Statistics – Computation
Scientific paper
Apr 2003
adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2003eaeja......778v&link_type=abstract
EGS - AGU - EUG Joint Assembly, Abstracts from the meeting held in Nice, France, 6 - 11 April 2003, abstract #778
Statistics
Computation
Scientific paper
The modest amount of research that exists on the ability, or lack of ability, of mantle precession to power a geodynamo developed mostly during the last half of the 1900s. Papers by Roberts and Stewartson (1965) and by Busse (1968) studied precession generally without a pro/con conclusion. Malkus in the late 1960s attempted to advance a positive role for precession through experiments and analysis. His experiments have survived criticism, but his analyses were discounted, especially by Rochester, Jacobs, Smylie, and Chong (1975) and by Loper (1975). Rochester, et al. critiqued existing analyses of precession, including those of Malkus, but did not reach a strong position either pro or con a precessional geodynamo. Loper argued emphatically that precession was not capable of powering the geodynamo. Explicit analyses that either critique or support Loper’s arguments have yet to appear in the literature. During the 1970s, Vanyo and associates studied energy dissipation during precession of satellite liquid fuels and its effect on satellite attitude stability. Engineers and scientists in every country that has launched satellites completed similar research. Some is published in the aerospace literature, more is available in company and government reports. Beginning in 1981, Vanyo and associates applied this knowledge to the very similar problem of energy dissipation and flow patterns in precessing mechanical models scaled geometrically and dynamically to the Earth’s liquid core. Energy experiments indicate massive amounts of mechanical energy are dissipated at the CMB, and flow experiments show complex motions within the boundary layer and axial flows with helicity throughout the interior. Analysis of Earth core precession also advanced, especially in several papers by Kerswell and by Tilgner in the late 1990s. Detail numerical models have yet to appear. Although progress in understanding the role of precession in Earth core motions has advanced, there remains a common belief, often expressed explicitly, that precession is incapable of energizing a geodynamo, a la Loper. We will present a critique of Loper’s 1975 paper and briefly discuss the common practice and belief that the geodynamo must be energized by thermal and/or compositional driven convection (motion). We note here that there is no observational evidence for existence of thermal or compositional convection within the liquid core or for growth of the solid core. Although there has been considerable success in adapting data in thermal/compositional models to yield near realistic solutions, that does not constitute a proof that those models apply to the Earth. There is absolute observational evidence for mantle precession, an Earth feature that is unique, along with the Earth’s magnetic field, among the terrestrial planets. We argue that great difficulty experienced in analysis and computation of precessional flow is a major explanation for its absence in current models of the geodynamo.
No associations
LandOfFree
Pro/con a precessional geodynamo does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.
If you have personal experience with Pro/con a precessional geodynamo, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Pro/con a precessional geodynamo will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-841254