Use of Proxies in Paleoceanography 1999
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-58646-0_26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Geomagnetic Events and Relative Paleointensity Records — Clues to High-Resolution Paleomagnetic Chronostratigraphies of Late Quaternary Marine Sediments?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
38
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
38
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The remanence acquisition process in sediments, however, is only partly known. Gradual lock-in over a long time period can lead to smoothing of the geomagnetic field record (Hyodo 1984;Langereis et al 1992;Bleil and Dobeneck 1999) and to a biased paleointensity distribution (Mazaud 1996). Therefore, sedimentary records are generally considered to be less reliable than volcanic records.…”
Section: Paleomagnetic Data and Its Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The remanence acquisition process in sediments, however, is only partly known. Gradual lock-in over a long time period can lead to smoothing of the geomagnetic field record (Hyodo 1984;Langereis et al 1992;Bleil and Dobeneck 1999) and to a biased paleointensity distribution (Mazaud 1996). Therefore, sedimentary records are generally considered to be less reliable than volcanic records.…”
Section: Paleomagnetic Data and Its Interpretationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Verosub 1997). The lock-in depth is related to sedimentation rate and composition (Bleil & von Dobeneck 1999), and is generally considered to be around 10 cm depth (e.g. Roberts & Winklhofer 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effects of remanence smoothing on paleomagnetic records can be constrained by numerical modelling of post-depositional remanent magnetization (PDRM) acquisition (e.g., Bleil and von Dobeneck, 1999;Roberts and Winklhofer, 2004). The PDRM lock-in depth would have to be unrealistically large to cause significant smoothing of paleomagnetic records at estimated sedimentation rates in the range from 0.8 to 2 m/k.y.…”
Section: Are Recording Artefacts Likely To Have Compromised the Paleomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PDRM smoothing is therefore extremely unlikely in the present record. A more serious concern is that variations in sediment grain size or lithology could have also led to large variations in magnetic grain size, which can cause variable lock-in efficiency (e.g., Bleil and von Dobeneck, 1999). This possibility can be investigated with rock magnetic data, such as the FORC diagrams that are shown for the studied transition interval from CRP-2 in Fig.…”
Section: Are Recording Artefacts Likely To Have Compromised the Paleomentioning
confidence: 99%