Earth's dynamo limit of predictability controlled by magnetic dissipation

Geophysical Journal International

Volumn 186, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 492-508

  Lhuillier, Florian ^a   Aubert, Julien ^a   Hulot, Gauthier ^a  

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

Author keywords

Dynamo: theories and simulations; Instability analysis; Non linear differential equations

Indexed keywords

DYNAMO: THEORIES AND SIMULATIONS; EKMAN NUMBERS; ERROR AMPLIFICATION; EXPONENTIAL RATES; GEODYNAMO; GEOMAGNETIC DATA; INSTABILITY ANALYSIS; LIMITED RESOLUTION; MAGNETIC DISSIPATION; MAGNETIC ENERGIES; NONLINEAR DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION; NUMERICAL DYNAMOS; OHMIC DISSIPATION; SECULAR VARIATION; TIME-SCALES; TURBULENT REGIME; VISCOUS DISSIPATION;

ADVECTION; AMPLIFICATION; DATA PROCESSING; DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS; ERRORS; FORCED CONVECTION; GEOMAGNETISM; INTERACTIVE DEVICES; METEOROLOGY; VISCOUS FLOW; WEATHER FORECASTING;

DC GENERATORS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA ASSIMILATION; EARTH; EKMAN TRANSPORT; ERROR ANALYSIS; GEODYNAMO; GEOMAGNETISM; INSTABILITY; MAGNETIC FIELD; PREDICTION; SECULAR VARIATION; TEMPERATURE; THEORETICAL STUDY; TURBULENT FLOW;

EID: 79960356813     PISSN: 0956540X     EISSN: 1365246X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2011.05081.x     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Aubert, J., Aurnou, J.M. & Wicht, J., 2008. The magnetic structure of convection-driven numerical dynamos, Geophys. J. Int., 172(3), 945-956, doi:.
2. Beggan, C.D. & Whaler, K.A., 2009. Forecasting change of the magnetic field using core surface flows and ensemble Kalman filtering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18303, doi:.
3. Charney, J., Fleagle, R., Riehl, H., Lally, V. & Wark, D., 1966. The feasibility of a global observation and analysis experiment, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 47, 200-220.
4. Christensen, U.R. & Aubert, J., 2006. Scaling properties of convection-driven dynamos in rotating spherical shells and application to planetary magnetic fields, Geophys. J. Int., 166(1), 97-114, doi:.
5. Christensen, U.R. & Tilgner, A., 2004. Power requirement of the geodynamo from ohmic losses in numerical and laboratory dynamos, Nature, 429(6988), 169-171, doi:.
6. Christensen, U.R. & Wicht, J., 2007. Numerical Dynamo Simulations, in Core Dynamics, Vol. 8 of Treatise on Geophysics, pp. 245-281, eds Olson, P. & Schubert, G., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
7. Christensen, U.R., Olson, P.L. & Glatzmaier, G., 1999. Numerical modelling of the geodynamo: a systematic parameter study, Geophys. J. Int., 138(2), 393-409, doi:.
8. Christensen, U.R. et al., 2001. A numerical dynamo benchmark, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 128(1-4), 25-34, doi:.
9. Christensen, U.R., Aubert, J. & Hulot, G., 2010. Conditions for Earth-like geodynamo models, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 296(3-4), 487-496, doi:.
10. Finlay, C.C. et al., 2010. International geomagnetic reference field: the eleventh generation, Geophys. J. Int., 183(3), 1216-1230, doi:.
11. Fournier, A., Eymin, C. & Alboussière, T., 2007. A case for variational geomagnetic data assimilation: insights from a one-dimensional, non-linear, and sparsely observed MHD system, Nonlinear Process. Geophys., 14(2), 163-180, doi:.
12. Fournier, A. et al., 2010. An introduction to data assimilation and predictability in geomagnetism, Space Sci. Rev., 155, 247-291, doi:.
13. Friis-Christensen, E., Lühr, H. & Hulot, G., 2006. Swarm: a constellation to study the Earth's magnetic field, Earth Planets Space, 58(4), 351-358.
14. Gillet, N., Lesur, V. & Olsen, N., 2010. Geomagnetic core field secular variation models, Space Sci. Rev., 155, 129-145, doi:.
15. Glatzmaier, G. & Roberts, P.H., 1995a. A three-dimensional convective dynamo solution with rotating and finitely conducting inner core and mantle, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 91(1-3), 63-75, doi:.
16. Glatzmaier, G. & Roberts, P.H., 1995b. A three-dimensional self-consistent computer-simulation of a geomagnetic-field reversal, Nature, 377(6546), 203-209, doi:.
17. Hulot, G. & Le Mouël, J.-L., 1994. A statistical approach to the Earth's main magnetic field, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 82(3-4), 167-183, doi:.
18. Hulot, G., Olsen, N. & Sabaka, T., 2007. The present field, in Geomagnetism, Vol.5 of Treatise on Geophysics, pp. 33-75, ed. Kono, M., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
19. Hulot, G., Olsen, N., Thébault, E. & Hemant, K., 2009. Crustal concealing of small-scale core-field secular variation, Geophys. J. Int., 177(2), 361-366, doi:.
20. Hulot, G., Finlay, C.C., Constable, C.G., Olsen, N. & Mandea, M., 2010a. The magnetic field of planet Earth, Space Sci. Rev., 152, 159-222, doi:.
21. Hulot, G., Lhuillier, F. & Aubert, J., 2010b. Earth's dynamo limit of predictability, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L06305, doi:.
22. Jackson, A., Jonkers, A.R.T. & Walker, M.R., 2000. Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., A, 358(1768), 957-990, doi:.
23. Kageyama, A., Sato, T., Horiuchi, R., Hayashi, T., Todo, Y., Watanabe, T. & Takamaru, H., 1995. Computer-simulation of a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo. II, Phys. Plasmas, 2(5), 1421-1431, doi:.
24. Kalnay, E., 2003. Atmospheric predictability and ensemble forecasting, in Atmospheric Modeling, Data Assimilation and Predictability, pp. 205-260, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Korte, M. & Constable, C.G., 2005. Continuous geomagnetic field models for the past 7 millennia: 2. CALS7K, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 6, Q02H16, doi:.
26. Kuang, W., Tangborn, A., Jiang, W., Liu, D., Sun, Z., Bloxham, J. & Wei, Z., 2008. MoSST-DAS: the first generation geomagnetic data assimilation framework, Commun. Comput. Phys., 3(1), 85-108.
27. Kutzner, C. & Christensen, U.R., 2002. From stable dipolar towards reversing numerical dynamos, Phys. Earth planet. Inter., 131(1), 29-45, doi:.
28. Leith, C., 1965. Numerical simulation of the Earth's atmosphere, in Methods in Computational Physics, vol. 4, pp. 1-28, Academic Press, New York, NY.
29. Lhuillier, F., Fournier, A., Hulot, G. & Aubert, J., 2011. The geomagnetic secular-variation timescale in observations and numerical dynamo models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L09306, doi:.
30. Liu, D., Tangborn, A. & Kuang, W., 2007. Observing system simulation experiments in geomagnetic data assimilation, J. geophys. Res., 112(B8), doi:.
31. Lorenz, E., 1963a. Predictability of hydrodynamic flow, Trans. New York Acad. Sci., 25(4), 409-432.
32. Lorenz, E., 1963b. Deterministic nonperiodic flow, J. Atmos. Sci., 20(2), 130-141.
33. Lorenz, E., 1965. A study of the predictability of a 28-variable atmospheric model, Tellus, 17(3), 321-333.
34. Maus, S., Silva, L. & Hulot, G., 2008. Can core-surface flow models be used to improve the forecast of the Earth's main magnetic field?, J. geophys. Res., 113, B08102, doi:.
35. Mintz, Y., 1964. Very long-term global integration of the primitive equations of atmospheric motion, in WMO/IUGG Symposium on Research and Development Aspects of Long-Range Forecasting, WMO Technical Note, Vol. 66, pp. 141-167.
36. Olson, P.L. & Christensen, U.R., 2006. Dipole moment scaling for convection-driven planetary dynamos, Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 250(3-4), 561-571, doi:.
37. Silva, L., Maus, S., Hulot, G. & Thébault, E., 2010. On the possibility of extending the IGRF predictive secular model to a higher SH degree, EPS, 62(10), 815-820, doi:.
38. Simmons, A., Mureau, R. & Petroliagis, T., 1995. Error growth and estimates of predictability from the ECMWF forecasting system, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 121, 1739-1771.
39. Smagorinsky, J., 1963. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations, Mon. Wea. Rev., 91(3), 99-164.
40. Smagorinsky, J., 1969. Problems and promises of deterministic extended range forecasting, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 50, 286-311.