Abstract
AbstractDetermining the strength of the ancient geomagnetic field is vital to our understanding of the core and geodynamo, but obtaining reliable measurements of the paleointensity is fraught with difficulties. Over a quarter of magnetic field strength estimates within the global paleointensity database from 0 to 5 Ma come from Hawaii. Two previous studies on the SOH1 drill core gave inconsistent, apparently method‐dependent paleointensity estimates, with an average difference of 30%. The paleointensity methods employed in the two studies differed both in demagnetization mechanism (thermal or microwave radiation) and Thellier‐style protocol (perpendicular and original Thellier protocols)—both variables that could cause the strong differences in the estimates obtained. Paleointensity experiments have therefore been conducted on 79 specimens using the previously untested combinations of thermal‐perpendicular and microwave‐original Thellier methods to analyze the effects of demagnetization mechanism and protocol in isolation. We find that, individually, neither demagnetization mechanism nor protocol entirely explains the differences in paleointensity estimates. Specifically, we found that non‐ideal multidomain‐like effects are enhanced using the original Thellier protocol (independent of demagnetization mechanism), often resulting in paleointensity overestimation. However, we also find evidence, supporting recent findings from the 1960 Kilauea lava flow, that microwave‐perpendicular experiments performed without partial thermal remanent magnetization checks can produce underestimates of the paleointensity due to unaccounted‐for sample alteration at higher microwave powers. Together, these findings support that the true paleointensities fall between the estimates previously published and emphasize the need for future studies (thermal or microwave) to use protocols with both partial thermal remanent magnetization checks and a means of detecting non‐ideal grain effects.
Highlights
Since our initial flow level analysis of the SOH1 data confirmed the results of Biggin (2010) the aim of the present study is to test the hypothesis that the differences found in paleointensity results from the SOH1 core are entirely due to protocol and not due to demagnetization mechanism
We have sought to identify the cause for systematic discrepancies between previously published paleointensity studies on the SOH1 drill core
New paleointensity data confirm the systematic offset observed from previous studies when using the same methods; namely, Thermal-Original Thellier estimates were ~30% higher than Microwave-perpendicular estimates
Summary
Since our initial flow level analysis of the SOH1 data confirmed the results of Biggin (2010) the aim of the present study is to test the hypothesis that the differences found in paleointensity results from the SOH1 core are entirely due to protocol and not due to demagnetization mechanism. The goal of this study was to replicate the experimental conditions of the previous studies as closely as possible to properly isolate each variable of interest
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
