Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Geosphere GSW 2008 Users' Group Meeting
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Geosphere; December 2005; v. 1; no. 3; p. 138-146; DOI: 10.1130/GES00024.1
© 2005 Geological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wang, D.
Right arrow Articles by Peacor, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Why is the remanent magnetic intensity of Cretaceous MORB so much higher than that of mid to late Cenozoic MORB?

Daming Wang*,1, Rob Van der Voo*,{dagger},1 and Donald R. Peacor*,1

1 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1005, USA

The fact that the natural remanent magnetization (NRM) intensity of mid-oceanic-ridge basalt (MORB) samples shows systematic variations as a function of age has long been recognized: maximum as well as average intensities are generally high for very young samples, falling off rather rapidly to less than half the recent values in samples between 10 and 30 Ma, whereupon they slowly rise in the early Tertiary and Cretaceous to values that approach those of the very young samples. NRM intensities measured in this study follow the same trends as those observed in previous publications. In this study, we take a statistical approach and examine whether this pattern can be explained by variations in one or more of all previously proposed mechanisms: chemical composition of the magnetic minerals, abundance of these magnetization carriers, vectorial superposition of parallel or antiparallel components of magnetization, magnetic grain or domain size patterns, low-temperature oxidation to titanomaghemite, or geomagnetic field behavior. We find that the samples do not show any compositional, petrological, rock-magnetic, or paleomagnetic patterns that can explain the trends. Geomagnetic field intensity is the only effect that cannot be directly tested on the same samples, but it shows a similar pattern as our measured NRM intensities. We therefore conclude that the geomagnetic field strength was, on-average, significantly greater during the Cretaceous than during the Oligocene and Miocene.

Keywords: MORB • magnetization intensity • paleointensity • ancient geomagnetic field intensity







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Geological Society of America