Geophysical Journal International

Geophys. J. Int. (2009) 179, 1414–1428 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2009.04361.x

GJI Geomagnetism, rock magnetism and palaeomagnetism

Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo

Julien Aubert,1 Stéphane Labrosse2 and Charles Poitou3

1 Dynamique des Fluides Géologiques, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Université Paris-Diderot, INSU/CNRS, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252,
Paris cedex 05, France. E-mail: [email protected]
2 Laboratoire des sciences de la Terre, Ecole normale supérieure de Lyon, Université de Lyon, CNRS UMR 5570, 46 Allée d’Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07,

France
3 Paléomagnétisme, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, Université Paris-Diderot, INSU/CNRS, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252, Paris cedex 05, France

Accepted 2009 August 11. Received 2009 May 22; in original form 2008 December 10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

SUMMARY
Although it is known that the geodynamo has been operating for at least 3.2 Ga, it remains
difficult to infer the intensity, dipolarity and stability (occurrence of reversals) of the Precam-
brian magnetic field of the Earth. In order to assist the interpretation of palaeomagnetic data,
we produce models for the long-term evolution of the geodynamo by combining core ther-
modynamics with a systematic scaling analysis of numerical dynamo simulations. We update
earlier dynamo scaling results by exploring a parameter space, which has been extended in
order to account for core aspect ratios and buoyancy source distributions relevant to Earth in
the Precambrian. Our analysis highlights the central role of the convective power, which is an
output of core thermodynamics and the main input of our updated scalings. As the thermal
evolution of the Earth’s core is not well known, two end-member models of heat flow evolution
at the core–mantle boundary (CMB) are used, respectively, terminating at present heat flows
of 11 TW (high-power scenario) and 3 TW (low power scenario). The resulting models predict
that until the appearance of the inner core, a thermal dynamo driven only by secular cooling,
and without any need for radioactive heating, can produce a dipole moment of strength compa-
rable to that of the present field, thus precluding an interpretation of the oldest palaeomagnetic
records as evidence of the inner core presence. The observed lack of strong long-term trends
in palaeointensity data throughout the Earth’s history can be rationalized by the weakness of
palaeointensity variations predicted by our models relatively to the data scatter. Specifically, the
most significant internal magnetic field increase which we predict is associated to the sudden
power increase resulting from inner core nucleation, but the dynamo becomes deeper-seated
in the core, thus largely cancelling the increase at the core and Earth surface, and diminishing
the prospect of observing this event in palaeointensity data. Our models additionally suggest
that the geodynamo has lied close to the transition to polarity reversals throughout its history.
In the Precambrian, we predict a dynamo with similar dipolarity and less frequent reversals
than at present times, due to conditions of generally lower convective forcing. Quantifying
the typical CMB heat flow variation needed for the geodynamo to cross the transition from
a reversing to a non-reversing state, we find that it is unlikely that such a variation may have
caused superchrons in the last 0.5 Ga without shutting down dynamo action altogether.
Key words: Dynamo: theories and simulations; Palaeointensity; Palaeomagnetic secular
variation; Reversals: process, timescale, magnetostratigraphy.

tensity determinations (see Tauxe & Yamazaki 2007, for a review),

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
uncertainties remain concerning the key characteristics of the geo-
Palaeomagnetic records can be used in order to shed light onto the dynamo in the Precambrian. A first quantity of interest is the dipole
past of the Earth’s dynamo. However, with increasing age, rock moment. The oldest (3.2 Ga BP) reliable palaeointensity record to
sequences are likely to be affected by weathering, alteration and date (Tarduno et al. 2007) reveals that the virtual dipole moment
metamorphism, thus destroying the pristine information on the early (VDM) was possibly as large as its present value of 8 × 1022 A m2 ,
magnetic field. Although the situation constantly improves with although the consideration of the experimental cooling rate effect
newer samples and better techniques, especially regarding palaeoin- may lead to a twofold decrease in the determined VDM. As a

1414 C 2009 The Authors

Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1415

result, the debate concerning the long-term evolution of the VDM for palaeomagnetic observables (Section 3.3) and discuss the re-
remains lively (Dunlop & Yu 2004), though there are suggestions sults in light of the palaeomagnetic observations and geophysical
(Macouin et al. 2004) of a long-term average monotonous increase constraints (Section 4).
from 3 × 1022 A m2 at 1000–2000 Myr to 8 × 1022 A m2 at present
times. In addition, although it has been proposed (Stevenson et al.
1983; Hale 1987) that the power increase subsequent to inner core 2 MODEL
nucleation and onset of chemical convection in the core could cause
a sudden increase in the dipole moment, it appears that until now, 2.1 Outline
the palaeomagnetic data scatter has prevented a proper resolution We consider an electrically conducting, incompressible fluid in a
of this feature. A second quantity of interest is the dipolarity of the self-gravitating spherical shell between radii r i and r o . The shell is
field, which can be assessed (McFadden et al. 1991) through the rotating about an axis ez with an angular velocity , and convect-
analysis of latitude dependence in palaeosecular variation (PSV). ing thermally and chemically. We study the Earth’s core at various
Following this line, Smirnov & Tarduno (2004) proposed that the stages of its existence, hence its rotation rate, aspect ratio χ = r i /r o
dipolarity should have been higher some 2.5 Ga ago. However, the and thermochemical buoyancy partitioning are variable over geo-
existence of antipodal directions, which would be a clear evidence logical times, but can be assumed to be constant control parameters

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

of high dipolarity (Dunlop & Yu 2004), is lacking in their data, over timescales relevant for core dynamics. We define the deviation
and more generally, there are considerable issues with this method temperature field T  and light element mass fraction field ξ  with
(Hulot & Gallet 1996), including the difficulty to separate the dipo- respect to the isentropic temperature and well-mixed mass fraction,
larity effect from the secular variation effect in the PSV. The PSV and, within the Boussinesq approximation, both buoyancy effects
can indeed also be used to study the intrinsic variability of the geo- are grouped into a codensity (or density anomaly) field (Braginsky
magnetic pole, as recently done by Biggin et al. (2008), who found & Roberts 1995) C such that
evidence of a more stable dynamo 2.4–2.8 Ga ago. This led to the
suggestion that a third quantity of interest, the reversal frequency C = αρT  + ρξ  . (1)
of the geodynamo, was lower at that time than at present. The same Here α is the thermal expansion coefficient, ρ is the fluid density
conclusion was reached for the last 500 Myr (Eide & Torsvik 1996) and ρ is the density difference between the light components that
through direct magnetostratigraphic analysis, which is obviously a contribute to chemical convection and pure iron. The temperature
more robust method when data is available, but some contrary in- and molar fraction fields are assumed to have the same diffusiv-
dications of high reversal frequency have also been reported for the ity κ, due to turbulent mixing in the outer core. This allows us
same period (Pavlov & Gallet 2001). It should be noted however to write a single transport equation for the codensity C, which is
that the strongest signal on the reversal frequency curve is related solved numerically in a dimensionless form, together with the mag-
to the irregular occurrence of superchrons (see for instance, Pavlov netic induction equation for the solenoidal magnetic field B in the
& Gallet 2005), where reversal frequency goes down to zero. A last magnetohydrodynamic approximation, and the Navier–Stokes and
important palaeomagnetic result is the timing of the oldest known thermochemical transport equations for the incompressible velocity
reversal, which apparently occurred 2.7 Ga ago (Strik et al. 2003), field u, and pressure P
though there are some indications of reversals occurring 3.2 Ga ago
(Tarduno et al. 2007). ∂u r
+ u · ∇u + 2ez × u + ∇ P = Ra Q C
As none of the debate presented above is currently settled, the ∂t ro
(2)
goal of this study is to gain insight from the comparison of palaeo- + (∇ × B) × B + E∇ 2 u
magnetic results with synthetic time evolution models for the dipo-
larity, intensity and stability of the Precambrian Earth dynamo. ∂B E 2
Since a few years, a scaling theory (Christensen & Tilgner 2004; = ∇ × (u × B) + ∇ B (3)
∂t Pm
Christensen & Aubert 2006; Olson & Christensen 2006) is avail-
able to predict the main characteristic quantities of the present-day ∂C E 2
geodynamo and planetary dynamos. The central control variable in + u · ∇C = ∇ C + ST /ξ (4)
∂t Pr
almost all scalings is the convective buoyancy flux, which is equiv-
alent to convective power available for the dynamo. Thus, in order ∇ ·u=0 (5)
to achieve scaling predictions relevant to the Precambrian Earth
dynamo, one needs a time-series of the dynamo power, which can ∇ · B = 0. (6)
be evaluated from core thermodynamics and Earth cooling histo-
ries (e.g. Labrosse 2003; Lister 2003). Furthermore, the results of Here r is the radius vector. Time is scaled with the inverse of the rota-
Christensen & Tilgner (2004), Christensen & Aubert (2006) and tion rate −1 . Length is scaled with the shell gap D = r o − r i . Veloc-
Olson & Christensen (2006) need to be extended to cases where the ity is scaled with  D. Magnetic induction is scaled by (ρμ)1/2 D,
outer core aspect ratio varies, and where the partitioning between where ρ is the fluid density and μ the magnetic permeability of the
the inner- and outer-boundary originated buoyancies also varies. fluid. The Ekman number E, magnetic Prandtl and Prandtl numbers
In these respects, this paper takes advantage of advances made in Pm and Pr are defined as
both fields of numerical dynamo modelling and core thermody- ν
E= (7)
namics to update a previous analytical treatment (Olson 1981). In D 2
Section 2, we introduce the numerical dynamo model, which we
ν
use for our systematic parameter space study. The numerical results Pm = (8)
are presented in Section 3.1. Then we turn to the investigation of λ
various Earth cooling histories, and how they relate to the dynamo ν
power (Section 3.2). Finally, we produce our time evolution model Pr = . (9)
κ

C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1416 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

Here ν, λ are, respectively, the viscous and magnetic diffusivities of simulations has been found to be negligible, as shown by Wicht
the fluid. In this study, the codensity boundary conditions relevant 2002). The numerical implementation PARODY-JA is used in this
to thermochemical convection are treated in the following way: at study (see Aubert et al. 2008, for details). The numerical scheme is
the inner-core boundary, the release of latent heat and light elements of finite-differencing type in the radial direction with up to 120 grid
correspond to a positive mass anomaly flux F i (expressed in kilo- points, and uses a spherical harmonic decomposition in the lateral
grams per second), which we consider uniform and imposed on the directions up to degree and order 106. No particular symmetry along
long term by global core thermodynamics. The dimensional form longitude was assumed.
of F i writes Table 1 gives details on the 43 models which we have integrated
 for this study. The parameter range is E = 3 × 10−5 to 3 × 10−4
Fi = − κ∇C · dS, (10) for the Ekman number, Ra Q = 10−6 to 10−3 for the Rayleigh num-
Si
ber, Pm = 1–10 for the magnetic Prandtl number, and the Prandtl
where S i is the inner boundary surface. Similarly, at the outer bound- number Pr is set to 1 in all simulations. It should be kept in mind
ary, we consider that the mantle imposes a uniform mass anomaly that due to computational limitations, and just like all accessible
flux (which in fact corresponds to a heat flux without chemical numerical dynamo simulations (Christensen & Aubert 2006), our
contributions). The dimensional form of F o writes simulations operate in a parametric regime still very far from that


Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

of the Earth’s core, where E ≈ 3 × 10−15 , Ra Q ≈ 10−13 and Pm =
Fo = − κ∇C · dS. (11) 10−6 . Scaling analyses attempt to overcome this intrinsic limitation
So
by identifying robust trends supported by reasonable underlying
Here S o is the outer boundary surface. Note that F o is defined with physical considerations. Most of the scalings used here bear little
respect to the adiabatic heat flux carried out at the outer boundary residual influence of the various diffusivities, which gives credence
(this is the reference state of the Boussinesq system). Hence, F o can to their applicability to core conditions, since diffusivities represent
be either positive or negative, but in any case the total mass anomaly the main reason why models and Earth are distant in parameter
flux F = F i + F o must be positive for convection to occur. The space. The models presented here explore the new parameter space
codensity is scaled with F/4π D 3 . The Rayleigh number based on axes relative to χ and f i . The aspect ratio goes down to χ = 0.01,
mass anomaly flux, Ra Q , which appears in (2) is therefore defined where the inner core is practically non-existent in the simulation.
as This situation is meant to simulate the core before or at the inner
go F core nucleation time. The geophysically relevant buoyancy driving
Ra Q = . (12)
4πρ3 D 4 mode is therefore secular cooling ( f i = 0), which, in our formal-
ism, corresponds to no buoyancy at the inner boundary, a positive
Here g o is gravity at radius r = r o . The present formulation is
volumetric source term, and a fixed heat flow at the outer boundary.
slightly different from, but equivalent to that in Christensen &
Several models have been computed at χ = 0.05, where f i has been
Aubert (2006), where a Rayleigh number based on advected buoy-
set to 0, 0.5 and 1. These cases correspond to a system where the
ancy flux Ra ∗Q was introduced. For sufficiently supercritical convec-
inner core has just nucleated, and the buoyancy driving is therefore
tion the conversion from their formalism to ours can be achieved
a mix of secular cooling and chemical convection. Finally, models
through
with χ = 0.35 were also needed for comparison with present Earth.
ro ri
Ra Q ≈ 2 Ra ∗Q . (13) Core thermodynamics predict that the main buoyancy source of
D the present-day geodynamo (in terms of available power) is chemi-
The reason for introducing this change of formulation is that Ra ∗Q cal convection (Lister & Buffett 1995). For that reason, cases with
is singular in the case where the inner core is not present. f i = 0, χ = 0.35 are left out of the present study. However, the
In Section 3.1, we carry out a systematic analysis of the Boussi- uncertainties pertaining to the determination of core–mantle bound-
nesq system and let the mass anomaly fluxes F i and F o be inde- ary (CMB) heat flow (Lay et al. 2008) and core adiabat leave some
pendent. The two associated control parameters are the Rayleigh room for the determination of f i . Here we use the published runs
number Ra Q and the fraction of inner-boundary originated buoy- from Christensen & Tilgner (2004), Christensen & Aubert (2006)
ancy f i = F i /F. However, we emphasize that in the Earth’s core, and Olson & Christensen (2006), which have been performed with
F i and F o are related through a consideration of the complete core fixed temperature boundary conditions. In our formalism, this is
thermodynamics, such as done in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. A general roughly equivalent to f i = 0.5 (see Fig. 1). In addition, we have
situation describing an Earth system which is slowly cooling on included models with f i = 1, and also with f i = 2, 10, describ-
geological timescales is F i = F o , in which case the basic state ing situation of dominant chemical convection where the CMB heat
over which the Boussinesq system is considered has a decreasing flow is, respectively, just adiabatic, or below the adiabat. In the latter
temperature and increasing light element mass fraction, while the case, a stably stratified layer exists at the top of the outer core.
Boussinesq system itself is statistically stationary. This can be ac- We define several outputs, which are all averaged over times
counted for within our framework by adding a volumetric correction much longer than core flow timescales (but shorter than geological
term S T/ξ in (4), such that the mass anomaly budget of the spherical timescales for Earth’s mantle variations), and over the full volume of
shell vanishes (Braginsky & Roberts 1995; Kutzner & Christensen the spherical shell or the surface of the outer boundary. Most of these
2002). The correction term then has the following dimensionless bear the same definitions as in Christensen & Aubert (2006): the
expression: root-mean-squared velocity inside the shell Ro, rms magnetic field
amplitude inside the shell Lo, mean harmonic degree in the velocity
(1 − 2 f i )
ST /ξ = 3 . (14) field l, ohmic dissipation fraction of the convective power f ohm ,
ro3 − ri3
ratio bdip of the mean field strength inside the shell Lo to the dipole
The other boundary conditions at both boundaries are of rigid strength on the outer boundary B dip , and ratio f dip of B dip to the rms
type for velocity, and insulating for the magnetic field (the effect amplitude of the magnetic field at the outer boundary truncated at
on inner-core conductivity on the long-term behaviour of dynamo spherical harmonic degree 12. Parameters with definitions which are


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1417

Table 1. Numerical models and results (see text for details). Models C and T are visualized in Fig. 2.
E Ra Q Pr Pm χ fi Ro Lo bdip f dip l τ diss /τ mag p f ohm
−5 −6 −3 −3 −4 −7
3 × 10 1.80 × 10 1 1 0.05 0.5 5.03 × 10 3.22 × 10 9.56 0.74 10.0 7.90 × 10 8.32 × 10 0.23
3 × 10−5 4.50 × 10−6 1 2 0.01 0 3.83 × 10−3 1.19 × 10−2 4.61 0.67 16.3 9.56 × 10−4 1.79 × 10−6 0.62
3 × 10−5 4.50 × 10−6 1 1 0.01 0 4.28 × 10−3 1.18 × 10−2 3.56 0.81 16.6 1.88 × 10−3 2.09 × 10−6 0.58
3 × 10−5 9.00 × 10−6 1 1 0.01 0 5.98 × 10−3 1.17 × 10−2 4.03 0.78 20.1 9.46 × 10−4 4.20 × 10−6 0.52
3 × 10−5 9.00 × 10−7 1 2 0.05 1 4.99 × 10−3 3.91 × 10−3 16.0 0.66 7.0 6.94 × 10−4 6.24 × 10−7 0.27
3 × 10−5 1.80 × 10−6 1 2 0.05 1 6.81 × 10−3 4.24 × 10−3 24.0 0.48 8.1 4.01 × 10−4 1.36 × 10−6 0.25
3 × 10−5 9.00 × 10−7 1 2 0.05 0.5 3.56 × 10−3 2.80 × 10−3 13.7 0.63 7.8 7.31 × 10−4 3.26 × 10−7 0.25
10−4 6 × 10−5 1 5 0.01 0 1.21 × 10−2 2.24 × 10−2 7.19 0.53 13.3 4.23 × 10−4 2.63 × 10−5 0.45
10−4 6 × 10−5 1 2 0.01 0 1.20 × 10−2 0 n/a n/a 14.5 0 2.65 × 10−5 0
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 5 0.05 1 2.22 × 10−2 1.27 × 10−2 36.0 0.32 6.0 3.34 × 10−4 2.59 × 10−5 0.18
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 5 0.05 0.5 1.32 × 10−2 1.95 × 10−2 9.23 0.53 8.1 6.09 × 10−4 1.66 × 10−5 0.38
T 10−4 1.5 × 10−5 1 10 0.05 0 5.19 × 10−3 1.88 × 10−2 7.17 0.49 9.2 8.17 × 10−4 3.98 × 10−6 0.54
C 10−4 1.5 × 10−5 1 10 0.05 1 1.20 × 10−2 1.76 × 10−2 13.3 0.47 7.4 3.98 × 10−4 1.21 × 10−5 0.32
10−4 1.5 × 10−5 1 10 0.05 0.5 8.44 × 10−3 1.99 × 10−2 9.36 0.49 7.6 6.03 × 10−4 7.59 × 10−6 0.43

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

10−4 3 × 10−5 1 2 0.05 0 8.64 × 10−3 1.64 × 10−2 4.66 0.62 12.6 1.51 × 10−3 1.02 × 10−5 0.43
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 2 0.05 1 2.38 × 10−2 5.63 × 10−3 40.4 0.32 6.1 4.08 × 10−4 2.54 × 10−5 0.07
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 2 0.05 0.5 1.60 × 10−2 1.29 × 10−2 7.93 0.68 7.1 9.56 × 10−4 1.68 × 10−5 0.25
10−4 6 × 10−5 1 2 0.05 0.5 2.06 × 10−2 1.71 × 10−2 7.23 0.64 8.1 6.65 × 10−4 3.56 × 10−5 0.30
10−4 6 × 10−5 1 2 0.05 0 1.54 × 10−2 8.53 × 10−3 10.4 0.53 14.1 4.63 × 10−4 2.43 × 10−5 0.11
10−4 6 × 10−5 1 2 0.05 1 3.22 × 10−2 5.93 × 10−3 44.1 0.28 6.2 2.81 × 10−4 5.09 × 10−5 0.06
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 5 0.01 0 8.36 × 10−3 1.95 × 10−2 6.64 0.50 11.5 6.93 × 10−4 1.12 × 10−5 0.49
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 5 0.05 0 8.00 × 10−3 1.99 × 10−2 6.55 0.52 11.7 7.66 × 10−4 1.02 × 10−5 0.50
10−4 1.5 × 10−5 1 10 0.01 0 5.33 × 10−3 1.89 × 10−2 7.20 0.44 9.1 7.60 × 10−4 4.40 × 10−6 0.53
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 10 0.01 0 7.83 × 10−3 2.27 × 10−2 7.68 0.48 11.5 4.57 × 10−4 1.13 × 10−5 0.50
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 10 0.05 0 7.58 × 10−3 2.23 × 10−2 7.39 0.48 11.9 4.80 × 10−4 1.04 × 10−5 0.50
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 10 0.05 1 1.83 × 10−2 1.90 × 10−2 19.0 0.38 7.0 2.71 × 10−4 2.59 × 10−5 0.25
10−4 3 × 10−5 1 10 0.05 0.5 1.20 × 10−2 2.23 × 10−2 10.2 0.50 8.8 3.99 × 10−4 1.68 × 10−5 0.37
10−4 4 × 10−4 1 5 0.01 0 3.63 × 10−2 2.40 × 10−2 47.8 0.17 13.7 1.05 × 10−4 2.09 × 10−4 0.26
10−4 ×10−4 1 5 0.01 0 1.70 × 10−2 2.34 × 10−2 11.0 0.50 12.4 3.04 × 10−4 4.65 × 10−5 0.38
10−4 1.5 × 10−4 1 5 0.01 0 2.26 × 10−2 2.26 × 10−2 19.2 0.30 11.5 2.14 × 10−4 7.26 × 10−5 0.32
10−4 1.5 × 10−4 1 5 0.05 0 2.21 × 10−2 2.05 × 10−2 18.8 0.33 13.1 1.98 × 10−4 6.81 × 10−5 0.30
10−4 2.5 × 10−4 1 5 0.01 0 2.92 × 10−2 2.06 × 10−2 46.9 0.18 13.5 1.28 × 10−4 1.26 × 10−4 0.26
10−4 ×10−4 1 2 0.05 0.5 2.80 × 10−2 1.74 × 10−2 8.31 0.54 7.6 4.72 × 10−4 6.17 × 10−5 0.26
×10−4 2 × 10−4 1 2 0.05 0.5 4.14 × 10−2 1.72 × 10−2 18.3 0.38 7.2 2.73 × 10−4 1.27 × 10−4 0.18
3 × 10−4 1.80 × 10−5 1 3 0.35 10 2.28 × 10−2 3.52 × 10−3 14.3 0.73 6.9 1.03 × 10−3 2.96 × 10−5 0.02
3 × 10−4 2.48 × 10−5 1 3 0.35 10 2.64 × 10−2 1.61 × 10−3 38.1 0.49 7.2 7.75 × 10−4 4.20 × 10−5 0.04
3 × 10−4 3.15 × 10−5 1 3 0.35 10 2.92 × 10−2 2.30 × 10−3 70.0 0.35 7.6 6.61 × 10−4 5.45 × 10−5 0.07
3 × 10−4 4.50 × 10−5 1 3 0.35 10 3.34 × 10−2 6.78 × 10−3 60.0 0.40 8.0 5.81 × 10−4 8.00 × 10−5 0.04
3 × 10−4 7.20 × 10−5 1 3 0.35 10 4.01 × 10−2 1.17 × 10−2 106.3 0.27 8.3 5.03 × 10−4 1.31 × 10−4 0.10
3 × 10−4 1.08 × 10−4 1 3 0.35 10 4.87 × 10−2 1.61 × 10−2 161.7 0.22 8.4 4.44 × 10−4 2.30 × 10−4 0.14
3 × 10−4 4.50 × 10−4 1 3 0.35 2 4.61 × 10−2 1.59 × 10−2 85.8 0.20 9.0 4.80 × 10−4 2.02 × 10−4 0.13
3 × 10−4 9.41 × 10−4 1 3 0.35 1 4.82 × 10−2 2.83 × 10−2 20.2 0.40 10.1 5.52 × 10−4 2.95 × 10−4 0.24
3 × 10−4 1.05 × 10−3 1 3 0.35 1 5.14 × 10−2 2.78 × 10−2 28.2 0.32 10.0 5.09 × 10−4 3.29 × 10−4 0.23

proper to this study are the following: the convective power density p demonstrated that under the assumption of good mixing (sufficiently
is the ratio of the convective power defined in Christensen & Aubert supercritical convection), the total dissipation  of the dynamo is
(2006) to the shell volume V = 4π (r 3o − r 3i )/3. The magnetic proportional to the sum of the inner- and outer- boundary originated
dissipation time τ diss is defined as in Christensen & Tilgner (2004), mass anomaly fluxes
by dividing the magnetic energy by the power dissipated through
 = i + o = Fi (ψi − ψ) + Fo (ψ − ψo ). (15)
ohmic losses. However, in that study τ diss was normalized by the
dipole diffusion time. Here we choose to normalize this quantity Here ψ is the gravitational potential such that the gravity vector
by the standard magnetic diffusion time τ mag = D 2 /λ, in order to is g = −∇ψ, and ψi , ψo , ψ are, respectively, the inner boundary,
account for the variation in the shell gap D throughout geological outer boundary, and mean values of the gravitational potential. The
time. For the determination of the system behaviour regarding the physical meaning of (15) is that the dissipation results from taking
occurrence of reversals, a standard length of three to five magnetic mass anomaly at a given gravitational potential, and redistributing it
diffusion times was used. at the mean gravitational potential, which is where the good mixing
assumption enters.
In the present context of radial gravity, the gravitational potential
2.2 Generalized relationship between convective power is expressed as ψ = r 2 g o /2r o + cst. The expression for ψ is (Buffett
and mass anomaly flux/Rayleigh number et al. 1996)
 
Here we derive a general relation between the convective power 3go ro5 − ri5
ψ= . (16)
density p and the Rayleigh number Ra Q . Buffett et al. (1996) 10ro ro3 − ri3


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1418 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

2.5 convective power. In our present study, where we vary the buoy-
Δ T heating (f
i
f replaced by 1)
i
ancy partition f i and the aspect ratio χ , the use of Ra Q as a basic
"Thermochemical" (fi=0.5) scaling parameter does not capture the geometrical and buoyancy
2 "Chemical" (f =1)
i
distribution effects contained in (18), thus resulting in a large scatter
that the use of p corrects for. Another advantage of using p instead
"Thermal" (fi=0)
of Ra Q is that p is a geophysical parameter which is constrained
1.5 Subadiabatic (f =2)
i by thermodynamic studies of the Earth’s core (e.g. Lister 2003, see
p/RaQ

Subadiabatic (fi=10) Section 3.2). Finally, expressing the scalings with p leads to a useful
internal consistency relationship to be detailed in Section 3.3.
1

0.5 2.3 Statistics of least-squares fits

In Section 3.1, we obtain power laws of the form y = ax b from
numerical data. The problem reduces to getting a linear least squares
0

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 fit of the form ln y = ln a + b ln x. In this fit, the slope b is usually
aspect ratio ri/ro fairly well constrained by the large number of data points available.
The standard least-squares error σ b on b is therefore discussed only
Figure 1. Test of the perfect mixing theoretical p/Ra Q relationship with as we check the internal consistency of the scalings. For all other
numerical data. Symbols represent the numerical data, and lines represent purposes, the vertical variance σ 2 of the errors ei = ln ŷi − ln yi
the theoretical prediction of eqs (18) and (17). Red colour: Christensen is used, and as a standard practice, we present the best-fitting laws
& Aubert (2006) data points. Our theory applies to their choice of fixed y = ax b together with their 3σ lines y = (a/e3σ )x b and y = ae3σ
temperature boundary conditions provided f i and 1 − f i are replaced by 1 x b , which theoretically enclose 99.7 per cent of the data if the
in eq. (18). White symbol filling and light grey line: cases of secular cooling
distribution of errors ei is normal.
with f i = 0. Medium-grey symbol filling and line: cases of thermochemical
convection with f i = 0.5. Dark-grey symbol filling and black line: cases
of purely chemical convection with f i = 1. Blue symbols and lines: cases
where the shell is stably stratified at the outer boundary (subadiabatic system) 3 R E S U LT S
with f i = 2. Green symbols: same as blue, for f i = 10. For symbol shape
definitions see Fig. 3.
3.1 Results from numerical dynamos

Expanding (15) with the help of (16), and making use of the fact We first present (Fig. 2) images from two models with a small inner
that the conservation of energy, when averaged over times long core (χ = 0.05, see Table 1 for other parameters). Model C is driven
relatively to core flow timescales, yields (ρ3 D 2 ) pV =  (recall by inner-boundary originated buoyancy (chemical convection, f i =
that p is a dimensionless quantity), we obtain after some algebra the 1), and model T is driven by volumetric heating and outer-boundary
following proportionality relationship between the power per unit originated buoyancy (secular cooling, f i = 0). Convection sets up
volume p and the total mass anomaly flux F where the thermochemical gradients are most unstable: one single
convection cell near the inner boundary for C, five cells extending
p = γ Ra Q (17) from mid-shell to the outer boundary for T. DMFI visualization
with (Aubert et al. 2008) reveals that the magnetic field is generated
  5  according to the classical macroscopic α 2 mechanism (Olson et al.
3(ro − ri )2 3 ro − ri5 1999), although model C additionally has an enhanced toroidal
γ =  3  fi − ri
2
2 ro − ri3 ro 5 ro3 − ri3 field production by zonal flow near the outer boundary. Both mod-
  els are dipole-dominated, with magnetic dipoles of similar relative
3 ro5 − ri5
+ (1 − f i ) ro2 − . (18) strengths (C and T, respectively, have f dip = 0.47, 0.49). They are
5 ro3 − ri3
typically less dipolar than similar models with χ = 0.35 (see Fig. 6).
Eqs (18) and (17) are the generalizations to arbitrary buoy- In model T, the lower dipolarity can be explained by shallow con-
ancy distributions of the relationships obtained in appendix A of vection columns which enhance magnetic flux expulsion and thus
Christensen & Aubert (2006). They are tested versus our numerical enrich the outer boundary power spectrum in multipolar content. In
data in Fig. 1. The agreement between theoretical and numerical model C, the small inner core surface over which the buoyancy is
values of p/Ra Q becomes good as the supercriticality of convec- distributed favours the occurrence of magnetic upwellings (Aubert
tion increases. Cases with a strong stable density stratification (i.e. et al. 2008) which reduce the dipolarity by frequently disrupting
f i  1) need a stronger level of mixing to approach the theoretical the magnetic dipole. In both models, the absence of the inner core
line. This is simply a consequence of the fact that convection does favours a global axisymmetric poloidal circulation, which, at a given
not fill the entire shell in these cases. For a given level of convection instant in time, concentrates magnetic field at one pole and disperses
supercriticality, the mass anomaly, while indeed produced at the it at the other pole (in the snapshots presented in Fig. 2, flux con-
inner boundary, fails to be redistributed at the mean gravitational centration is occurring at the south pole for model C and the north
potential of the shell to a greater extent. pole for model T). It should finally be noted that in thermal models,
For the scaling relationships to be presented in the next section, the absence of buoyancy at the inner-core boundary decouples the
the use of p instead of Ra Q as a basic scaling parameter is mo- inner core from the convection and dynamo processes, with two
tivated by several important reasons. First, the theory underlying consequences: first, thermal models with χ = 0.05 or 0.01 yield
these scalings (Christensen & Aubert 2006) relies on convective almost the same results, which are presumably those which would
power arguments, while Ra Q is merely an approximate proxy for be obtained from a case where r i = 0. Second, the relationship


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1419

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Figure 2. Magnetic field and flow morphologies from a chemically driven model (C, f i = 1), and a model driven by secular cooling (T, f i = 0). See Table 1
for other parameters. From top to bottom: Hammer projections of the radial magnetic field at the outer boundary, harmonic degree power spectra normalized
by the total power, DMFI equatorial and polar visualizations. The DMFI images present magnetic field tubes (grey) with thicknesses normalized by the local
magnetic energies, as well as two isosurfaces of the axial vorticity ωz = (∇ ×u) · ez , with levels −0.54 (blue) and 0.54 (red) for model C, and ± 0.18 for T. The
outer boundary is colour coded with the radial magnetic field, with similar colour scheme as on the Hammer projections. The thick white line is the rotation
axis. For other details on DMFI imaging see Aubert et al. (2008).

between reverse magnetic flux patch locations and inner core size The best fit and 3σ lines have equations
(Stanley et al. 2007) does not hold if secular cooling drives the
Ro = (0.69, 1.31, 2.49) p0.42 . (19)
dynamo.
Fig. 3 presents a plot of the Rossby number Ro (or dimensionless When cast into a p − Ro space, the Christensen & Aubert (2006)
rms flow velocity) versus the dimensionless convective power p. scaling is virtually unchanged by the addition of the new data points


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1420 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

10
10

10

τdiss/τmag
10
Ro

10

10
10

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Rm 10
p
Figure 5. Magnetic dissipation time τ diss , normalized by the standard mag-
Figure 3. Dimensionless rms velocity, or Rossby number Ro as a function netic diffusion time τ mag , as a function of the magnetic Reynolds num-
of the dimensionless convective power p. Red crosses are the Christensen ber Rm. Symbols as in Fig. 3, except the red crosses which represent the
& Aubert (2006) data points. Other symbol colours are defined in Fig. 1. Christensen & Tilgner (2004) models. Our data set is filtered to exclude the
Symbol shapes are as follows: small aspect ratio models (χ < 0.05) have non-dynamo run.
circles for Pm = 10, squares for Pm = 5, diamonds for Pm = 2, filled stars
for Pm = 1. Present aspect ratio (χ = 0.35) additional models (triangles and For this last scaling, the newer runs cause a significantly larger scat-
open stars) have Pm = 3. Our data set is filtered to exclude the non-dynamo ter than that obtained by Christensen & Tilgner (2004). We attribute
run. this to the rather small size (26 models) and limited parameter space
extent of the data set used in that study, and conclude that the aspect
ratio and buoyancy distribution have little influence on this scaling.
10 For an extrapolation of the three scalings presented above to
Earth’s core conditions, the scaling prefactors need to be deter-
mined. Here we derive a useful internal consistency relationship
tying these prefactors. We first define the dimensional values B rms
and U rms for Lo and Ro, expand them using (19) and (20) and also
ohm
Lo/f1/2

recall the definition of τ diss

10
Brms = Lo(ρμ)1/2 D = c1 f ohm p (ρμ)1/2 D,
0.5 0.34
(22)

τdiss = c2 Rm −1 D 2 /λ with Rm = Urms D/λ (23)

10 Urms = (D)Ro = c3 p0.42 D. (24)

Here the ci coefficients are scaling prefactors, to be chosen within
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 the 3σ range of each scaling. In the case of the geodynamo, where
p the magnetic diffusivity is much larger than the viscous diffusivity,
and the magnetic energy much larger than the kinetic energy, we
Figure 4. Dimensionless magnetic field, or Lorentz number Lo, corrected
expect most of the convective power ρ3 D 2 pV to be dissipated
with the ohmic dissipation fraction f 0.5
ohm , as a function of the dimensionless
convective power p. Symbols as in Fig. 3. Our data set is filtered to exclude through ohmic losses (i.e. f ohm ≈ 1), hence
dynamos with a dipole fraction f dip ≤ 0.35. 2
Brms 1
ρ3 D 2 p = . (25)
2μ τdiss
with variable inner core size and buoyancy distribution, with a
scatter which is also unchanged. In the dipole-dominated regime After expanding all quantities with the use of their scaling laws, the
( f dip > 0.35), the same remarks hold for the Lorentz number Lo (or dimensionless version of (25) writes
dimensionless rms magnetic field) scaling (Fig. 4), which obeys c12 c3 0.1
1= p . (26)
0.5
Lo/ f ohm = (0.62, 1.17, 2.22) p 0.34
. (20) 2c2
This reveals a good consistency of the scalings: for instance, the
We deduce that the convective power p is the primary scaling param-
dependency in λ vanishes as it should, thanks to the scaling exponent
eter for magnetic and velocity field amplitude, and integrates the
−1 in (23). However consistency is not perfect, as witnessed by the
relevant dependencies on inner core size and buoyancy distributions
residual power 0.1 at which p appears. As in the next section, p
for our present purposes. We further check (Fig. 5) the relation be-
will be assumed to vary over geological time, this will prevent (26)
tween the magnetic dissipation time τ diss and the magnetic Reynolds
to be exactly satisfied with time-independent values for c1−3 . This
number Rm = RoPm/E (Christensen & Tilgner 2004)
problem can be related to the standard error in the least-squares
τdiss /τmag = (0.11, 0.26, 0.65)Rm −1.0 . (21) determination of each exponent. We obtained standard exponent


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1421

1 2
10

dipolar dynamos
0.8

0.6
fdip

dip
1
10

b
0.4

nondipolar dynamos
0.2
no reversals reversals
0 0 0

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

10 10 10 10 10
Ro 10 10
l
Rol
Figure 6. Dipolar fraction f dip as a function of the local Rossby number
Rol = Rol/π . Symbols as in Fig. 3. The dashed lines delineate the transition Figure 7. Ratio bdip of the rms magnetic field inside the shell to the dipole
point from stable to reversing dynamos: red dashes for the χ = 0.35 models field at the outer boundary, as a function of the local Rossby number Rol .
from Christensen & Aubert (2006), green for χ = 0.35 and f i > 1, light Symbols as in Fig. 3. The dashed lines locate the predictions of model (28),
grey for χ = 0.01–0.05 and f i = 0, medium grey for χ = 0.01–0.05 and with same colour conventions as in Fig. 6. Our data set is filtered to retain
f i = 0.5, black for χ = 0.01–0.05 and f i = 1. Our data set is filtered to dynamos with a dipole fraction 0.4 < f dip < 0.7.
exclude the non-dynamo run.
instance, Christensen 2006). In Section 3.3, a model will be needed
errors of σ b1 = 0.0169, σ b2 = 0.0639 and σ b3 = 0.0178 for the Lo,
for bdip in order to estimate the dipole moment at any point in the
τ diss and Ro scalings, respectively. The error on the exponent of the
geological history. We adopt the simplest possible linear dependency
ohmic dissipation, in the right-hand side of (26), is therefore
bdip = 7.3(1 − χ )(1 + f i ). (28)
σb = 2σb1 + 0.42σb2 + σb3 = 0.078. (27)
The last scaling which we check (Fig. 8) is the relationship (Olson
As σ b is comparable with the residual power 0.1 present in (26), & Christensen 2006) between the local Rossby number Rol and
we conclude that this inconsistency reflects the inherent error in- the dynamo control parameters p, Ek, Pm and Pr. As there does
troduced by data scatter in the least-squares fitting procedure used not currently exist a physical rationale to exclude some control
to derive the three scalings. This error remains small however, and parameters, the powers in this last scaling were obtained by an
can be compensated (as will be done in Section 3.3) by choosing a approach of empirical scatter minimization. We confirm (Fig. 8a)
set of c1−3 that minimizes the deviations caused by p0.1 (typically the scaling relationship obtained by Olson & Christensen (2006)
20 per cent).
The control parameter Rol = Rol/π was identified in Rol = (0.34, 0.68, 1.35) p 0.48 E −0.32 Pr 0.19 Pm −0.19 . (29)
Christensen & Aubert (2006) as the main parameter governing Unlike in the previous scalings, there appears an additional de-
the dipolarity and stability versus reversals of numerical dynamo pendence on the aspect ratio χ , which we resolve by adopting the
models. Here we follow the same approach (Fig. 6). In the dipole- following relationship, yielding a smaller data scatter (Fig. 8b):
dominated regime ( f dip > 0.35), Fig. 6 shows again that the ab- Rol
sence of the inner core generally decreases the dipolarity, as already = (0.33, 0.54, 0.89) p 0.48 E −0.32 Pr 0.19 Pm −0.19 . (30)
(1 + χ )
explained in Fig. 2. In contrast, the influence of buoyancy distribu-
tion on dipolarity is not clear-cut and not monotonic. The critical Note that factoring out a (1 + χ ) dependence also slightly reduces
Rossby number for reversals Rolc is located in a narrow range the scatter in the critical Rolc values obtained from Fig. 6. We
Rolc = 0.04−0.12. The frequency of polarity reversals increases therefore subsequently replace the criterion for reversals Rolc =
with increasing departures of Rol from Rolc . 0.04–0.12 with
We then analyse (Fig. 7) the ratio bdip , which determines the Rolc
= (0.33, 0.54, 0.89) p 0.48 E −0.32 Pr 0.19 Pm −0.19
relative strength of the internal field and the dipole field at the outer (1 + χ )
boundary. Since, as shown by Fig. 6, the geodynamo is likely to have (31)
≈ 0.04−0.1.
had a dipolarity lower or equal to the present-day value throughout
its history, we restrict the data to the range 0.4 < f dip < 0.7. In this The aspect ratio thus disappears from our condition for the onset of
range, we find little variability of bdip with the convective power reversals.
(or Rol ), whereas the main source of variability comes from f i
and χ . This can be attributed to depth variations of the dynamo
3.2 Core thermodynamics and cooling models
region, the dipole seen at the surface being reduced in the case of a
deeper dynamo. Indeed chemical models (deeper dynamos) have a The previous section shows how time-average properties of the past
markedly larger bdip value than thermal models (shallow dynamos, geodynamo can be estimated from the convective power. The as-
see Fig. 2). The highest bdip values are obtained for models with sumed time scale for this time average is long (say a million years)
f i > 1, where the extent of the dynamo region is restricted even compared to core flow timescales, but short compared to any geo-
further by a stably stratified layer at the top of the shell (see for logical evolution timescale of the Earth. The geological evolution


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1422 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

a. b.
0 0
10 10

10 10

Ro /(1+χ)
Rol

l
10 10

10 0
10 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2/5 2/5
pE Pr Pm pE Pr Pm

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Figure 8. Local Rossby number Rol as a function of the combination pE −2/3 Pr 2/5 Pm −2/5 proposed in Olson & Christensen (2006). (a) Without a dependence
in χ , (b) with a dependence in χ . Symbols as in Fig. 3. Our data set is filtered to exclude the non-dynamo run.

of dynamo properties can be obtained from our scaling laws if we of latent heat and light element release, which are given by
have a long-term evolution model for the convective power, which 3L[1 − e(φ)]χ
we now derive from core thermodynamics (see the recent studies L = (33)
2 + 3(L + B − C)χ
from Labrosse 2003; Lister 2003, and references therein). The fun-
damental inputs which are needed is an history of core-mantle heat 3Bχ
flow Q cmb (t), of the radioactive core heating Q r (t) and the heat flow B = . (34)
2 + 3(L + B − C)χ
down the isentropic temperature gradient at the CMB Q a (hereafter
termed adiabatic heat flow), which is assumed constant over time. The values of the thermodynamic parameters L, B, C, e(φ) and φ
In what follows, we use the simple parametrization of Lister (2003) are given in Table 2. The part o of the dissipation that originates
which holds if the inner core volume is small relative to the outer from mass anomaly flux at the outer boundary is
core volume (χ 3
1). o = (Q cmb − Q a ) S, (35)
The entropy budget of the system, when time-averaged over
timescales much longer than core flow timescales, but shorter than where  S is the thermodynamic efficiency of thermal convection,
geological timescales, gives an expression for the total dynamo dis- given by
sipation  as a function of the fundamental inputs listed above. The  S = eφ e(φ) − 1. (36)
part i of the dissipation that originates from mass anomaly flux at
the inner boundary is then The dimensionless, total volumetric power p can be obtained
through the time average conservation of energy ρ3 D 2 pV =
i + o , where V is the shell volume. Once the dissipations i
i = (Q cmb − Q r )( L +  B ), (32)
and o are known, the associated mass anomaly fluxes F i and
F o can be retrieved from eq. (15), to finally determine f i = F i /
where  L and  B are, respectively, the thermodynamic efficiencies (F i + F o ). Note that for strongly subadiabatic cases, eq. (15) may

Table 2. Parameters used in the thermodynamic, core cooling (Section 3.2, upper panel), and palaeomagnetic (Section 3.3,
lower panel) models.
Parameter Meaning Value Reference
Q CMB (t) Earth’s cooling model Variable See Section 3.2
Qa Adiabatic heat flow at the CMB 6 TW See Section 3.2
Qr Radiogenic heating in the outer core 0W See Section 3.2
M Heat capacity for solidification 9.2 × 1029 J Lister (2003)
L Latent heat effect 2.1 Lister (2003)
B Buoyancy effect 0.86 Lister (2003)
C Compositional effect −0.8 Lister (2003)
φ Adiabatic decay parameter 0.256 Lister (2003)
e(φ) Adiabatic decay integral 0.8595 Lister (2003)

ro Outer core radius 3480 km

 (t) Earth’s rotation rate variable See Section 3.3
λ Outer core magnetic diffusivity 1.3 m2 s−1 Secco & Shloessin (1989)
ν Outer core viscosity 10−6 m2 s de Wijs et al. (1998)
Outer core thermochemical diffusivity Stacey & Loper (2007),
κ (assumed to be the same 5 × 10−6 m2 s−1 Labrosse et al. (2007),
as thermal diffusivity) Lay et al. (2008)
ρ Outer core density 104 kg m−3 Dziewonski & Anderson (1981)


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1423

a: high power b: low power

12 12
Qcmb

Heat flow or Power (TW)

Heat flow or Power (TW)

Q
10 10 a
Φi
Qcmb Φ
8 Q
8 o
a P=Φ +Φ
i o
Φi
6 Φ
6
o
P=Φ +Φ
i o
4 4
Inner core nucleation
2 2 Inner core nucleation

0 0
4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0
time before present (Gyr) time before present (Gyr)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Figure 9. High- (a) and Low- (b) power models for: heat flow from the core to the mantle Q cmb , adiabatic heat flow Q a , inner- and outer- boundary originated
dissipations i , o , and total power P = i + o as functions of the time before present. The greyed area represents the uncertainty range for the adiabatic
heat flow. The inner core nucleates at a ≈ 1.8 Ga before present in the low power scenario, and a ≈ 0.8 Ga before present in the high-power scenario.

not hold because of incomplete mixing, which in this case might We now turn to the central unknown of our analysis, the history
lead to an underestimation of F i . It should be mentioned here that of the heat flow at the CMB, Q cmb (t). Since there are many uncer-
breaking the total dissipation  into boundary-originated terms, and tainties involved in the determination of Earth cooling models, as
equating these two terms separately to their equivalent convective well as in our present modelling effort, our goal is not to propose
fluxes is not a trivial operation, since dissipation is a global non- a definitive model for the geologic evolution of the geodynamo,
linear quantity. The derivation presented in appendix shows that which would be based on a definitive model for Q cmb (t). Rather,
this is legitimate if the accuracy of the Boussinesq approximation is we focus on two end-member scenarios representing the variety of
tolerable. geophysical situations which can be expected based on the uncer-
Once the inner core is present, the evolution of the inner core tainties (Fig. 9). The first one, which we label as the high-power
aspect ratio χ is constrained by the heat capacity for solidification scenario, was proposed by Labrosse et al. (2007). It is motivated
M (value in Table 2) through the equation by the large (about 10 TW) present heat flows at the CMB deduced
from post-perovskite seismological studies (Hernlund et al. 2005;
d 2

Lay et al. 2006), from geochemical constraints and from the sug-
M χ + (L + B − C)χ 3 = −(Q cmb − Q r ). (37)
dt gested present crystallization of a basal magma ocean in the lower
Eq. (37) can be integrated backwards in time from present (Labrosse mantle. As indicated by Fig. 9(a), it yields a typical dynamo power of
et al. 2001) until the inner core age a (Here time is measured before 2.7 TW at present. The second, low power scenario is motivated by
present, therefore a > 0). the fact that the scaling of ohmic dissipation in numerical dynamos
The amount of radioactive heating Q r in planetary cores is de- (Christensen & Tilgner 2004) favours a low present dissipation of
bated. Experiments of potassium partitioning between iron and about 0.2–0.5 TW. Using the thermodynamic analysis presented
silicates suggest that present maximum potassium concentration above, this implies that the top of the Earth’s core is presently sub-
amounts to values ranging from 30 p.p.m (Hirao et al. 2006) to adiabatic (Q cmb < Q a , see Fig. 9b). A variety of idealized, constant
60–130 p.p.m (Rama Murthy et al. 2003), the maximum value rate cooling histories can be built, which cross the adiabat at an
being obtained for a sulphur rich (10 per cent wt.) core, which age b. Plausible models are such that b ≤ a (Labrosse et al. 1997),
is not favoured for the Earth based on geochemical constraints because if b > a then convection stops in the Earth’s core between
(McDonough 2003) yielding a sulphur content of 3 per cent wt. An the adiabat crossing and the nucleation of the inner core. This is
upper bound of 60 p.p.m for the Earth’s core seems therefore rea- not acceptable since a conducting core would not cool fast enough
sonable and contributes 0.4 TW of present radioactive power, which to subsequently nucleate an inner core before present. Our second
is quite low when compared to typical Q cmb values. Radioactivity scenario is built according to this constraint, taking an initial CMB
was obviously stronger in the past (in the case of potassium, the heat flow of Q cmb = 11 TW, and a present value Q cmb = 3 TW,
power is double every 1.26 Gyr backwards), but this would amount corresponding to a present dynamo power of about 0.3 TW.
to typically 1.5 TW at 3 Ga ago, which again is quite low compared
to estimated Q cmb at that time. In the present study, we therefore
3.3 Time evolution models for palaeomagnetic
neglect the radioactive heating throughout the Earth’s history, that
observables
is, Q r = 0. Its inclusion is straightforward but unnecessary at this
point. We now combine the dynamo scaling study from Section 3.1 with
The value of the adiabatic heat flow Q a is uncertain and debated. the thermodynamic elements from Section 3.2 in order to evaluate
Following Stacey & Loper (2007), Labrosse et al. (2007) and Lay how the main properties of the geodynamo evolve over time. At
et al. (2008), we adopt Q a = 6 TW for a central value and allow any point in time, the power p can be accessed from the analysis
for an uncertainty range of 1 TW above and below this value. This of the previous section. The Prandtl and magnetic Prandtl num-
would correspond to a central value of the upper outer core thermal bers are set according to the diffusivity values listed in Table 2. In
conductivity of about 50 W m−1 K at the top of the core (Labrosse order to determine the Ekman number E, the rotation rate of the
2003). Earth is needed. We use the length-of-day model (LOD) of Varga


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1424 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Figure 10. (a) Dynamo power and ohmic dissipation (respectively, left- and right-hand side of the internal consistency relationship (25), both multiplied by
the shell volume V ), using the prefactor set (c1 , c2 , c3 ) = (1.65, 0.11, 1.31) for both scenarios. (b) rms core velocity U rms , with indications of the equivalent
magnetic Reynolds numbers Rm at present, and a rough delineation of the dynamo onset which would correspond to Rm ≈ 40 (Christensen & Aubert 2006).
(c) rms core magnetic field B rms . (d) Local magnetic Reynolds number Rol (corrected by 1 + χ ). For this last scaling the central value 0.54 from (30) is used,
and the 3σ uncertainty range is propagated to the location of the critical value Rolc for reversals obtained from (31) (shaded zone, lighter shade of grey means
higher likeliness for reversals/higher reversal frequency). In (b)–(d), the dashes represent the epoch with no available palaeomagnetic samples.

et al. (1998), according to which the LOD has piecewise linearly 1 throughout time, and that the dynamo has been dipole-dominated
increased from 19 hr 2.5 Ga ago to 20.8 hr 0.64 Ga ago, and to throughout Earth’s history. This last point is reasonable since our
24 hr today. As there is no constraint on earlier length of day, we models show that Rol , the parameter controlling the breakdown of
backward continue the 2.5–0.5 Ga trend, thus yielding an initial dipolarity (Fig. 6) has been below its present-day value throughout
length of day of 17 hr. It should be mentioned that the length-of-day Earth’s history (Fig. 10d).
variation should not exceed a factor 2 in any case, which has a weak An illustrative indication of how the internal properties evolution
impact on the scalings where the Ekman number is present. previously computed may translate to surface observables can be
The determination of absolute values for dynamo properties is obtained by computing the true dipole moment
subject to a considerable amount of uncertainty, which is discussed
4πr 3 Brms
in detail in the next section. For that reason, we focus on the trends, M= √ o . (38)
or absence thereof, rather than the absolute values. Here we there- 2μ bdip
fore present time evolution models obtained with scaling prefactors For the determination of bdip , we use the simple model (28), the
from (22) and (24) as close to their central values as possible, while time evolution of which is presented in Fig. 11(a). In order to put the
still satisfying the constraint (26) of internal consistency. Using the results in perspective with the considerable scatter in palaeointensity
central values for the prefactors ci as a starting point, we obtain data, the resulting true dipole moment time-series (Fig. 11b) are
p0.1 c21 c3 /2c2 ≈ 0.2 throughout time. We therefore need to adjust presented together with virtual dipole moment values (VDM) from
the prefactors ci within the 3σ error range, increasing c1,3 and de- the IAGA palaeointensity database (Perrin & Schnepp 2004; Biggin
creasing c2 . In order to keep c1,3 close to their central values, we first et al. 2009).
decrease c2 from 0.26 to its minimal acceptable value 0.11. There
subsequently remains some discrepancy in (26), which we cancel
out by increasing c1 from 1.17 to 1.65 while keeping c3 = 1.31. Our 4 DISCUSSION
predictions for U rms (or the magnetic Reynolds number Rm), B rms Fig. 11(b) shows that throughout the Earth’s history, the dipole mo-
and the local Rossby number Rol are reported in Figs 10(b), (c) and ments predicted by our models agrees with the observed palaeoin-
(d). We note that the model for B rms implicitly assumes that f ohm ≈ tensities to better than an order of magnitude, a fact which can be


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1425

a. b.
4
15 High power

TDM / VDM (10 22 A.m )

2
Low power
2

fi
High power
Low power
10
0
30

20 5
bdip

10

0 0
5 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0
Time before present (Gyr) Time before present (Gyr)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Figure 11. (a) Time evolutions for f i , obtained from (15), and for bdip , obtained from (28). (b) Time evolution models for the true dipole moment (TDM) M,
with the same choice of scaling prefactors as in Fig. 10. The black dots represent the virtual dipole moment (VDM) values from the IAGA palaeomagnetic
database (Perrin & Schnepp 2004; Biggin et al. 2009). Only VDM data obtained from Thellier–Thellier-type experiments using pTRM consistency checks
(Thellier & Thellier 1959) were selected for robustness. Samples with an age of less than 10 Myr, of unknown or transitional polarity, or with VDM standard
deviation greater than 20 per cent of the mean were also excluded, thus reducing the data set to 224 reliable points, 24 of which corresponding to the Precambrian.

seen as a success for the underlying theories of convective dynamos and the nucleation of the inner core. Fig. 10(b) shows that the
and core thermodynamics. However, it must be kept in mind that dynamo has operated above the typical value of the critical mag-
a more specific analysis, such as discriminating between the high- netic Reynolds number Rm c ≈ 40 (Christensen & Aubert 2006)
and low-power scenarios based on comparison with palaeointensity throughout the period 3.2 Ga to present which is documented by
data, is necessarily plagued by a considerable amount of uncer- palaeomagnetic records. Our simulations show that prior to the
tainty. First, we have used central prefactor values for our scaling nucleation of the inner core, a thermal dynamo driven by secular
predictions, bearing a typical uncertainty of a factor 2 above and cooling alone, and without any need for radioactivity, has no diffi-
below the central line. Similarly, the conversion from deep to sur- culties to generate a magnetic field with strength comparable to that
face properties is also suffering from a similar factor 2 uncertainty of the present field: both cooling scenarios predict a dipole moment
(Fig. 7) and from departures from the perfect mixing theory (though of 5 × 1022 A m2 3 Ga ago, on par with present-day values, and
in our models, f i does not greatly exceed 1, thus limiting the im- compatible with the findings of Tarduno et al. (2007). Based on
pact of incomplete mixing). The determination of thermodynamic this result, the suggestion (Dunlop 2007) that old palaeomagnetic
properties in the upper part of Table 2 is also uncertain to a typi- samples such as those analysed by Tarduno et al. (2007) provide
cal factor 2 (Lister 2003), which mainly affects the determination evidence that the inner core was already present before 3.2 Ga ago
of p from a given cooling scenario. The diffusivities in the lower should be discarded. While the inner-core nucleation itself certainly
part of Table 2 are even less precisely determined, but we note has a significant impact on the internal magnetic field amplitude,
that most of our scalings draw their interest from the fact that they the signature is largely attenuated in the dipole moment time-series
are diffusivity-independent. Finally, the palaeointensity data against (Fig. 11a), due to the evolution of the conversion factor bdip . Indeed,
which we compare our models has a large scatter which could result as the inner core nucleates, the onset of chemical convection brings
from either time variability of the field or intrinsic determination additional thermodynamic efficiency in the system, extracting more
uncertainty (Tauxe & Yamazaki 2007). In these respects, the most power from a given CMB heat flow. At the same time, however,
significant conclusion that can be drawn from the use of the two the location of the dynamo shifts from mid-shell to the shell centre,
end-member cooling scenarios is an evaluation of the sensitivity of thus masking the field amplitude increase seen from the surface. The
predicted palaeointensities to uncertainties in the Earth’s cooling prospect of observing the signature of inner core nucleation through
history. a sudden increase of the palaeointensity at the surface of the Earth,
Studying the time variations of dynamo properties, rather than following the suggestion of Hale (1987), is therefore reduced.
their absolute values, makes however more sense because among We now discuss the predicted evolution for the dipolarity and
all the uncertainties listed above, a number can be supposed to be stability of the geodynamo. Our results suggest that for a given
time-independent: material and thermodynamic properties, and dif- convective forcing (more precisely, for a given local Rossby num-
fusivities which are the main source of scatter around the central ber), the absence of an inner core reduces the dipolarity. All forcing
line in dynamo scalings. We additionally focus on trends, which conditions being equal, the earlier geodynamo could therefore have
are independent on the chosen cooling scenario. Still, the dipole been less dipolar than at present. However, inferring the dipolarity
moment variations predicted by our models are in any case small, of the past geodynamo implies to weigh the effects of the geometry
owing to the relatively small exponent 1/3 to which the power enters at given forcing, and of the forcing variations, a smaller Rol imply-
in the magnetic field scaling, and smaller than the typical scatter in ing a possibly more stable and more dipolar dynamo (see Fig. 6).
palaeointensity data, a fact which rationalizes the observed lack of As, in both models, Rol has been generally lower than its present
strong long-term trends (Tauxe & Yamazaki 2007) in the palaeoin- value throughout Earth’s history, and also less than an order of mag-
tensity time-series. nitude away from the critical value Rolc for reversals (Fig. 10d), it
The outstanding events in the evolution of the internal field am- is possible that 3–2.5 Ga ago, the effects related to the absence of
plitude, as presented in Fig. 10(c), are the onset of dynamo action, the inner core and to a lower Rol might have compensated to yield


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1426 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

10 100

CMB heat flow fluctuations (%)

minimal CMB heat flow (TW)
High power
8 80 Low power

6 60

4 40

High power
2 20
Low power

0 0
4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0
Time before present (Gyr) Time before present (Gyr)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Figure 12. Minimal CMB heat flow (left-hand side: absolute, right-hand side: relative to actual CMB heat flow) needed to get a dynamo (solid lines) and
reversals (dashed lines).

a dynamo with about present-day dipolarity, in line with the find- phase transition (Hernlund et al. 2005; Lay et al. 2006). These
ings of Roberts & Glatzmaier (2001), Smirnov & Tarduno (2004), determinations involve an extrapolation of pointwise temperature
and with less frequent reversals than at present, a result which is gradient estimations to the entire lower mantle, and multiplication
also in good qualitative agreement with the conclusions of Coe & of the result by the mantle thermal conductivity, both steps being
Glatzmaier (2006), Biggin et al. (2008). rather uncertain. Such attempts lead to a heat flow lower bound of
Mantle dynamics can cause sizeable temporal fluctuations of the about 7 TW (van der Hilst et al. 2007). Selecting a cooling model,
CMB heat flow (see for instance Nakagawa & Tackley 2005), which which agrees with this constraint, such as our high-power scenario,
would superimpose to the long-term geological trend which we used does still yield palaeomagnetic predictions in agreement with the
to produce our models. To assess the impact of these fluctuations, observations, while being more permissive on the magnitude of al-
we compute in Fig. 12 the minimal CMB heat flow required to get lowed mantle heat flow fluctuations. Note however that such a model
a dynamo. Here it is assumed that Rm c = 40, but this value has a necessarily yields higher flow velocities inside the core (Fig. 10b)
negligible effect on the result, which can be determined by simply which are not unrealistic [the conversion factor from surface to
writing down the condition p ≥ 0. If the goal is to maintain a working deep flow velocities can attain a factor 4 in the study of Christensen
dynamo throughout the Precambrian, then the low-power scenario & Aubert (2006)] but certainly harder to reconcile with core sur-
appears to impose quite drastic restrictions on the amplitude of al- face flow velocities of about 5 × 10−4 m s−1 . We thus expect that
lowed fluctuations, especially near the inner core nucleation time, a cooling scenario contained within the bounds represented by our
when the dynamo is very close to shut down. In contrast, the high- two end-member scenarios would present less consistency problems
power scenario allows for fluctuations of 30 per cent and larger than either of the end-members.
throughout the period 3.2 Ga ago to present. The same analysis can A striking feature of the recent palaeomagnetic record is the large
be repeated for the onset of reversals, assuming for instance that dispersion of virtual dipole moments (see Fig. 11b), with, for in-
the critical local Rossby number for reversals is Rolc /(1 + χ ) = stance, fluctuations from about 2 × 1022 to 15 × 1022 A m2 in the
0.07. The thermal dynamo, which pertained to the early Earth con- last 500 Myr, occurring over very short (million year) timescales.
ditions would have needed about 1–2 TW superadiabatic CMB heat These are unlikely to be explained by magnetohydrodynamic pro-
flow to reverse. Here both scenarios are compatible with the old- cesses taking place in dynamo models, where the magnetic field has
est timing for reversals, which is in the range 2.7–3.2 Ga (Strik typically smaller (and faster) fluctuations (see for instance Olson
et al. 2003; Tarduno et al. 2007). At recent-times, the amount of 2008), with epochs of low dipole moment representing only rare
fluctuations needed to shut down reversals is very close to that events associated with reversals. Moreover, these are also too short
needed to shut down the dynamo altogether, a fact which does not to represent a response of the dynamo to changing mantle condi-
support the likeliness of mantle-induced superchrons in the last tions, and, even if this was the case, the CMB heat flow would have
500 Myr. Rather, our results would support the idea of superchrons to come very close to the minimal 2 TW required to get a dynamo
being integral to the variety of timescales spontaneously produced (Fig. 12) in order to cause such large magnetic field fluctuations.
by the dynamo, as suggested by Hulot & Gallet (2003). Refinements in the knowledge of CMB heat flow variations, in dy-
The palaeomagnetic predictions derived from the low-power namo theory, and in variability analyses of palaeomagnetic samples,
cooling scenario are in fair agreement with palaeomagnetic ob- will be needed in order to conclude regarding the physical nature of
servables (order of magnitude of the dipole moment, occurrence of these variations.
reversals). This result confirms that from the perspective of scaling
analyses, the power requirement on the geodynamo is fairly eco-
nomical, as initially suggested by Christensen & Tilgner (2004): AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
the scenario indeed terminates at a dynamo power of only 0.3 TW. We thank U.R. Christensen for providing the numerical data rela-
Its main drawback is the extreme sensitivity to mantle-induced heat tive to published dynamo models. JA was supported by CNRS and
flow fluctuations, which can shut down the dynamo if the heat flow programs Programme National de Planétologie (PNP) and Struc-
is too close to the critical heat flow required to maintain convec- ture et Dynamique de l’Intérieur de la Terre (SEDIT) of the French
tion. It is also conflicting with estimates of the present-day CMB Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers (INSU). SL was sup-
heat flow derived from the double crossing of the post-perovskite ported by program ANR BEGDy from French Agence Nationale


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
 Modelling the palaeo-evolution of the geodynamo 1427

de la Recherche. Numerical calculations were performed at the Labrosse, S., Hernlund, J.W. & Coltice, N., 2007. A crystallizing dense
MésoCentre de Calcul et de données (MCCD) of IPGP, and at magma ocean at the base of the Earth’s mantle, Nature, 450(7171),
IDRIS, France. This is IPGP contribution 2547. 866–869.
Lay, T., Hernlund, J., Garnero, E.J. & Thorne, M.S., 2006. A post-perovskite
lens and D heat flux beneath the central pacific, Science, 314(5803),
1272–1276.
REFERENCES Lay, T., Hernlund, J. & Buffett, B.A., 2008. Core-mantle boundary heat
flow, Nat. Geosci., 1(1), 25–32.
Aubert, J., Aurnou, J. & Wicht, J., 2008. The magnetic structure of Lister, J.R., 2003. Expressions for the dissipation driven by convection in
convection-driven numerical dynamos, Geophys. J. Int., 172, 945–956. the Earth’s core, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 140(1-3), 145–158.
Biggin, A.J., Strik, G.H.M.A. & Langereis, C.G., 2008. Evidence for a Lister, J.R. & Buffett, B.A., 1995. The strength and efficiency of thermal
very-long-term trend in geomagnetic secular variation, Nat. Geosci., 1(6), and compositional convection in the geodynamo, Phys. Earth planet. Int.,
395–398. 91(1-3), 17–30.
Biggin, A.J., Strik, G.H.M.A. & Langereis, C.G., 2009. The intensity of the Macouin, M., Valet, J. & Besse, J., 2004. Long-term evolution of the geo-
geomagnetic field in the late-archaean: new measurements and an analysis magnetic dipole moment, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 147(2-3), 239–246.
of the updated IAGA palaeointensity database, Earth Planets Space, 61, McDonough, W.F., 2003. Compositional model for the Earth’s core, in Trea-
9–22. tise on Geochemistry, pp. 547–569, eds Carlson, R.W., Holland, H.D. &

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Braginsky, S.I. & Roberts, P.H., 1995. Equations governing convection in Turekia, D.D., Elsevier, Oxford.
Earths core and the geodynamo, Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 79(1-4), McFadden, P.L., Merrill, R.T., McElhinny, M.W. & Lee, S.H., 1991. Rever-
1–97. sals of the earths magnetic-field and temporal variations of the dynamo
Buffett, B., Huppert, H., Lister, J. & Woods, A., 1996. On the thermal families, J. geophys. Res., 96(B3), 3923–3933.
evolution of the Earth’s core, J. geophys. Res., 101(B4), 7989–8006. Nakagawa, T. & Tackley, P.J., 2005. Deep mantle heat flow and ther-
Christensen, U. & Aubert, J., 2006. Scaling properties of convection-driven mal evolution of the Earth’s core in thermochemical multiphase
dynamos in rotating spherical shells and application to planetary magnetic models of mantle convection, Geophys. Geochem. Geosystems., 6,
fields, Geophys. J. Int., 117, 97–114. doi:10.1029/2005GC000967.
Christensen, U. & Tilgner, A., 2004. Power requirement of the geodynamo Olson, P., 1981. A simple physical model for the terrestrial dynamo, J.
from ohmic losses in numerical and laboratory dynamos, Nature, 429, geophys. Res., 86(NB11), 875–882.
169–171, doi:10.1038/nature02508. Olson, P., 2008. Gravitational dynamos and the low frequency geomagnetic
Christensen, U.R., 2006. A deep dynamo generating Mercury’s magnetic secular variation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104(51), 20 159–20 166.
field, Nature, 444(7122), 1056–1058. Olson, P. & Christensen, U.R., 2006. Dipole moment scaling for convection-
Coe, R.S. & Glatzmaier, G.A., 2006. Symmetry and stability of the geomag- driven planetary dynamos, Earth planet. Sci. Let., 250(3-4), 561–
netic field, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(21), doi:10.1029/2006GL027903. 571.
de Wijs, G., Kresse, G., Vocadlo, L., Dobson, D., Alfe, D., Gillan, M. & Olson, P., Christensen, U. & Glatzmaier, G.A., 1999. Numerical modelling
Price, G., 1998. The viscosity of liquid iron at the physical conditions of of the geodynamo: mechanisms of field generation and equilibration, J.
the Earth’s core, Nature, 392(6678), 805–807. geophys. Res., 104(B5), 10 383–10 404.
Dunlop, D. & Yu, Y., 2004. Intensity and polarity of the geomagnetic field Pavlov, V. & Gallet, Y., 2001. Middle Cambrian high magnetic reversal
during Precambrian time, in Timescales of the Paleomagnetic Field,Vol. frequency (Kulumbe River section, northwestern Siberia) and reversal
145, pp. 85–100, eds Channell, J.E.T. & Kent, D.V., Lowrie, W. & Meert, behaviour during the Early Palaeozoic, Earth planet. Sci. Let., 185(1-2),
J.G., AGU Monograph. 173–183.
Dunlop, D.J., 2007. Palaeomagnetism—a more ancient shield, Nature, Pavlov, V. & Gallet, Y., 2005. A third superchron during the Early Paleozoic,
446(7136), 623–625. Episodes, 28(2), 78–84.
Dziewonski, A. & Anderson, D., 1981. Preliminary reference Earth model Perrin, M. & Schnepp, E., 2004. IAGA paleointensity database: distribution
PREM, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 25, 297–356. and quality of the data set, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 147(2-3), 255–267.
Eide, E.A. & Torsvik, T.H., 1996. Paleozoic supercontinental assembly, Rama Murthy, V., Van Westrenen, W. & Fei, Y., 2003. Experimental evidence
mantle flushing, and genesis of the Kiaman superchron, Earth planet. Sci. that potassium is a substantial radioactive heat source in planetary cores,
Let., 144, 389–402. Nature, 423, 163–165.
Hale, C.J., 1987. Paleomagnetic data suggest link between the Archean- Roberts, P. & Glatzmaier, G., 2001. The geodynamo, past, present and future,
Proterozoic boundary and inner-core nucleation, Nature, 329(6136), Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., 94(1-2), 47–84.
233–237. Secco, R.A. & Shloessin, H.H., 1989. The electrical resistivity of solid and
Hernlund, J.W., Thomas, C. & Tackley, P.J., 2005. Phase boundary double liquid Fe at pressures up to 7 GPa, J. geophys. Res., 94, 5887–5894.
crossing and the structure of Earth’s deep mantle, Nature, 434, 882–886, Smirnov, A. & Tarduno, J., 2004. Secular variation of the Late
doi:10.1038/nature03472. Archean Early Proterozoic geodynamo, Geophys. Res. Let., 31(16),
Hirao, N., Ohtani, E., Kondo, T., Endo, N., Kuba, T., Suzuki, T. doi:10.1029/2004GL020333.
& Kikegawa, T., 2006. Partitioning of potassium between iron and Stacey, F.D. & Loper, D.E., 2007. A revised estimate of the conductivity of
silicate at the core-mantle boundary, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33(8), iron alloy at high pressure and implications for the core energy balance,
doi:10.1029/2005GL025324. Phys. Earth planet. Int., 161(1-2), 13–18.
Hulot, G. & Gallet, Y., 1996. On the interpretation of virtual geomagnetic Stanley, S., Zuber, M.T. & Bloxham, J., 2007. Using reversed magnetic flux
pole (VGP) scatter curves, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 95(1–2), 37–53. spots to determine a planet’s inner core size, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34(19),
Hulot, G. & Gallet, Y., 2003. Do superchrons occur without any palaeomag- doi:10.1029/2007GL030892.
netic warning? Earth planet. Sci. Lett., 210(1–2), 191–201. Stevenson, D.J., Spohn, T. & Schubert, G., 1983. Magnetism and thermal
Kutzner, C. & Christensen, U., 2002. From stable dipolar to reversing nu- evolution of the terrestrial planets, Icarus, 54(3), 466–489.
merical dynamos, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 131, 29–45. Strik, G., Blake, T., Zegers, T., White, S. & Langereis, C., 2003. Palaeo-
Labrosse, S., 2003. Thermal and magnetic evolution of the Earth’s core, magnetism of flood basalts in the Pilbara Craton, Western Australia: Late
Phys. Earth planet. Int., 140, 127–143. Archaean continental drift and the oldest known reversal of the geomag-
Labrosse, S., Poirier, J.P. & Le Mouël, J.L., 1997. On cooling of the Earth’s netic field, J. geophys. Res., 108(B12), doi:10.1029/2003JB002475.
core, Phys. Earth planet. Int., 99, 1–17. Tarduno, J.A., Cottrell, R.D., Watkeys, M.K. & Bauch, D., 2007. Geomag-
Labrosse, S., Poirier, J.P. & Le Mouel, J.L., 2001. The age of the inner core, netic field strength 3.2 billion years ago recorded by single silicate crys-
Earth planet. Sci. Let., 190(3-4), 111–123. tals, Nature, 446(7136), 657–660.


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS
1428 J. Aubert, S. Labrosse and C. Poitou

Tauxe, L. & Yamazaki, T., 2007. Paleointensities, in Treatise on Geophysics. neglected because the average temperature of dissipation is assumed
5- Geomagnetism, ed. Schubert, G., Elsevier. to be T . Denoting the compositional mass anomaly flux at the
Thellier, E. & Thellier, O., 1959. Sur l’intensité du champ magnétique inner core boundary as F ci , and assuming, as in Lister (2003) that
terrestre dans le passé historique et géologique, Annales de Geophysique, compositional diffusion can be neglected and that the convective
pp. 285–376.
(not total) compositional flux is well mixed throughout the shell, we
van der Hilst, R., De Hoop, M.V., Wang, P., Shim, S.-H., Ma, P. & Tenorio,
have ∇ · fc = F ci /V and an integration by parts of the first term in
L., 2007. Seismostratigraphy and thermal structure of Earth’s core-mantle
boundary region, Science, 315, 1813–1817. (A1) yields

Varga, P., Denis, C. & Varga, T., 1998. Tidal friction and its consequences in
palaeogeodesy, in the gravity field variations and in tectonics, J. Geodyn., fc · g dV ≈ Fci (ψi − ψ). (A3)
V
25(1-2), 61–84.
Wicht, J., 2002. Inner-core conductivity in numerical dynamo simulations, Integrating the definition of the adiabatic temperature gradient and
Phys. Earth planet. Int., 132, 281–302. neglecting the radial variations of α and the heat capacity C p , we
have
α
APPENDIX (ψ(r ) − ψi ) = ln[To (r )/To (ri )]. (A4)
Cp

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/179/3/1414/775893 by guest on 16 January 2022

Here we follow the analysis presented by Lister (2003) to derive an Under the assumption of moderate departure of T o from the mass-
approximate equivalence between dissipation at each boundary and averaged temperature T and of moderate density variations, the
its corresponding mass anomaly flux. Eq. (24) in Lister (2003) gives mass average of the previous equation yields
the original definitions of boundary-originated dissipations i and
α
o as they stand in (32) and (35): (ψi − ψ) ≈ [1 − T /To (ri )] (A5)
 Cp
i = fc · g dV + Q ∗ICB [1 − T /To (ri )] (A1) and we have therefore
V
Q ∗ICB [1 − T /To (ri )] ≈ Fti (ψi − ψ), (A6)
o = Q ∗CMB [1 − T /To (ri )]. (A2)
where F ti is the thermal mass anomaly flux at the inner boundary.
Here fc is the convective compositional mass anomaly flux, T o is the From here it is apparent that i as it stands in (32) corresponds to
adiabatic temperature gradient, T is the mass-averaged temperature i as used in (15), the same result holding for o . As discussed in
in the shell, Q ∗ICB,CMB are the superadiabatic heat flows at inner-core Lister (2003), the accuracy of the various approximations used in
boundary and CMB. The last term in eq. (24) of Lister (2003) is this derivation reduce to that of the Boussinesq approximation.


C 2009 The Authors, GJI, 179, 1414–1428
Journal compilation 
C 2009 RAS