Quantitative description of the geomagnetic field during the Matuyama-Brunhes polarity transition

Abstract

A model of the reversing geodynamo based on the assumptions (1) that reversals start in a localized region of the core and (2) that upon its onset this reversed region extends, or “floods”, both north-south and east-west until the entire core is affected, has recently been shown to provide a generally successful simulation of existing paleomagnetic records of the Matuyama-Brunhes transition (Hoffman, 1979). In this paper the modelled solution is analyzed so as to reveal the behavior of the dominant Gauss coefficients during the transition. At the time of total axial dipole decay the controlling components are found to be a zonal octupole ( g 3 0) and a non-axisymmetric quadrupole ( g 2 1, h 2 1). Given the distribution of sites corresponding to the available records of the Matuyama-Brunhes, the existence of a significant zonal quadrupole field component cannot be ruled out; however, the role of any equatorial dipole component can be neglected. Due to the presence of a significant low-order non-axisymmetric term in the analyzed transition field, the predicted minimum intensity experienced during the Matuyama-Brunhes is found to be dependent on both site latitude and longitude. In particular, over a mid-northern circle of latitude, the predicted minimum intensity is found to vary by more than a factor of three, averaging about 10% of the full polarity field strength. Although not a unique solution, the applicability of the findings from this analysis is not tied to the phenomenological model from which they were derived. More specifically, whether the above two-component non-dipole transitional field arises from assumed configurational changes of the reversing geodynamo (as is the case for the flooding model) or, alternatively, is considered to be a stationary (non-reversing) portion of the field during axial dipole decay and regeneration, has little effect on either the calculated path locality of the virtual geomagnetic pole or the minimum intensity experienced at a given site. These two possible situations, in principle, should be distinguishable given the future attainment of detailed paleomagnetic data corresponding to back-to-back (R → N and N → R) polarity transitions.