Secular variation of the poloidal magnetic field at the core–mantle boundary

A region of enhanced conductivity at the base of the mantle is modelled by an infinitesimally thin sheet of uniform effective conductance adjacent to the core–mantle boundary. Currents induced in this sheet by the temporally varying magnetic field produced by the geodynamo give rise to a discontinuity in the horizontal components of the poloidal magnetic field on crossing the sheet, while the radial component is continuous across the sheet. Treating the rest of the mantle as an insulator, the horizontal components of the poloidal magnetic field and their secular variation at the top of the core are determined from geomagnetic field, secular variation and secular acceleration models. It is seen that for an assumed effective conductance of the sheet of 10⁸  S, which may be not unrealistic, the changes produced in the horizontal components of the poloidal field at the top of the core are usually ≤10 per cent, but corrections to the secular variation in these components at the top of the core are typically 40 per cent, which is greater than the differences that exist between different secular variation models for the same epoch. Given the assumption that all the conductivity of the mantle is concentrated into a thin shell, the present method is not restricted to a weakly conducting mantle. Results obtained are compared with perturbation solutions.     

Model of the geoelectrical structure of the mid- and lower mantle in the Europe–Asia region

The conductivity structure of the Earth's mantle was estimated using the induction method down to 2100  km depth for the Europe–Asia region. For this purpose, the responses obtained at seven geomagnetic observatories (IRT, KIV, MOS, NVS, HLP, WIT and NGK) were analysed, together with reliable published results for 11  yr variations. 1-D spherical modelling has shown that, beneath the mid-mantle conductive layer (600–800  km), the conductivity increases slowly from about 1  S  m⁻¹ at 1000  km depth to 10  S  m⁻¹ at 1900  km, while further down (1900–2100  km) this increase is faster. Published models of the lower mantle conductivity obtained using the secular, 30–60  yr variations were also considered, in order to estimate the conductivity at depths down to the core. The new regional model of the lower mantle conductivity does not contradict most modern geoelectrical sounding results. This model supports the idea that the mantle base, situated below 2100  km depth, has a very high conductivity.     

Long-period (30 days1 year) electromagnetic sounding and the electrical conductivity of the lower mantle beneath Europe

The C -response connects the magnetic vertical component and the horizontal gradient of the horizontal components of electromagnetic variations and forms the basis for deriving the conductivitydepth profile of the Earth. Time-series of daily mean values at 42 observatories typically with 50 years of data are used to estimate C -responses for periods between 1 month and 1  yr. The Z : Y method is applied, which means that the vertical component is taken locally whereas the horizontal components are used globally by expansion in a series of spherical harmonics.
In combination with results from previous analyses, the method yields consistent results for European observatories in the entire period range from a few hours to 1  yr, corresponding to penetration depths between 300 and 1800  km.
1-D conductivity models derived from these results show an increase in conductivity with depth z to about 2  S  m^-1 at z =800  km, and almost constant conductivity between z =800 and z =2000  km with values of 310  S  m^-1, in good agreement with laboratory measurements of mantle material. Below 2000  km the conductivity is poorly resolved. However, the best-fitting models indicate a further increase in conductivity to values between 50 and 150  S  m^-1.     

Magnetic and viscous coupling at the core–mantle boundary: inferences from observations of the Earth's nutations

Dissipative core–mantle coupling is evident in observations of the Earth's nutations, although the source of this coupling is uncertain. Magnetic coupling occurs when conducting materials on either side of the boundary move through a magnetic field. In order to explain the nutation observations with magnetic coupling, we must assume a high (metallic) conductivity on the mantle side of the boundary and a rms radial field of 0.69 mT. Much of this field occurs at short wavelengths, which cannot be observed directly at the surface. High levels of short-wavelength field impose demands on the power needed to regenerate the field through dynamo action in the core. We use a numerical dynamo model from the study of Christensen & Aubert (2006) to assess whether the required short-wavelength field is physically plausible. By scaling the numerical solution to a model with sufficient short-wavelength field, we obtain a total ohmic dissipation of 0.7–1 TW, which is within current uncertainties. Viscous coupling is another possible explanation for the nutation observations, although the effective viscosity required for this is 0.03 m² s⁻¹ or higher. Such high viscosities are commonly interpreted as an eddy viscosity. However, physical considerations and laboratory experiments limit the eddy viscosity to 10⁻⁴ m² s⁻¹, which suggests that viscous coupling can only explain a few percent of the dissipative torque between the core and the mantle.     

Viscosity profile of the lower mantle

Summary. We determine the variation of effective viscosity η across the lower mantle from models of the Gibb's free energy of activation G * and the adiabatic temperature profile. The variation of G * with depth is calculated using both an elastic strain energy model, in which G * is related to the seismic velocities, and a model which assumes G * is proportional to the melting temperature. The melting temperature is assumed to follow Lindemann's equation. The adiabatic temperature profile is calculated from a model for the density dependence of the Grüneisen parameter. Estimates of η depend on whether the lower mantle is a Newtonian or power law fluid. In the latter case separate estimates of η are obtained for flow with constant stress, constant strain rate, and constant strain energy dissipation rate. For G * based on the melting temperature, increases in η with depth range from a factor of about 100 for Newtonian deformation or power-law flow with constant stress to about 5 for non-Newtonian deformation with constant strain rate. For G * based on elastic defect energy, increases in η with depth range from a factor of about 1500 for Newtonian deformation or power-law flow with constant stress to about 10 for non-Newtonian deformation with constant strain rate. Among these models, only a non-Newtonian lower mantle convecting with constant strain rate or constant strain energy dissipation rate is consistent with recent estimates of mantle viscosity from post-glacial rebound and true polar wander data.