4.3 Article

High-fidelity paleointensity determination from historic volcanoes in Japan

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2012JB009368

关键词

-

资金

  1. Keck Foundation
  2. National Science Foundation, Earth Sciences Division
  3. University of Minnesota
  4. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  5. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2010-0020956]
  6. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013R1A2A1A01004418, 2010-0020956] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Providing high-fidelity paleointensity estimates is pivotal to identify temporal fluctuation of ancient geomagnetic field. Despite abundance of available paleointensity data in Japan, only dozen of them satisfy modern standards with systematic alteration checks. High-fidelity paleointensity estimates were obtained from historic andesitic lavas collected from Mt. Aso (Ojodake, approximate to 700 BC), Mt. Kirishima (Iwoyama, AD 1768; Ohachi, AD 1235), and Mt. Sakurajima (An-ei, AD 1779; Nabeyama, AD 764-766). Variation of geomagnetic field intensity is distinctively different from the prediction of global models (ARCH3k.1, CALS3k.3, CALS3k.4, CALS7k.2, and CALS10k.1b) for the past 4000 years in Japan. The compilation of high-fidelity Thellier data set in Japan showed two obvious high intensities at AD 590-765 and AD 1330-1435 and one low intensity at approximate to 700 BC. These time intervals with anomalous high/low intensities are nearly identical to three of the four potential archeomagnetic jerks recognized from the European archeomagnetic data, implying that the archeomagnetic jerks were global (or at least northern hemispheric) features. To improve the poor representation of regional geomagnetic field variation with respect to the global model prediction, more high-fidelity paleointensity determinations are required in East Asia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据