Kazan Federal University Digital Repository

On the distribution function of the geomagnetic field intensity according to the model of a giant Gaussian process and empirical data

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Shcherbakov V.
dc.contributor.author Khokhlov A.
dc.contributor.author Sycheva N.
dc.date.accessioned 2018-09-18T20:18:12Z
dc.date.available 2018-09-18T20:18:12Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.issn 1069-3513
dc.identifier.uri https://dspace.kpfu.ru/xmlui/handle/net/138497
dc.description.abstract © 2015, Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. The quadrature formula is obtained for the distribution function (DF) of the intensity of the geomagnetic field B and the corresponding virtual axial dipole moment VADM in the model of the Giant Gaussian Process (GGP). The predictions of this model are compared, up to a high degree of detail, with the empirical data for the Brunhes Epoch, which are contained in the global databases (GDB) for paleointensity. With a fixed latitude φ, the DFs f<inf>B</inf>(B, φ) and f<inf>VADM</inf>(VADM, φ) are close to Gaussian within the first approximation. At the same time, the global DF f<inf>B</inf>(B) has a high coefficient of asymmetry a = 0.35 since the mean of this function is latitude-dependent. In contrast, the global DF f<inf>VADM</inf>(VADM) has far lower asymmetry a = 0.16, since its mean barely varies with latitude. The comparison between the distribution histograms of VADM according to the PINT GDB data for the Brunhes Epoch and the results calculated by the BGP model shows that the empirical data and the calculations by the GGP model noticeably differ in the interval of the small VADM. Specifically, the histogram based on PINT GDB data shows a significant predominance of these data compared to the model predictions. At the same time, the same data fairly well agree with the GGP model in directions. This contradiction is probably accounted for by the underestimation of the paleointensity values in the experiments by the Thellier method if the rock carries chemical magnetization instead of thermal remanent magnetization. An alternative explanation suggests a short drop in the geomagnetic dynamo power associated with a simultaneous decrease in both the mean value of the axial dipole and in the variances of all the other terms of the spherical expansion of the geomagnetic field (i.e., quadrupole, octupole, and other components).
dc.relation.ispartofseries Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth
dc.title On the distribution function of the geomagnetic field intensity according to the model of a giant Gaussian process and empirical data
dc.type Article
dc.relation.ispartofseries-issue 5
dc.relation.ispartofseries-volume 51
dc.collection Публикации сотрудников КФУ
dc.relation.startpage 786
dc.source.id SCOPUS10693513-2015-51-5-SID84942426485


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Публикации сотрудников КФУ Scopus [24551]
    Коллекция содержит публикации сотрудников Казанского федерального (до 2010 года Казанского государственного) университета, проиндексированные в БД Scopus, начиная с 1970г.

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics