Conditions for Earth-like geodynamo models

For many published dynamo models an Earth-like magnetic field has been claimed. However, it has also been noted that as the Ekman number (viscosity) is lowered to less unrealistic values, the magnetic field tends to become less Earth-like. Here we define quantitative criteria for the degree of semblance of a model field with the geomagnetic field, based on the field morphology at the core–mantle boundary. We consider the ratio of the power in the axial dipole component to that in the rest if the field, the ratios between equatorially symmetric and antisymmetric and between zonal and non-zonal non-dipole components, and a measure for the degree of spatial concentration of magnetic flux at the core surface. We also briefly discuss shortcomings of possible other criteria for an Earth-like model. We test the compliance with our criteria for a large number of dynamo models driven by imposed temperatures at their inner and outer boundaries that cover the accessible parameter space. We order models according to their magnetic Reynolds number Rm (ratio of advection to diffusion of magnetic field) and magnetic Ekman number Eη (ratio between rotation period and magnetic diffusion time). Requirements for an Earth-like field morphology are that Eη < 10− 4 and that Rm falls into a limited range that depends on Eη. Higher values of Rm are required at low values of Eη. Extrapolating the boundaries of compliant dynamos in this parameter space to the Earth's value of Eη suggests that Earth-like dynamos exist all the way between present model values and parameter values of the geodynamo. We also study a more limited set of dynamo models with flux boundary conditions. The nature of the boundary condition and the distribution of sources and sinks of buoyancy have a secondary influence on the field morphology.

[1]  Gauthier Hulot,et al.  An analysis of the geomagnetic field over the past 2000 years , 1998 .

[2]  Yoshimori Honkura,et al.  Scale variability in convection-driven MHD dynamos at low Ekman number , 2008 .

[3]  Paul H. Roberts,et al.  A three-dimensional self-consistent computer simulation of a geomagnetic field reversal , 1995, Nature.

[4]  Mioara Mandea,et al.  Small-scale structure of the geodynamo inferred from Oersted and Magsat satellite data , 2002, Nature.

[5]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  From stable dipolar towards reversing numerical dynamos , 2002 .

[6]  Johannes Wicht,et al.  Numerical Models of the Geodynamo: From Fundamental Cartesian Models to 3D Simulations of Field Reversals , 2009 .

[7]  P. Olson,et al.  Mantle plumes link magnetic superchrons to phanerozoic mass depletion events , 2007 .

[8]  Gauthier Hulot,et al.  Thermochemical flows couple the Earth's inner core growth to mantle heterogeneity , 2008, Nature.

[9]  Masaru Kono,et al.  RECENT GEODYNAMO SIMULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD , 2002 .

[10]  Andrew Jackson,et al.  Equatorially Dominated Magnetic Field Change at the Surface of Earth's Core , 2003, Science.

[11]  Lisa Tauxe,et al.  A Simplified Statistical Model for the Geomagnetic Field and the Detection of Shallow Bias in Paleomagnetic Inclinations: was the Ancient Magnetic Field Dipolar? , 2004 .

[12]  Masaru Kono,et al.  Geomagnetic field model for the last 5 My: time-averaged field and secular variation , 2002 .

[13]  M. Matsushima,et al.  Simulations of a Quasi–Taylor State Geomagnetic Field Including Polarity Reversals on the Earth Simulator , 2005, Science.

[14]  U. Christensen,et al.  Energy flux determines magnetic field strength of planets and stars , 2009, Nature.

[15]  Ulrich R. Christensen,et al.  The time-averaged magnetic field in numerical dynamos with non-uniform boundary heat flow , 2002 .

[16]  Gauthier Hulot,et al.  On the interpretation of virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) scatter curves , 1996 .

[17]  Ataru Sakuraba,et al.  Generation of a strong magnetic field using uniform heat flux at the surface of the core , 2009 .

[18]  Gauthier Hulot,et al.  Testing statistical palaeomagnetic field models against directional data affected by measurement errors , 2006 .

[19]  Carsten Kutzner,et al.  Simulated geomagnetic reversals and preferred virtual geomagnetic pole paths , 2004 .

[20]  Mioara Mandea,et al.  The Magnetic Field of Planet Earth , 2010 .

[21]  J. Maddox What prospects for perestroika? , 1989, Nature.

[22]  Ulrich R. Christensen,et al.  A dynamo model interpretation of geomagnetic field structures , 1998 .

[23]  Akira Kageyama,et al.  Computer simulation of a magnetohydrodynamic dynamo. II , 1994 .

[24]  J. Aubert,et al.  Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo , 2009 .

[25]  Matthew R. Walker,et al.  Four centuries of geomagnetic secular variation from historical records , 2000, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[26]  Peter Driscoll,et al.  Effects of buoyancy and rotation on the polarity reversal frequency of gravitationally driven numerical dynamos , 2009, Geophysical Journal International.

[27]  Paul H. Roberts,et al.  The role of the Earth's mantle in controlling the frequency of geomagnetic reversals , 1999, Nature.

[28]  U. Christensen,et al.  Dipole moment scaling for convection-driven planetary dynamos , 2005 .

[29]  D. Gubbins,et al.  Correlation of Earth’s magnetic field with lower mantle thermal and seismic structure , 2007 .

[30]  Ulrich R. Christensen,et al.  Power requirement of the geodynamo from ohmic losses in numerical and laboratory dynamos , 2004, Nature.

[31]  Ulrich R. Christensen,et al.  Secular variation in numerical geodynamo models with lateral variations of boundary heat flow , 2003 .

[32]  U. Christensen,et al.  Scaling properties of convection-driven dynamos in rotating spherical shells and application to planetary magnetic fields , 2006 .

[33]  U. Christensen,et al.  Torsional oscillations in dynamo simulations , 2010 .

[34]  Masaru Kono,et al.  Mapping the Gauss Coefficients to the Pole and the Models of Paleosecular Variation , 1995 .

[35]  Catherine Constable,et al.  Anisotropic paleosecular variation models: implications for geomagnetic field observables , 1999 .

[36]  F. Busse,et al.  Prandtl-number dependence of convection-driven dynamos in rotating spherical fluid shells , 2005, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[37]  Jeremy Bloxham,et al.  An Earth-like numerical dynamo model , 1997, Nature.

[38]  Gary A. Glatzmaier,et al.  Symmetry and stability of the geomagnetic field , 2006 .

[39]  Hermann Lühr,et al.  Third generation of the Potsdam Magnetic Model of the Earth (POMME) , 2006 .

[40]  Gary A. Glatzmaier,et al.  Geodynamo Simulations—How Realistic Are They? , 2002 .

[41]  Vincent Courtillot,et al.  On low-degree spherical harmonic models of paleosecular variation , 1996 .

[42]  F. D. Stacey,et al.  A revised estimate of the conductivity of iron alloy at high pressure and implications for the core energy balance , 2007 .

[43]  Gauthier Hulot,et al.  A statistical approach to the Earth's main magnetic field , 1994 .

[44]  Catherine Constable,et al.  Continuous geomagnetic field models for the past 7 millennia: 2. CALS7K , 2005 .

[45]  C. Jones MS 130: Volume 8-Core Dynamics: Thermal and Compositional Convection in the Outer Core , 2022 .

[46]  E. Dormy,et al.  Numerical models of the geodynamo and observational constraints , 2000 .

[47]  Gauthier Hulot,et al.  Detecting thermal boundary control in surface flows from numerical dynamos , 2007 .

[48]  P. Olson,et al.  Changes in earth’s dipole , 2006, Naturwissenschaften.

[49]  Akira Kageyama,et al.  Formation of current coils in geodynamo simulations , 2008, Nature.

[50]  R. Secco,et al.  The electrical resistivity of solid and liquid Fe at pressures up to 7 GPa , 1989 .

[51]  Catherine Constable,et al.  Statistics of the geomagnetic secular variation for the past 5 m.y. , 1988 .