1983
DOI: 10.1029/jb088ib07p05911
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new rock‐magnetic approach to selecting sediments for geomagnetic paleointensity studies: Application to paleointensity for the last 4000 years

Abstract: The hypothesis that the ratio of detrital remanent magnetization to anhysteretic remanent magnetization (DRM/ARM) for sediment samples is a measure of relative geomagnetic paleointensity is critically evaluated by two distinct approaches. One approach is a detailed rock‐magnetic examination of the implicit assumptions of the DRM/ARM method and the construction of a selection process by which to identify sediments that conform to requirements satisfying these assumptions. Sediments are ‘uniform’ with respect to… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
278
0
6

Year Published

1992
1992
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 361 publications
(298 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
14
278
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Relative paleointensity (RPI) curves have been computed by normalizing the NRM intensity opportune with a concentration-dependent rock magnetic parameter (King et al, 1983;Tauxe, 1993). In particular, the NRM remaining after demagnetization in 20 mT AF (NRM 20mT ) was normalized by using both magnetic susceptibility (k) and the ARM intensity left after demagnetization in 20 mT AF (ARM 20mT ) (Fig.…”
Section: Paleomagnetismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relative paleointensity (RPI) curves have been computed by normalizing the NRM intensity opportune with a concentration-dependent rock magnetic parameter (King et al, 1983;Tauxe, 1993). In particular, the NRM remaining after demagnetization in 20 mT AF (NRM 20mT ) was normalized by using both magnetic susceptibility (k) and the ARM intensity left after demagnetization in 20 mT AF (ARM 20mT ) (Fig.…”
Section: Paleomagnetismmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Plots of ARM susceptibility (U ARM ) against low-¢eld susceptibility (U) ( Fig. 8a; Banerjee et al, 1981;King et al, 1983) can be used to make inferences about grain size variations. For magnetite, magnetic susceptibility is largely independent of grain size over the size range from 0.1 Wm to 6 mm (Heider et al, 1996), whereas U ARM has a clear grain size dependence, with peak values within the stable single domain (SD) grain size range (ca.…”
Section: Core Lc07mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All the above rock magnetic data serve to satisfy the criteria of King et al (1983) for identifying sediments suitable for paleointensity studies via the ARM normalization technique. This further justifies our interpretation of the variations in archive core (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To test whether these intensity variations represent actual changes in the strength of the geomagnetic field at that time, each discrete sample was subjected to ARM and high-field IRM acquisition. Normalization of NRM to laboratory-induced remanence can reveal relative changes in paleofield intensity, providing that the concentration, composition, and grain size of the remanence carriers over the sampling interval are fairly uniform (King et al, 1983).…”
Section: Intensity Of Remanent Magnetizationmentioning
confidence: 99%