Numerical models of the geodynamo and observational constraints

By Emmanuel Dormy, J. Valet, V. Courtillot. 2000

151 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Geophysics, Molecular Biology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0b644235f4f106f6329f2175b6beb63c5b061946

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

1. Julien Aubert
2. U. Christensen
3. G. Hulot
4. P. Olson
5. Nils Olsen
6. Mioara Mandea
7. Christopher C. Finlay
8. Catherine Constable

In Geophysics

1. U. Christensen
2. Mioara Mandea
3. G. Hulot
4. Christopher C. Finlay
5. Julien Aubert
6. Nils Olsen
7. Catherine Constable
8. P. Olson

In Molecular Biology

1. U. Christensen
2. Julien Aubert
3. G. Hulot
4. P. Olson
5. Mioara Mandea
6. Nils Olsen
7. Christopher C. Finlay
8. Catherine Constable

Citations in the corpus

• From stable dipolar towards reversing numerical dynamos (2002, background): “From paleomagnetic data, the Earth’s long-term average dipole intensity is in the range of (4–6 )×1022 A m2 (Dormy et al., 2000) .”
• Conditions for Earth-like geodynamo models (2010, background): “This paper follows the spirit of the reviews by (Dormy et al. (2000) and Kono and Roberts, 2002), who extensively discussed which properties of the geomagnetic field could be considered wellestablished (at the time of writing) and compared the limited number of geodynamo models then available…”
• The Magnetic Field of Planet Earth (2010, background): “Although these simulations are run in parameter regimes that are still very remote from that of the geodynamo (see also Dormy et al. 2000), they show in particular that by varying the control parameters, but keeping the same fundamental equations, a wide range of different dynamo behaviors can be…”
• RECENT GEODYNAMO SIMULATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD (2002, methodology): “Such comparisons, which require a proper appreciation of the limitations imposed by the data, are made below and have also been the principal thrust of a recently published review by a French group [Dormy et al., 2000].”
• Dipole moment scaling for convection-driven planetary dynamos (2005, background): “Specifically, numerical dynamos rotate too slowly, are less turbulent, and have far too large viscosity (relative to electrical conductivity) compared to their planetary counterparts [17].”
• The time-averaged magnetic field in numerical dynamos with non-uniform boundary heat flow (2002, methodology): “Relative to the axial dipole, the amplitude of this axial quadrupole is 0.04–0.05 (Merrill et al. 1996; Dormy et al. 2000).”