G., Khokhlov A. An analysis of the geomagnetic field over the past 2000years. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1998, 106:311-335.
22. Hulot G., Gallet Y. On the interpretation of virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) scatter curves. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1996, 95:37-53.
23. Hulot G., Le Mouël J.-L. A statistical approach to the Earth's main magnetic field. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1994, 82:167-183.
24. Hulot G., Eymin C., Langlais B., Mandea M., Olson N. Small-scale structure of the geodynamo inferred from Oersted and Magsat satellite data. Nature 2002, 416:620-623.
25. Hulot, G., Finlay, C.C., Constable, C.G., Olsen, N., Mandea, M., 2010. The magnetic field of planet Earth. Space Sci. Rev. published online, doi: 10.1007/s11214-010-9644-0.
26. Jackson A., Jonkers A.R.T., Walker M.R. Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 2000, A358:957-990.
27. Jones C.A. Thermal and compositional convection in the outer core. Core Dynamics 2007, 8:131-185. Elsevier, Amsterdam. G. Schubert (Ed.).
28. Kageyama A., Sato T. Computer simulation of a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo. II. Phys. Plasmas 1995, 2(5):1421-1431.
29. Kageyama A., Miyagoshi T., Sato T. Formation of current coils in geodynamo simulations. Nature 2008, 454:1106-1109.
30. Khokhlov A., Hulot G., Bouligand C. Testing statistical paleomagnetic field models against directional data affected by measurement errors. Geophys. J. Int. 2006, 167:635-648.
31. Kono M., Roberts P.H. Recent geodynamo simulations and observations of the geomagnetic field. Rev. Geophys. 2002, 40(4):1013. 10.1029/2000RG000102.
32. Kono M., Tanaka H. Mapping the Gauss coefficients to the pole and the models of paleosecular variation. Geomagn. Geoelectr. 1995, 47:115-130.
33. Korte M., Constable C.G. Continuous geomagnetic field models for the past 7 millennia: 2. CALS7K. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 2005, 6. Q02H16.
34. Kuang W., Bloxham J. An Earth-like numerical dynamo model. Nature 1997, 389:371-374.
35. Kutzner C., Christensen U.R. From stable dipolar to reversing numerical dynamos. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2002, 131:29-45.
36. Kutzner C., Christensen U.R. Simulated geomagnetic reversals and preferred virtual geomagnetic pole paths. Geophys. J. Int. 2004, 157:1105-1118.
37. Maus S., Rother M., Stolle C., Mai W., Lühr H., Cooke D., Roth C. Third generation of the Potsdam Magnetic Model of the Earth (POMME). Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 2006, 7:Q07008.
38. Olson P., Amit H. Changes in Earth's dipole. Naturwissenschaften 2006, 93:519-542.
39. Olson P., Christensen U.R. The time-averaged magnetic field in numerical dynamos with nonuniform boundary heat flow. Geophys. J. Int. 2002, 151:809-823.
40. Olson P., Christensen U.R. Dipole moment scaling for convection-driven planetary dynamos. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 250:561-571.
41. Quidelleur X., Courtillot V. On low-degree spherical harmonic models of paleosecular variation. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 1996, 95:55-77.
42. Sakuraba A., Roberts P.H. Generation of a strong magnetic field using uniform heat flux at the surface of the core. Nature Geosci. 2009, 2:802-805.
43. Secco R.A., Schloessin H.H. The electrical resistivity of solid and liquid Fe at pressures up to 7GPa. J. Geophys. Res. 1989, 94:5887-5894.
44. Simitev R., Busse F.H. Prandtl-number dependence of convection-driven dynamos in rotating spherical fluid shells. J. Fluid Mech. 2005, 532:365-388.
45. Stacey F.D., Loper D.E. A revised estimate of the conductivity or iron alloy at high pressure and implications for the core energy balance. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2006, 161:13-18.
46. Takahashi F., Matsushima M., Honkura Y. Simulations of a quasi-Taylor state geomagnetic field including polarity reversals on the Earth simulator. Science 2005, 309:459-461.
47. Takahashi F., Matsushima M., Honkura Y. Scale variability in convection-driven MHD dynamos at low Ekman number. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 2008, 167:168-178.
48. Tauxe L., Kent D.V. A simplified statistical model for the geomagnetic field and the detection of shallow bias in paleomagnetic inclinations: was the ancient magnetic field dipolar?. Time Scales of the Paleomagnetic Field 2004, 101-115. American Geophysical Union, Washington. J.E.T. Channell, D.V. Kent, W. Lowrie, J. Meert (Eds.).
49. Wicht J., Christensen U.R. Torsional oscillations in dynamo simulations. Geophys. J. Int. 2010, 181:1367-1380.
50. Wicht J., Stellmach S., Harder H. Numerical models of the geodynamo: from fundamental cartesian models to 3d simulations of field reversals. Geomagnetic field variations 2009, 107-158. Springer, Berlin. K.H. Glassmeier, H. Soffel, J.F.W. Negendank (Eds.).